5 ms·

> despite still being heavily outnumbered Despite?

by Dzugaru 10y ago

kazinator 10y ago
Yes, that's a word; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/despite http://www.dictionary.com/browse/despite Its use here means something like "contrary to the expectation that women face barriers in IT (as evidenced by lower numbers of women in the top positions in IT and in general), they rise through the ranks faster than men."
- tomp 10y ago
  > contrary to the expectation that women face barriers in IT Hasn't this been debunked already? AFAIK the percentage of women in IT is about the same as the percentage of women graduating from CS.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    It could be; in any case, that is neither here nor there since the article seems to be taking that for granted as the basis of its "despite".
- Dzugaru 10y ago
  Well, I meant that being outnumbered easily can be an advantage - (ex. you're unique, noticeable etc.), that's why "despite being outnumbered" sounds really strange. "Despite facing barriers" - ok. Not saying that those statistics can be heavily biased due to imbalanced classes - but other commenters already mentioned that multiple times.
inanutshellus 10y ago
No need to be defensive about it, it's basic math. If, say, 20% of CS grads are female, they're competing against 80% of CS grads for distinction. So it's surprising when, "despite the odds", they succeed faster. Perhaps more importantly the article does not mention confirmation bias, which is surely at play here. (e.g. "average" women are being discouraged from CS degrees before they even start, so only superstars stick it through, so of course they move faster through the ranks after graduation.)
- stale2002 10y ago
  Basically this. If you aren't a super star you'll be driven out of tech before you even graduate college. I've seen it happen to many women techies I know. Unless you are awesome, it just isn't worth it to put up with the crap that they have to.
- brassic 10y ago
  I think your latter point is closer to the truth. A similar example: in the UK about 20% of girls and 40% of boys study physics at A-level (the final school exam before university). Every year everybody seems surprised that the girls outperform the boys. However, it is likely that the students who study physics are mostly the students with the greatest aptitude for the subject. If you split the students into any two arbitrary groups then the top fifth from one group are going to outperform the top two fifths from the other. This is unremarkable. Yet when the groups are boys and girls, people are surprised. Anyway, I would be surprised if something similar isn't happening in CS. With so few women studying the subject, it's likely that those who do are fairly dedicated.
  - inanutshellus 10y ago
    Following it through, those superstars' success will embolden others, incrementally lowering the "superstar" requirement. Only question is, will it happen fast enough?

> despite still being heavily outnumbered Despite?

by Dzugaru 10y ago

> despite still being heavily outnumbered Despite?

Yes, that's a word; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/despite http://www.dictionary.com/browse/despite Its use here means something like "contrary to the expectation that women face barriers in IT (as evidenced by lower numbers of women in the top positions in IT and in general), they rise through the ranks faster than men."

tomp 10y ago
> contrary to the expectation that women face barriers in IT Hasn't this been debunked already? AFAIK the percentage of women in IT is about the same as the percentage of women graduating from CS.
- kazinator 10y ago
  It could be; in any case, that is neither here nor there since the article seems to be taking that for granted as the basis of its "despite".
Dzugaru 10y ago
Well, I meant that being outnumbered easily can be an advantage - (ex. you're unique, noticeable etc.), that's why "despite being outnumbered" sounds really strange. "Despite facing barriers" - ok. Not saying that those statistics can be heavily biased due to imbalanced classes - but other commenters already mentioned that multiple times.

inanutshellus 10y ago

No need to be defensive about it, it's basic math. If, say, 20% of CS grads are female, they're competing against 80% of CS grads for distinction. So it's surprising when, "despite the odds", they succeed faster. Perhaps more importantly the article does not mention confirmation bias, which is surely at play here. (e.g. "average" women are being discouraged from CS degrees before they even start, so only superstars stick it through, so of course they move faster through the ranks after graduation.)

stale2002 10y ago
Basically this. If you aren't a super star you'll be driven out of tech before you even graduate college. I've seen it happen to many women techies I know. Unless you are awesome, it just isn't worth it to put up with the crap that they have to.
brassic 10y ago
I think your latter point is closer to the truth. A similar example: in the UK about 20% of girls and 40% of boys study physics at A-level (the final school exam before university). Every year everybody seems surprised that the girls outperform the boys. However, it is likely that the students who study physics are mostly the students with the greatest aptitude for the subject. If you split the students into any two arbitrary groups then the top fifth from one group are going to outperform the top two fifths from the other. This is unremarkable. Yet when the groups are boys and girls, people are surprised. Anyway, I would be surprised if something similar isn't happening in CS. With so few women studying the subject, it's likely that those who do are fairly dedicated.
- inanutshellus 10y ago
  Following it through, those superstars' success will embolden others, incrementally lowering the "superstar" requirement. Only question is, will it happen fast enough?