3 ms·

latest data still only has them at 21% of cs graduates https://ngcproject.org/resources/stem-statistics-higher-education https://ngcproject.org/resources/stem-s

• Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  That would be an improvement over my anecdata of my final project class for my CS degree in 2014 having ~30 men and exactly two women.
  • Jensson 2y ago
    Then your class had lower than average women for the time. The overall numbers hasn't changed since then.
    • deathanatos 2y ago
      The numbers here are "and mathematical scientists"¹, so it's not (as upthread implies) CS grads, it's CS grads + other studies. I lived with a physics major; she did some code, would she have been counted?², but she was not a SWE in the making³. My gut would not think other math degrees would necessarily be more women heavy. But like upthread, my class was 2 women in a class of ~160, or <2%. Around that time I recall seeing a Stanford T-shirt with their ratio at something like 1:16, and they're prestigious enough one would expect their ratio to be above average. Not sure what to say, aside from I cannot reconcile it with experience, and the numbers being used here aren't the ones we need. (¹as this is how the source for the data, "National Survey of College Graduates", has uselessly lumped them together. The "mathematical" portion includes degrees such as statistics, "Mathematics, general", and other unspecified-by-the-methodology degrees. Even the "computer sciences" portion isn't just CS degrees, they've also lumped, e.g., IT in there.) (²no, probably not; when I wrote that I was looking at a graph another poster posted, but that graph seems to munch the category names. Likely physics would be under "Physical and related scientists", but also I can't find the methodology of then what a "mathematical science" is…) (³and in lecture, the in-lecture ratios changed rather dramatically once you got past the point of "other degrees require 2 courses of CS cross-training")
      • Jensson 2y ago
        This chart isn't lumping them, it has never been close to single digit percent for the past 50 years. Any class with sub 10% women is a big outlier. And as you can see from the graph, things hasn't really improved, classes used to have way more women, the single digit percent examples are low outliers at a time when things had already gotten really bad from where they used to. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/cs.png?x85095 https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/cs.png?x85095
        • deathanatos 2y ago
          That graph (which is from here: [1]) lists [2] as its data source; none of the tables under "326 Completion and…" match the data they're graphing; it never breaks it out by degree+sex, AFAICT; there are a lot of tables, and I did not exhaustively search them, nor did the article include enough information on their methodology. The phrasing of "Over the weekend, I…" implies some exogenous data source, but it's not shared. One can't even begin to replicate the conclusion reached. > Any class with sub 10% women is a big outlier. You claim, but what is being asked for here is evidence to support such; Occam's razor implies that not only should it not be, that it would be an outlier in the other direction. Hence the desire for something that lays out its methodology well enough that we can tell that it's not in that lovely third category of "statistics". [1]: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-the-declining-female-share-of-computer-science-degrees-from-28-to-18/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-the-declinin... [2]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]