Encouraging female CS majors at Harvey Mudd

[flyingiguana]

"With a three-step method, Harvey Mudd College in California quadrupled its female computer science majors. The experiment started in 2006 when Maria Klawe, a computer scientist and mathematician herself, was appointed college president. That year only 10% of Harvey Mudd’s CS majors were women. The department’s professors devised a plan.

+

They no longer wanted to weed out the weakest students during the first week of the semester. The new goal was to lure in female students and make sure they actually enjoyed their computer science initiation in the hopes of converting them to majors. This is what they did, in three steps....."

 

http://qz.com/192071/how-one-college-went-from-10-female-computer-science-majors-to-40/

[regentrude]

They no longer wanted to weed out the weakest students during the first week of the semester. The new goal was to lure in female students and make sure they actually enjoyed their computer science initiation in the hopes of converting them to majors. This is what they did, in three steps....."

 

and

 

Then they implemented Operation Eliminate the Macho Effect: guys who showed-off in class were taken aside in class and told, “You’re so passionate about the material and you’re so well prepared. I’d love to continue our conversations but let’s just do it one on one.”

 

Ouch. Sounds like "in order to increase the number of female students in Comp Sci  we need to dumb down."

What a great message to send: women can't really hack it and must be "lured" into comp sci by starting with a "forgiving" programming language . How insulting. Because, women are clearly too dumb to learn Java or C++, right?

And I am scratching my head why they would want weak female comp sci students just so they can boost their numbers.

[Elisabet1]

It is also a lot easier for women to get in to Harvey Mudd than men. I am sure employers will keep this in mind when hiring.

[flyingiguana]

I'm not convinced that's dumbing down -- I've been in weeder courses.  It was more about putting people down than teaching.  If they really had weeder courses that used that approach, changing that is going to benefit a lot of students.  Most of the boys aren't that "tough guy - I know everything" either.

 

And the people who do tough out those brutal weeder courses aren't necessarily the smartest kids anyway.  They're just the ones with unjustifiably big egos.

 

Also, I'm kind of doubting that they have that many weak students at Harvey Mudd. 

 

As far as choice of language goes -- it probably makes more pedagogical sense to start with a language that isn't insisting on things being "just so".  You want to teach students the concepts of programming.  Not, "this language has to have a comma HERE for no explainable reason".  It's easy to get lost in details and then miss out on exactly why one would want to use an if-then statement.

 

The first college programming course I took had a limited number of computers, and a huge number of people in the class.  The students who got good grades were those who could bump people off computers.  The professors encouraged this.  They wanted to thin the ranks so they could have fewer people in the more advanced courses.  Who ended up as CS majors?  Guys with big egos.  That's what a weeder course does.

 

I suspect this article didn't cover the half of what was going on.

[wapiti]

It doesn't make any sense to me that changing from Java to Python was necessary.  I agree that's insulting.  It would be different if there were some reason for that switch other than making programming "easier" for females.  (If anything, maybe they should have changed from Java to C++, as I've heard that's the direction things are headed in the business?)

 

I think it does make sense to have two different groups, one for those with prior coding experience and one for those without any, though I wonder why there aren't two completely different courses for that differentiation.

[regentrude]

I think it does make sense to have two different groups, one for those with prior coding experience and one for those without any, though I wonder why there aren't two completely different courses for that differentiation.

 

I meant to address that, too. I find it unfortunate that students with prior knowledge have to take the same new-and-easier intro course as people with no previous experience. I am very aware that some students in my introductory classes have previous knowledge and are not adequately challenged, and I feel for them (after all, this is exactly why I removed my kids from public school). Since we are a public university with very limited resources and are stretched to breaking point in terms of instructors and rooms, we can not offer more differentiation - I would, however, expect a school of the caliber of Harvey Mudd to offer an adequate challenge to such students. It sounds as if, in the attempt to increase female rates, the top students are the ones who have to compromise. Something to which I am opposed as a matter of principle.

 

[Arcadia]

 

I think it does make sense to have two different groups, one for those with prior coding experience and one for those without any, though I wonder why there aren't two completely different courses for that differentiation.

 

According to a Feb 2014 Mercury News article, they did create a different course.

 

"The difference is, females in general are much more interested in what you can do with the technology, than with just the technology itself," says Harvey Mudd President Maria Klawe, a computer scientist herself.

So administrators created an introductory course specifically for students without programming experience. They emphasized coding's connection to other disciplines. They paid for freshman women to attend the annual Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, a chance to meet programming role models in diverse fields. And they provided early research opportunities for women students to inspire them to stick with the field."

 

The same article also mentioned that the problem starts way earlier regarding less females in computer science.

 

"There's simple socialization: the same sort of spoken and unspoken cues from parents, teachers, media and peers that result in boys playing with trucks and Legos and girls playing with dolls and My Little Pony.

There's the image problem: Girls see computer scientists as socially awkward male nerds who spend their days alone tapping out code -- people, in other words, who are not them.

There's the lack of female role models to shatter the image: Media reports and pop culture are filled with boy wonders like Mark Zuckerberg, the Google guys and the game-making "brogrammers," who start companies and change the world."

 

"Stanford student Westwood, 22, knows the importance of encouragement -- the earlier the better -- as well as anyone. Along with the obstacles, she heard encouraging words, from her parents -- an engineer and a doctor -- and teachers and classmates at Stanford. She found her own support system and is working to build one for other women. And, after pursuing it in college, she fell in love with computer science."

[regentrude]

According to a Feb 2014 Mercury News article, they did create a different course.

 

"The difference is, females in general are much more interested in what you can do with the technology, than with just the technology itself," says Harvey Mudd President Maria Klawe, a computer scientist herself.

So administrators created an introductory course specifically for students without programming experience. They emphasized coding's connection to other disciplines.

 

Now that sounds entirely different (and much better!)  than in the article quoted by the OP. In the article of the OP, they specifically mentioned students with strong experience being discouraged from "showing off" and asked to do so outside of class. If this were truly a course for people without experience, these students would not be in there. Something does not add up.

[raptor_dad]

and

 

 

Ouch. Sounds like "in order to increase the number of female students in Comp Sci  we need to dumb down."

What a great message to send: women can't really hack it and must be "lured" into comp sci by starting with a "forgiving" programming language . How insulting. Because, women are clearly too dumb to learn Java or C++, right?

And I am scratching my head why they would want weak female comp sci students just so they can boost their numbers.

 

I haven't read the above article *yet*... but historically MIT, Brown, Stanford etc have used Scheme and SICP or HtDP in their intro courses partially to make them more equitable. Its a lisp variant and more abstract and high level. This arguably makes it better for teaching concepts. It is also esoteric, academic, and non-commercial. Basically noone comes into college knowing it... These were the hardest intro courses around. You can balance using nonstandard languages to level the playing field and at the same time advance pedagogic goals. I think the language issue in CS1 courses is largely a canard.

 

[wapiti]

According to a Feb 2014 Mercury News article, they did create a different course.

 

"The difference is, females in general are much more interested in what you can do with the technology, than with just the technology itself," says Harvey Mudd President Maria Klawe, a computer scientist herself.

 

Thanks - that's interesting.  What's funny to me is that, IMO, this argument should apply to males as well as females.  For example, I'd definitely say my ds11 is much, much more interested in what he can do with programming (games!) than with programming itself (and at this point, he has the appearance of a stereotypical computer nerd).

 

It's a long way off but I admit I've been hoping that, if my dd13 continues to be particularly interested in STEM subjects and *if* her scores are high enough, that HMC might be on her list, specifically for the reason that her admissions chances would be higher than at some other top schools.

 

About the Python vs Java, I just remembered that AoPS uses Python for two of its courses, and now I see they teach Java in a Data Structures course.  Thinking out loud, I wonder whether there were specific reasons for Python first aside from the fact that the AoPS students would be younger than college age.

[raptor_dad]

The linked article was mostly blather... so I really have no idea what Mudd did.

 

Harvard had a similar experience when they brought in highly skilled and compensated non-tenure faculty to teach CS50, https://cs50.harvard.edu/

 

You can increase equity and maintain rigor. Especially in CS where what kids think they are learning and the content of the field are somewhat divergent. Just because you can code an iPhone app doesn't mean you understand programming. The higher level abstract concepts and the day to day work are not the same... it is somewhat similar to the disconnect between the applied calculus/Diff EQ/Linear Algebra levels of math and what math majors and Mathematicians do. The deep understanding and creativity involved are at a whole different level.

 

In general the top schools do a decent job accommodating the top kids... Harvard's CS50 refers to the "hacker" problem sets. Brown takes the top kids in their intro series and peals them off into CS190 a few weeks into the semester. MIT's new curriculum with its applied focus serves everyone even if it is in a "weak" language like python.

[Ravi B]

It's a long way off but I admit I've been hoping that, if my dd13 continues to be particularly interested in STEM subjects and *if* her scores are high enough, that HMC might be on her list

My daughter, who's into computer science and math, visited Harvey Mudd twice and loved it. She ultimately chose to attend a different college, but she would have been happy at Mudd too.

[snowbeltmom]

It is also a lot easier for women to get in to Harvey Mudd than men. I am sure employers will keep this in mind when hiring.

 

I find the bolded comment highly insulting.  Many schools are trying to balance the ratio of males to females.  Statistically, more males are applying to Harvey Mudd (and its peer schools) than females.  As a result, the odds of gaining acceptance are slightly higher for a female than a male.  However, that does not mean that the females admitted are any less qualified than the males that are admitted.  It simply means that a smaller number of qualified women are being rejected than the number of qualified men.
 

[SeaConquest]

It is also a lot easier for women to get in to Harvey Mudd than men. I am sure employers will keep this in mind when hiring.

 

While it might be somewhat easier to get into HMC as a woman, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say "a lot," as the female students are still exceptionally well qualified. I can also relate, from personal experience as an alumna of the Claremont Colleges, that I found HMC women to be *incredibly* intelligent and interesting on the whole. IMHO, any employer would be fortunate to hire their alumnae. 

[JennW in SoCal]

Whatever they are doing at Harvey Mudd, it is working.  I know a very smart and talented young woman who started at HM planning to major in biology but who is now in CompSci, doing quite well, and more importantly, loving it.  

[Gwen in VA]

The funny thing about all these programs to "help" women in STEM fields is that they may backfire!

 

Dd1, a Ph.D. candidate in engineering, reads a reasonable amount about the gymnastics different colleges and high schools are doing to attract and keep women in STEM fields, especially since generally the numbers are worse than they were in the mid-80's, which was the high point. A few people are starting to notice that sometimes the programs backfire -- by emphasizing women in STEM, it becomes apparent to teens that women in STEM fields is unusual!

 

This odd backfiring effect is similar to, for example, the talking heads and media spending time emphasizing how people who wear glasses are still attractive. (Note -- I have worn glasses since I was 8!) The glasses-wearing population may not have spent much time thinking about the effect of glasses on their appearance, but as more people emphasize how attractive glasses are, the glasses-wearers may be more self-conscious about their glasses! (There must be some psychological term for this.....)

 

 

[regentrude]

The funny thing about all these programs to "help" women in STEM fields is that they may backfire!

Dd1, a Ph.D. candidate in engineering, reads a reasonable amount about the gymnastics different colleges and high schools are doing to attract and keep women in STEM fields, especially since generally the numbers are worse than they were in the mid-80's, which was the high point. A few people are starting to notice that sometimes the programs backfire -- by emphasizing women in STEM, it becomes apparent to teens that women in STEM fields is unusual!

 

I have another issue with the aggressive "women into STEM" campaigns. My main problem is that it suggests to the young women that whatever other career plans they had are inferior to pursuing a STEM career. It suggests that their wish to be a teacher or a nurse (I have chose two traditionally female occupations on purpose) is somehow less valuable than being an engineer or programmer.

 

Of course I am all for supporting female students in male dominated fields, for encouraging girls interested in STEM to pursue their interests, for creating opportunities for young girls to be exposed to STEM disciplines, and for helping women who want these careers to make their dream come true - but what bothers me about the drive to increase the numbers of women in STEM is the message it sends that somehow the other choices were not equally valid.

 

I am happy for the young woman a pp mentioned, who wanted to be a biologist and ended up a comp sci. Good for her, but being a comp sci is in no way a better or more valuable choice. Maybe she would have loved being a biologist as well. I am glad she had the opportunity to experience the other field, but I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it is necessary (or even desirable) to strive for a 50-50 gender distribution in any given subject area.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

The first college programming course I took had a limited number of computers, and a huge number of people in the class. 

 

This definitely weeded me out.  I had no interest in standing in line for one of about 30 computers and 4 printers (for 4400 cadets).  

 

 

 

. I find it unfortunate that students with prior knowledge have to take the same new-and-easier intro course as people with no previous experience.

 

 

This.  At dc's college, only 18 (out of 1200) tested out of computer science.  There were MANY kids required to take it with varying amounts of computer experience, all mixed in with the kids who had none at all.

 

 

Harvard had a similar experience when they brought in highly skilled and compensated non-tenure faculty to teach CS50,https://cs50.harvard.edu/

 

...

 

In general the top schools do a decent job accommodating the top kids... Harvard's CS50 refers to the "hacker" problem sets. 

 

 

CS50 (from 2013)  is available on iTunesU, for anyone who's interested.

[Arcadia]

The funny thing about all these programs to "help" women in STEM fields is that they may backfire!

 

Dd1, a Ph.D. candidate in engineering, reads a reasonable amount about the gymnastics different colleges and high schools are doing to attract and keep women in STEM fields, especially since generally the numbers are worse than they were in the mid-80's, which was the high point. A few people are starting to notice that sometimes the programs backfire -- by emphasizing women in STEM, it becomes apparent to teens that women in STEM fields is unusual!

 

 

 

Of course I am all for supporting female students in male dominated fields, for encouraging girls interested in STEM to pursue their interests, for creating opportunities for young girls to be exposed to STEM disciplines, and for helping women who want these careers to make their dream come true - but what bothers me about the drive to increase the numbers of women in STEM is the message it sends that somehow the other choices were not equally valid.

 

The thing about all these programs to encourage girls into STEM end up sounding like affirmative action in the media. It has an implied undertone that females need the leg up to be successful in STEM.

 

ETA:

My alma mater has females greatly outnumbering males for Bachelors in Computer Science and males greatly outnumbering females for Bachelors in Computer Engineering.  It is like the females flock to computer science and the males flock to computer engineering.

[flyingiguana]

 

I am happy for the young woman a pp mentioned, who wanted to be a biologist and ended up a comp sci. Good for her, but being a comp sci is in no way a better or more valuable choice. Maybe she would have loved being a biologist as well. I am glad she had the opportunity to experience the other field, but I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it is necessary (or even desirable) to strive for a 50-50 gender distribution in any given subject area.

 

CS might be better for the individual, though.  I know an awful lot of biology majors who aren't working in that field (me included).  They've moved into other fields (physics, CS, etc) or are making ends meet with jobs that don't require a college degree (waiting tables, working at grocery stores).

 

I don't personally know any CS majors who aren't working in that field.  I do know a number of people from different fields (music and bio to name the top ones) who retrained to get into CS. 

 

It's also interesting the sheer numbers of female students in biology classes at the college where I work.  There are a good number of students who actually want to do biology -- and a number who are planning to get into the health fields with that degree.  But there are also a lot who see biology as a real science degree, but not one that's as hard as physics or chem or CS.  I find this a bit ironic, as the math requirements for bio and a CS BA at our college are the same.  And I always found bio classes a lot harder than physics.  In physics, you only have to memorize a few things.  The tests are all about applying those things.  Also, you can get a physics BA without chemistry (and the BS doesn't require bio either), but a bio degree requires chem *and* bio, if a bit less math.  So one might conclude that it requires more smarts in a wider area to do well in bio. 

 

The percentage of female bio students is pretty high.  Maybe a lot of them are planning on the health fields (I don't know the break down on that), but are there a lot more women going into health fields than men?  Or is it about equal?

 

Is the bio major attracting a lot of students who don't think they're smart enough for physics or CS or chemistry?  Or are there just more students interested in biology?  I think it's kind of hard to answer that question.

 

Another interesting thing: when students find bio too hard, they tend to drop out and go into psychology.  I guess it doesn't require chemistry and that's the big stumbling block for a lot of people.

[flyingiguana]

The thing about all these programs to encourage girls into STEM end up sounding like affirmative action in the media. It has an implied undertone that females need the leg up to be successful in STEM.

 

I went to one of these engineering days for girls back when I was in high school.  What turned me off was not that they were catering to girls.  My problem was that the descriptions of what they did in their jobs was just so *boring*.  It turned me off engineering for years.

 

They could have done a much better job of making it interesting for us.  I know now that there are actually interesting things going on in engineering.  But it took years for me to realize this.

 

Skip ahead a generation -- my daughter just went to one of these things for college students.  Her take on it was that they could have spent the time looking at what interesting things women in these fields are doing (if they wanted to focus on women) rather than focusing on how the numbers of women in these fields are small, and how women are being held back. 

 

Of course, never having had the experience of being held back because of her gender, she may not have understood this at a gut level.  We'll see if she says the same thing once she gets out in the work world or goes to grad school.  Cause her college experience has been nothing but positive in regards to gender -- as in, it wasn't really an issue.
 

[G5052]

 

Of course, never having had the experience of being held back because of her gender, she may not have understood this at a gut level.  We'll see if she says the same thing once she gets out in the work world or goes to grad school.  Cause her college experience has been nothing but positive in regards to gender -- as in, it wasn't really an issue.
 

 

I've been thinking about this because I was one of those "oddball" female CS majors 30+ years ago at a college where the ratio of men to women was 7:1.  I didn't find it intimidating at all to be the only woman in a class, and my work environment was pretty much the same.  I had a female boss early on for a year, but it was rare to work with other women.  Was it tough at times?  Of course.  This was before the days of formal harassment policies and laws, and I had to learn how to really stand up for myself.  My mentors over the years were mostly men.  

 

But would such a program like at Harvey Mudd have helped me?  I suppose.  I don't like how they treat the female students differently because ultimately they have to learn how to work with men in a male-dominated field.  As one professor told me, sometimes women do approach problems differently, but ultimately being a good employee means being able to work with differences of opinion.

[regentrude]

It's also interesting the sheer numbers of female students in biology classes at the college where I work.  There are a good number of students who actually want to do biology -- and a number who are planning to get into the health fields with that degree.  But there are also a lot who see biology as a real science degree, but not one that's as hard as physics or chem or CS.  I find this a bit ironic, as the math requirements for bio and a CS BA at our college are the same.  And I always found bio classes a lot harder than physics.  In physics, you only have to memorize a few things.  The tests are all about applying those things.  Also, you can get a physics BA without chemistry (and the BS doesn't require bio either), but a bio degree requires chem *and* bio, if a bit less math.  So one might conclude that it requires more smarts in a wider area to do well in bio. 

 

The percentage of female bio students is pretty high.  Maybe a lot of them are planning on the health fields (I don't know the break down on that), but are there a lot more women going into health fields than men?  Or is it about equal?

 

Is the bio major attracting a lot of students who don't think they're smart enough for physics or CS or chemistry?  Or are there just more students interested in biology?  I think it's kind of hard to answer that question.

 

I teach a physics class specifically for biology majors, and another one for students majoring in chem, math, comp sci and physics. I see a very different attitude towards math and abstract thinking. Most of my biology students prefer (and are very good at) memorizing stuff and dislike having to understand formulas.  Many are very vocal about their dislike of mathematics and have difficulties with abstract thinking. They are very good at putting numbers into equations, but questions of the type "if quantity x is increasing by a factor of 2, how is quantity y - which is described by a formula containing x - changing?" seem to pose much bigger problems than in my other course. This can not be related to the lack of calculus prerequisite, since the mathematical skills that are needed are simple  prealgebra and algebra, and the question boils down to a ratio problem.

I have observed that they seem to approach certain problems with a different way of thinking. I see a lot more of trying to deal with physics through memorization (which, of course, can not work).

I am not sure whether the reason is that they have been conditioned to memorize through their other subjects, or whether students who are good at memorizing tend to be more likely to choose biology over other sciences. (Certainly a student who is bad at memorizing does not stand a chance in biol or med school and would likely not choose such a path.) But I do not know whether I see the effect of inherent aptitude or of a particular kind of education.

 

ETA: I feel the need to make perfectly clear that I am not claiming ALL biology majors are bad at math or can't think abstractly. I am merely reporting my observations about the average, based on my teaching experience over the past five years. As we know, a statement about an average never allows conclusions about any individual.

 

 

It's also interesting the sheer numbers of female students in biology classes at the college where I work.

The percentage of female bio students is pretty high.

 

Now the interesting question is: why are there no equally aggressive programs to increase the percentage of males in biology?

 

[Arcadia]

Now the interesting question is: why are there no equally aggressive programs to increase the percentage of males in biology?

In my alma mater, even now, females go onto biology and pharmacy degrees and males go onto medicine (doctor) and dentistry degrees. The social undercurrents probably plays a role. All my female friends who are successful doctors have relatives who are great babysitters.

[Arcadia]

My problem was that the descriptions of what they did in their jobs was just so *boring*. It turned me off engineering for years.
...

Of course, never having had the experience of being held back because of her gender, she may not have understood this at a gut level. We'll see if she says the same thing once she gets out in the work world or goes to grad school. Cause her college experience has been nothing but positive in regards to gender -- as in, it wasn't really an issue.

My female engineering lecturer said the ratio was 1:50 in her days. It was 1:15 in my time. A lot of the ladies in engineering in my time (early 90s) have relatives who are engineers. So in a way it was self selective the females who applied for engineering.

My worked environment had all been relatively positive. However the overtime and flying would not have been that great if I already have my kids at that time.

As for hiring, there is a slow down now for my area. Interviews were more before Christmas. Hubby knows engineers out of job with no interviews.

[wapiti]

It's funny, the thoughts I have looking back, 25 yrs later.  I sometimes wish I had double-majored (CS and econ) rather than the little "concentration" in CS that I had.  I really enjoyed my few CS courses - much more fun than econ, actually - and I did well, and yet it never even occurred to me to pursue that further.  I suffered from a lack of guidance, I guess.  Surely it would have been available if I had sought it out, but I just didn't know what I didn't know about a lot of career stuff.  (Boy was I clueless.)  If someone had taken me aside for even five minutes and talked about the possibilities, that could have been very helpful, especially since I had no idea what I wanted to do after graduation.

 

However, I don't think the gender angle had anything to do with my pathetic lack of perspective.  I remember male friends from those classes but I have no recollection of the gender mix and a male-dominated field would not have scared me off in the least.

[Jenny in Florida]

I have another issue with the aggressive "women into STEM" campaigns. My main problem is that it suggests to the young women that whatever other career plans they had are inferior to pursuing a STEM career. It suggests that their wish to be a teacher or a nurse (I have chose two traditionally female occupations on purpose) is somehow less valuable than being an engineer or programmer.

 

Of course I am all for supporting female students in male dominated fields, for encouraging girls interested in STEM to pursue their interests, for creating opportunities for young girls to be exposed to STEM disciplines, and for helping women who want these careers to make their dream come true - but what bothers me about the drive to increase the numbers of women in STEM is the message it sends that somehow the other choices were not equally valid.

 

I am happy for the young woman a pp mentioned, who wanted to be a biologist and ended up a comp sci. Good for her, but being a comp sci is in no way a better or more valuable choice. Maybe she would have loved being a biologist as well. I am glad she had the opportunity to experience the other field, but I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it is necessary (or even desirable) to strive for a 50-50 gender distribution in any given subject area.

 

 

Bingo! That is exactly what bothers me about these programs (and about the non-stop chants of "STEM, STEM, STEM," in general).

 

I happen to have two kids who are going into arts-related fields. I have one female and one male. Although both have already done a little teaching, it is my son who seems to excel in that area and who plans to make it a part of his long-term plan. I'm thrilled that each of them has found the thing she/he loves to do, and I am frustrated and saddened by how often their choices are devalued because they aren't sufficiently techy to be worthy of respect.

 

Neither of my kids chose arts because the path is "easier." Both are perfectly capable of doing anything they wish to do, educationally and in their careers. I suspect both would tell you that doing arts well at they level at which they aspire to perform is NOT, in fact, "easier" than doing well in math or science. They do these things because it is what they love and what feels important to them.

 

A great teacher, male or female, is every bit as important as a great engineer. And, while I absolutely believe that every person, regardless of gender, should be supported in following the educational and career path that works for him or her, my hackles rise a bit every time I read one of these articles that seems to suggest women take some kind of step up in the world every time one chooses a degree in computer science over a degree in something generally considered "softer."

[Arcadia]

... I am frustrated and saddened by how often their choices are devalued because they aren't sufficiently techy to be worthy of respect.

Are you talking in terms of pay, or real life people making rude remarks/comments?
My extended family is actually both arty and techy but our performing arts skills are not good enough to bring home the bacon. I have a friend who wanted to be a ballerina since she was a child but she could not land a job and so she went back to school for her masters in biology and went on to work as a researcher. I have friends who want to be in the orchestra but there are no positions open even if they may be good enough. They are "techy" enough to land a techy job.
Performing arts compensation is on level and sometimes higher than engineers depending on location. It is just easier to land a techy job on good skills than to land a arty job on excellent skills just because of the number of job openings.
Teachers and nurses in general aren't treated as a step down occupation here.

[Teachin'Mine]

I guess I'm of the lone opinion that what they're doing at Harvey Mudd, and some other colleges, is a great thing.  When they talk about having computer science courses which cater to women, they're talking about an introductory course.  If the introductory course grabs their attention, then they'll end up in the same cs courses that all the other cs majors are taking.  IMO this initiative is more about giving them a start to make up for any inequality from middle school and high school, than about considering them inferior or dumbing down the courses. The fact is that many guys going into computer science have been passionate about programming or other aspects for several years.  They are arriving at college with a different knowledge base and skill set.  Obviously some women have done the same, but it is a much smaller percentage.  IMO it has nothing to do with ability, but everything due to exposure.  Harvey Mudd isn't the only college trying to encourage more women in cs.  When you look at the professors teaching, they are predominately men because you have to have women cs major graduates before you'll have women cs professors.  Change happens slowly. 

 

Do I think that women who are avid literature or humanities majors should be switched over to STEM fields, of course not.  But encouraging women who are strong in math to at least give computer science a go. so they can consider it as an option. is a great thing IMO.

[Jenny in Florida]

Are you talking in terms of pay, or real life people making rude remarks/comments?

 

I'm talking about the general attitude I see here and in "real life" that it anything non-STEM is easier and less valuable. I know I've participated in more than one discussion on these very boards on that topic.

 

And, of course, the constant push towards STEM everything all of the time carries with it a certain implication.

[JanetC]

I'm talking about the general attitude I see here and in "real life" that it anything non-STEM is easier and less valuable. I know I've participated in more than one discussion on these very boards on that topic.

 

And, of course, the constant push towards STEM everything all of the time carries with it a certain implication.

 

Boys also feel social pressure to stay out of girl-oriented fields.  In no way or form is CS the only field that is highly gender segregated.  Since the female-dominated fields are often less well paying, it's harder to figure out what the incentive would be to get more boys to study early childhood education. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/18/girls-physics-boys-other-subjects-gender-disparity

[Jenny in Florida]

Boys also feel social pressure to stay out of girl-oriented fields.  In no way or form is CS the only field that is highly gender segregated.  Since the female-dominated fields are often less well paying, it's harder to figure out what the incentive would be to get more boys to study early childhood education. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/18/girls-physics-boys-other-subjects-gender-disparity

 

Right, because the presumption is that, if it is a female-dominated field, it must be "lesser" than one that is traditionally dominated by males. That is, in fact, exactly the kind of thing that irks me.

 

(And in the case of guys and early childhood education, I don't blame then for being reluctant. We've all read the threads here in which many parents have said they would not hire a male babysitter or trust a man alone with their children, right? I suspect many men know full well they will be looked upon with suspicion in addition to derision if they dare to want to work with kids.)

 

Again, what I wish is that everyone, of whatever gender, could feel comfortable and valued pursuing the education and career that speaks to his or her own heart and mind.

[Arcadia]

I'm talking about the general attitude I see here and in "real life" that it anything non-STEM is easier and less valuable. I know I've participated in more than one discussion on these very boards on that topic.

And, of course, the constant push towards STEM everything all of the time carries with it a certain implication.

<hugs>
It is the media "hysteria" with STEM that probably contribute to people's insecurities that STEM is the only ticket to a well paying job for their kids. It gets emotions on high and more clicks on online newspaper articles probably. I see the "panic" play out in these boards too.

When my hubby was in the university in the early 90s, medicine (doctor) was "rank" the highest status symbol, then dentist then engineer. He didn't get into med school, acceptance rate is hyper low, and end up in engineering. He make the best of it and got over his disappointment.

Even now, people rank engineers by which company they work for. It's like there is an unofficial ranking of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, HP engineers. I have been in that world and while I think it is silly comparing, there is nothing I can do to stop neighbors and acquaintances doing that.

All the best to your kids :)