5 ms·

According to National Science Foundation figures, the decline in female CS graduates stopped around 2008/2009. It bottomed out then and has been on the rise sin

According to National Science Foundation figures, the decline in female CS graduates stopped around 2008/2009. It bottomed out then and has been on the rise since.

notacoward 10y ago
According to the US department of education, it remained level through 2014. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/what-should-we-be-teaching-the-next-generation-of-computer-scientists#survey-answer https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/what-should-we... According to AAUW (unsourced but with NSF as a sponsor) it remained level through 2013. http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/ http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/ There's no way this is positive or even neutral. Even the high of 35% was unimpressive. The long-term trend is still downwards, despite a mere couple of years at least 10% below that peak. Leveling off at 18-24% is still unacceptable, and we're still a few years short of being able to say even that is more than a statistical anomaly. When that number has reached its previous peak and is still trending upward, so that we're within a generation of full parity, then we might be able to say we're making sufficient progress.
- malandrew 10y ago
  Do you think there should be 50/50 parity in all professions from mining to nursing? I'm trying to understand why 35% would be impressive or not impressive. It's just a number and it's not clear that any profession or area of study has an established ratio that would be considered "natural" or unnatural. Here are the NSF figures for total undergraduate degrees awarded by gender: https://nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/12/at02-17.pdf https://nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/12/at02-1... This is a highly reputable primary source data that contradicts your secondary source articles. Can you please point me at primary source statistics that support your claims.
  - julianmarq 10y ago
    Don't bother. You already mentioned an statistic and he dismissed it on the exclusive basis of his arbitrary perspective and then provided less relevant alternatives as a show of his confirmation bias (not actual confirmation). What this says is that this person is not interested in having a discussion, he just wants people to agree with him and will move the goalpost against any rebuttal of his view provided.
    - notacoward 10y ago
      Thanks for the ad hominem. You might want to note that the person you're supporting just made a claim that is contrary to their own evidence. Next time, contribute.
      - julianmarq 10y ago
        Mentioning that you moved the goalpost is not an ad hominem; it's literally an evaluation of your argument, not of you. Specially given that I didn't address you at all. Is it mentioning that someone used a fallacy itself a fallacy now? Of course not. Next time, provide actual arguments.
        notacoward 10y ago
        Are you seriously trying to claim that "What this says is that this person" is not an ad hominem? That's simply untrue, and obviously so to any reader. Also, I didn't move the goalposts. I asked for proof, and got back a non sequitur. The numbers didn't show what my interlocutor claimed they did, and I'm still waiting for piece #1 of the proof I originally asked for. You're awfully aggressive for someone who has engaged entirely in meta-argument without providing a single fact relevant to the topic at hand.
  - notacoward 10y ago
    Your highly reputable source (appeal to authority) doesn't show what you claim. For the last four years, the percentage of computer-science graduates who were female according to their numbers is: 18.2% 17.7% 18.2% 17.9% That's pretty darn flat, and pretty darn low. You're the one claiming an uptick. Prove it. > Do you think there should be 50/50 parity in all professions from mining to nursing? Of course not (strawman). However, a male:female ratio of 7:2 is a huge disparity. Few fields are so skewed. It's also remarkably inconsistent with other data - e.g. gender ratios in other STEM fields, enrollment rates, quantitative measures of ability. It's too glaring an anomaly to be passed off with a shrug.
    - malandrew 10y ago
      I said it bottomed out in 2008/09, which is why I included that table. It then stayed flat for a few years. The rise has been seen in the last 3 years, not the last 4 years on that table which ends in 2013. If you look at data since 2013, you'll see it is rising. I'm looking around to see where I previously found figures for 2014-2016.

According to National Science Foundation figures, the decline in female CS graduates stopped around 2008/2009. It bottomed out then and has been on the rise since.

notacoward 10y ago

According to the US department of education, it remained level through 2014. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/what-should-we-be-teaching-the-next-generation-of-computer-scientists#survey-answer https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/what-should-we... According to AAUW (unsourced but with NSF as a sponsor) it remained level through 2013. http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/ http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/ There's no way this is positive or even neutral. Even the high of 35% was unimpressive. The long-term trend is still downwards, despite a mere couple of years at least 10% below that peak. Leveling off at 18-24% is still unacceptable, and we're still a few years short of being able to say even that is more than a statistical anomaly. When that number has reached its previous peak and is still trending upward, so that we're within a generation of full parity, then we might be able to say we're making sufficient progress.

malandrew 10y ago
Do you think there should be 50/50 parity in all professions from mining to nursing? I'm trying to understand why 35% would be impressive or not impressive. It's just a number and it's not clear that any profession or area of study has an established ratio that would be considered "natural" or unnatural. Here are the NSF figures for total undergraduate degrees awarded by gender: https://nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/12/at02-17.pdf https://nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/12/at02-1... This is a highly reputable primary source data that contradicts your secondary source articles. Can you please point me at primary source statistics that support your claims.
- julianmarq 10y ago
  Don't bother. You already mentioned an statistic and he dismissed it on the exclusive basis of his arbitrary perspective and then provided less relevant alternatives as a show of his confirmation bias (not actual confirmation). What this says is that this person is not interested in having a discussion, he just wants people to agree with him and will move the goalpost against any rebuttal of his view provided.
  - notacoward 10y ago
    Thanks for the ad hominem. You might want to note that the person you're supporting just made a claim that is contrary to their own evidence. Next time, contribute.
    - julianmarq 10y ago
      Mentioning that you moved the goalpost is not an ad hominem; it's literally an evaluation of your argument, not of you. Specially given that I didn't address you at all. Is it mentioning that someone used a fallacy itself a fallacy now? Of course not. Next time, provide actual arguments.
      - notacoward 10y ago
        Are you seriously trying to claim that "What this says is that this person" is not an ad hominem? That's simply untrue, and obviously so to any reader. Also, I didn't move the goalposts. I asked for proof, and got back a non sequitur. The numbers didn't show what my interlocutor claimed they did, and I'm still waiting for piece #1 of the proof I originally asked for. You're awfully aggressive for someone who has engaged entirely in meta-argument without providing a single fact relevant to the topic at hand.
- notacoward 10y ago
  Your highly reputable source (appeal to authority) doesn't show what you claim. For the last four years, the percentage of computer-science graduates who were female according to their numbers is: 18.2% 17.7% 18.2% 17.9% That's pretty darn flat, and pretty darn low. You're the one claiming an uptick. Prove it. > Do you think there should be 50/50 parity in all professions from mining to nursing? Of course not (strawman). However, a male:female ratio of 7:2 is a huge disparity. Few fields are so skewed. It's also remarkably inconsistent with other data - e.g. gender ratios in other STEM fields, enrollment rates, quantitative measures of ability. It's too glaring an anomaly to be passed off with a shrug.
  - malandrew 10y ago
    I said it bottomed out in 2008/09, which is why I included that table. It then stayed flat for a few years. The rise has been seen in the last 3 years, not the last 4 years on that table which ends in 2013. If you look at data since 2013, you'll see it is rising. I'm looking around to see where I previously found figures for 2014-2016.