81–90 of 190 posts
Does Hasbro market GI Joes to boys because boys tend to like GI Joes or do boys like GI Joes because Hasbro markets them to boys?
I'm not so sure how useful wondering about finding the "Cause" of this. It isn't that simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>zero evidence presented, He posted some evidence. Not a lot, but some. More than his detractors here have posted so far. There's also more in that reddit thread, it looks like. I'm not saying he's right, but it does no one any favors to slam someone instead of refuting their argument.
He posted a link to an n-gram search, which is like me posting a picture of a flower to prove that the sky is blue. The data cited is not germane to the quesiton. To wit: one would expect that n-gram search to look the same whether or not data processing was a CS subdiscipline, because data processing dropped in relevance as digital systems became the primary source of truth. Therefore, it is not evidence either way…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the graph again. The dropoff for women is much larger. $ python >>> 20000.0 / 17000.0 1.1764705882352942 >>> 12500.0 / 7000.0 1.7857142857142858 CS enrollment for women in 1984 was 78% larger than in 1996; For men, it was 17%.
I'm not sure where you're picking these numbers off and from which graph. The graph I linked has the following values(ish): * Men: 27,500 - 17,500 -> 1.57 ~ 36% drop * Women: 15,000 - 7,500 -> 2 ~ 50% drop So yes, you're right that women did seem to drop off more but not as much as you say.
> drop off was nearly identical for men
> women did seem to drop off more
These two statements cannot be both true at the same time.
This story makes a compelling case that women stopped programming because - 1. Computers started being sold as consumer products - 2. They were marketed almost exclusively to boys - 3. Boys played with computers and learned about them, while girls were made to feel that computers weren't for them - 3. Men showed up to college with more computer experience - 4. Women felt they must not be "naturally good" at computers…
I find this explanation extremely hollow. Most programmers didn't start programming when they were kids. They started when they realized it was a good paycheck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I studied CS , only a small minority arrived with programming skills, a much larger number came with knowledge of gaming and by extension computer building because it was much easier to afford a PC required for the newest games if you could build it yourself.
Gaming has been a hell of a gateway drug for programming.
This story makes a compelling case that women stopped programming because - 1. Computers started being sold as consumer products - 2. They were marketed almost exclusively to boys - 3. Boys played with computers and learned about them, while girls were made to feel that computers weren't for them - 3. Men showed up to college with more computer experience - 4. Women felt they must not be "naturally good" at computers…
"They were marketed almost exclusively to boys" Back before anyone was really marketing computers in any mainstream way, I remember gathering around the few that were available in the school library or in a math teacher's classroom. The only people interested EVER were boys. It had nothing to do with marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The account that made that comment is a frequent poster in mens rights & friends subreddits, and probably should not be taken without a SUBSTANIAL grain of salt (particularly given the lack of any data to back it up)
Is that not ad hominem? Attack the content of his post, not the content of his character.
I am a female born in 1983 and have always been deeply interested in computers, but have nonetheless felt inexplicably out of place for it. I was in advanced math classes my entire life and placed out of calculus in college. I took a summer programming class at a different university in 2000 and fell in love with programming. But when I got back to school, I took another CS class that was exactly as described in this…
That's too bad. I wish things were easy for you, like they were for me, when my peers were cheering me on to learn how to program and I was super popular because of it. Everything was a cake walk, and I learned that if society is in the slightest way against what you are doing, it's impossible to accomplish, so I'm really glad I wasn't driven out of the field that interested me.
This same graph used in the article was extensively discussed on reddit 3 days ago. [1] I want to quote some of the comments, which I think is extremely important to this discussion. " The far simpler answer is that the 1970's "explosion" of women into the (purported) field of "computer science" was largely women obtaining degrees in (what were then "computer science" courses) the subfields of "Data Processing" and l…
The views in that comment are completely unsubstantiated. There was no evidence presented that "data processing" was ever taught as part of or categorized as computer science. In fact, later comments debunk that viewpoint. Also worth noting that the person who wrote that subscribes to the Men Going Their Own Way movement [1] (his username is thrownaway_MGTOW), which while not an outright debunking of his claims, shou…
So what did the study use in its place?
That's a valid question regardless of who raised it.