4 ms·

Scott Alexander posits a theory which addresses why programming has a high gender disparity but law, medicine, biology and (undergrad) mathematics don't: http:/

Scott Alexander posits a theory which addresses why programming has a high gender disparity but law, medicine, biology and (undergrad) mathematics don't: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger.... Doesn't address why the number of women in programming has fallen since the 80's though...

tptacek 9y ago
This piece is fatuous. Alexander perpetuates the "women like people, men like things" trope that is common to every message board discussion of CS gender disparity. He then explains away the fact that women excel in science fields by saying "what do women do with math degrees? They become teachers." He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies (women do not get math PhD's to become high school teachers) and in other STEM fields (women do not get biochem masters to become high school teachers). He's contrived a just-so story that appeals to his audience. Which is par for his course.
- lackbeard 9y ago
  It seems like you did not even read the article... > He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies I'm not sure what "effect" you're talking about, but he points out that graduate-level math programs have about the same gender disparity as CS (explained by his theory because like you say, no one gets a PhD to teach and thus the studies shift from being about people to being about things.) I don't know about biochem, but he explains increased enrollment in biology over other STEM fields because it's about people and/or animals, which the "women like people, men like things" theory predicts.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    1. I quoted from the middle of the article. I've read it multiples times. 2. There is a reason that particular argument is banned by the guidelines ("Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article"): it's inherently uncivil.
    - lackbeard 9y ago
      Apologies for the incivility, but his article contradicts what you wrote and cites the relevant data.

tptacek 9y ago

This piece is fatuous. Alexander perpetuates the "women like people, men like things" trope that is common to every message board discussion of CS gender disparity. He then explains away the fact that women excel in science fields by saying "what do women do with math degrees? They become teachers." He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies (women do not get math PhD's to become high school teachers) and in other STEM fields (women do not get biochem masters to become high school teachers). He's contrived a just-so story that appeals to his audience. Which is par for his course.

lackbeard 9y ago
It seems like you did not even read the article... > He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies I'm not sure what "effect" you're talking about, but he points out that graduate-level math programs have about the same gender disparity as CS (explained by his theory because like you say, no one gets a PhD to teach and thus the studies shift from being about people to being about things.) I don't know about biochem, but he explains increased enrollment in biology over other STEM fields because it's about people and/or animals, which the "women like people, men like things" theory predicts.
- tptacek 9y ago
  1. I quoted from the middle of the article. I've read it multiples times. 2. There is a reason that particular argument is banned by the guidelines ("Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article"): it's inherently uncivil.
  - lackbeard 9y ago
    Apologies for the incivility, but his article contradicts what you wrote and cites the relevant data.