For a certain type of intellectual mediocrity characterized by enlightened rationalism, a scientific theory that simplifies matters is a very good means of defence because of the tremendous faith modern man has in anything which bears the label “scientific.”
— C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion”
Computer Science Is Too Nerdy For Girls »
Published in the very prestigious JPSP! And one of the authors is Claude Steele, a “founder” of stereotype threat!
Geek-aversion May Explain Lack of Women in Computer Science - Best of Treehugger - GOOD »
Best of Treehugger > Nikhil Swaminathan on December 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm PST
A new study by University of Washington psychologists may help explain the dearth of women in the field of computer science. According to their findings, it may be the trappings associated with coding and troubleshooting that deter females, not the actual coding itself.
More specifically, it’s the geeky surroundings they find off-putting: the Star Trek posters, the junk food, gaming paraphernalia, the bras that CS dudes wear on their heads when they try to bring Barbie dolls to life, etc.
The scientists asked a group of male and female students a battery of questions to probe their interest in computer science while they sat in one of two rooms: one that was geeked-out and another that was not (decorated with art instead of sci-fi posters, dictionaries in place of computer games, and coffee mugs in lieu of soda cans). Women who answered the questions while sequestered in the room with the nerd motif were significantly less interested in programming when compared to women in the neutral room and men in either locale.
The study adds some color to the findings of a Cornell team that recently reported that the lack of women in advanced positions in math-related field was not due to ability. Rather,lifestyle concerns were largely responsible for the effect, though the Cornell team highlighted relative inflexibility of scientific fields as a barrier to women who want to start families. (I wonder if there is something about Star Wars figurines that screams “not conducive to child-rearing?)
Still, there’s something about the Washington study that bothers me: If the (relatively harmless) environment where a trade is practiced is enough to deter someone from pursuing something they’re interested in, how are we supposed to get more women into the field?
Photo by Sapna Cheryan, U. of Washington
Shout out to Andrew Price for pointing out the study.
Are scientists getting dumber? »
From a news story in today’s issue of Science:
A new study finds little evidence for leaks in the U.S. pipeline for producing native-born scientists except for a steep drop in the percentage of the highest performing students taking science and engineering jobs. The findings suggest that the United States risks losing its economic competitiveness not because of a work force inadequately trained in science, as conventional wisdom holds, but because of a lack of social and economic incentives to pursue careers in science and technology.
The reason for this is supposedly the lucrative finance profession drawing away top talent. This is something supported by the numbers in various studies of choice of undergraduate major. But better incentives in a non-science field is only part of the problem. STEM careers don’t just lack incentives; there are strong disincentives.
But some people still don’t have a clue:
Lisa Frehill, executive director of the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, thinks the key to keeping talented STEM majors in science is to emphasize the opportunities that exist to solve society’s problems. “Really good people will be less concerned about money if they can do work that is meaningful to them,” she says.
Being unconcerned about money is great until you reach your 4th or 5th year of your postdoc, in your 30’s, with kids, no retirement savings, and a salary that doesn’t meet your monthly expenses. Selling science better is not going to fix the problem.
