3 ms·

I am a current UCSF medical student and I majored in statistics in undergrad. I program in R and python. In undergrad, did consider doing an internship at a tec

I am a current UCSF medical student and I majored in statistics in undergrad. I program in R and python. In undergrad, did consider doing an internship at a tech company as a data scientist, so I feel like I understand the perspective from both sides. That said, I feel this is entirely a false dichotomy - there are actually very few people choosing between nursing and computer science, and it is not "diverting some of these students to computer science rather than remaining in health care". They are simply very different students and workforces with different motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. I am sure we can agree that there are many fields that are worse off than computer science. Retail, administration, and many disciplines don't have the flexibility or financial compensation. To me, in some ways, it does sound like sour grapes when one says "well, look women have nursing. They make good money." Regardless whether healthcare is a good field, that creates a false dichotomy when there are many people (both male and female) who aren't in these fields. Even digging into this false dichotomy, it is another discussion whether healthcare is actually more flexible, has fewer hours, and is a better career choice than software development. The grass is always greener on the other side, but I would say that only in healthcare does a significant proportion of the workforce have to work overnight shifts, 30 hour workdays, and have to deal with relatively hazardous or infectious materials. I love medicine, it's a great field, and I really enjoy having an impact on people's lives. But similarly, there are intangibles in software development like the satisfaction of creating something and doing things that can touch people far away. I think that to split these professions into "male" and "female" is a huge disservice and it brings nothing to the discussion to say some female predominant fields have good earning potential. PS. UCSF medicine is typically between 47 - 54% female each year. Not sure where you got the 58% statistic. There are a lot of applicants, so the administrators probably have a lot of flexibility on how they want to shape the class demographics.

geebee 13y ago
This is where I got the entering class profile link: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/09/10594/ucsf-school-medicine-welcomes-class-2015-white-coat-ceremony https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/09/10594/ucsf-school-medicine... "The 167 new arrivals were chosen from 6,767 applicants. The average age of the class is 25, with a range of 21 to 34, and it is 58 percent female and 42 percent male." I haven't made any further inquiry into the accuracy of this statistic, so it could be wrong, or it could be an unusual year.
geebee 13y ago
I would like to address the false dichotomy you have indicated - that it doesn't make sense to talk of people being diverted from software development into health care fields. There are a couple of essays I'd suggest. Neither are about programming or women - they're about science/engineering graduate programs and Americans. However, they both reach the conclusion that Americans in general are rationally avoiding graduate degrees in STEM fields. The first is a study by the RAND institute: http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html This study concludes that Americans are avoiding STEM degrees in large part because the pay and job prospects compared to the "professions" including law or medicine have become so uncompetitive. Another is by professor William Zumeta at the University of Washington. He looks into students with strong quantitative backgrounds to analyze why they are not going into science and engineering. He does conclude that they are often going to MBA or Health Sciences. (He also does address some systemic problems that particularly affect women in these fields). http://www.issues.org/19.2/p_zumeta.htm http://www.issues.org/19.2/p_zumeta.htm Unfortunately, these researchers don't really address the false dichotomy you've brought up - they seem to assume that academically talented students do choose between very different fields based on pay and career prospects. Perhaps that is, as you've suggested, a deeply flawed assumption. Believe it or not, I actually think that this in no way invalidates claims that outright discrimination or socialization from an early age is a factor! After all, even if it is a relatively poor career choice (already a very debatable claim), these can still be substantial (even definitive) factors!

geebee 13y ago

This is where I got the entering class profile link: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/09/10594/ucsf-school-medicine-welcomes-class-2015-white-coat-ceremony https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/09/10594/ucsf-school-medicine... "The 167 new arrivals were chosen from 6,767 applicants. The average age of the class is 25, with a range of 21 to 34, and it is 58 percent female and 42 percent male." I haven't made any further inquiry into the accuracy of this statistic, so it could be wrong, or it could be an unusual year.

geebee 13y ago

I would like to address the false dichotomy you have indicated - that it doesn't make sense to talk of people being diverted from software development into health care fields. There are a couple of essays I'd suggest. Neither are about programming or women - they're about science/engineering graduate programs and Americans. However, they both reach the conclusion that Americans in general are rationally avoiding graduate degrees in STEM fields. The first is a study by the RAND institute: http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html This study concludes that Americans are avoiding STEM degrees in large part because the pay and job prospects compared to the "professions" including law or medicine have become so uncompetitive. Another is by professor William Zumeta at the University of Washington. He looks into students with strong quantitative backgrounds to analyze why they are not going into science and engineering. He does conclude that they are often going to MBA or Health Sciences. (He also does address some systemic problems that particularly affect women in these fields). http://www.issues.org/19.2/p_zumeta.htm http://www.issues.org/19.2/p_zumeta.htm Unfortunately, these researchers don't really address the false dichotomy you've brought up - they seem to assume that academically talented students do choose between very different fields based on pay and career prospects. Perhaps that is, as you've suggested, a deeply flawed assumption. Believe it or not, I actually think that this in no way invalidates claims that outright discrimination or socialization from an early age is a factor! After all, even if it is a relatively poor career choice (already a very debatable claim), these can still be substantial (even definitive) factors!