4 ms·

The views in that comment are completely unsubstantiated. There was no evidence presented that "data processing" was ever taught as part of or categorized as co

The views in that comment are completely unsubstantiated. There was no evidence presented that "data processing" was ever taught as part of or categorized as computer science. In fact, later comments debunk that viewpoint. Also worth noting that the person who wrote that subscribes to the Men Going Their Own Way movement [1] (his username is thrownaway_MGTOW), which while not an outright debunking of his claims, should give you further cause for suspicion. [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way

zxcv731 12y ago
I agree, it is clear that the author seems to have a bit of a bias. (I guess you can also tell from his tone) Although the "debunk" wasn't very clear. With some posters that also saying that their family members indeed obtained data entry degree in computer science http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2joexk/what_happened_to_women_in_computer_science_of/cldqkih http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2joexk/what... Hard to make a judgement call, but I think the truth is probably not as clear cut as NPR suggests
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  > Hard to make a judgement call . . . It is not hard for me to decide whether to trust Planet Money or anonymous Reddit commenters, at least one of which is a known MRA, especially on a topic relating to sexism. I guess that might just speak to our different priors, but it's a no brainer over here.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
Regardless of the source of the comment, it would be interesting to have the source data to know exactly what they're classifying as "Computer Science" programs. That term has certainly increased in usage over the last several decades, and was not always in use in the decades prior to the 1980s. So what did the study use in its place? That's a valid question regardless of who raised it.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  Sure, but "we don't know, therefore let's provisionally go the MRA's unsourced claims," is not a sound interim position.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    As I said, it's an interesting question, regardless of the source. So I went and looked it up, since that seemed more productive than fighting endlessly over it. The NSF study helpfully includes an appendix that shows what fields they counted as "Computer Science", and it turns out that "Data Processing" and "Data Processing Technician" were indeed counted in that category. Of course, that says nothing about the relative numbers and how they changed, but it does raise a possible explanation for the shift in numbers as Data Processing died out as a field. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tabb1.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tabb1.pdf

zxcv731 12y ago

I agree, it is clear that the author seems to have a bit of a bias. (I guess you can also tell from his tone) Although the "debunk" wasn't very clear. With some posters that also saying that their family members indeed obtained data entry degree in computer science http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2joexk/what_happened_to_women_in_computer_science_of/cldqkih http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2joexk/what... Hard to make a judgement call, but I think the truth is probably not as clear cut as NPR suggests

jamesaguilar 12y ago
> Hard to make a judgement call . . . It is not hard for me to decide whether to trust Planet Money or anonymous Reddit commenters, at least one of which is a known MRA, especially on a topic relating to sexism. I guess that might just speak to our different priors, but it's a no brainer over here.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

Regardless of the source of the comment, it would be interesting to have the source data to know exactly what they're classifying as "Computer Science" programs. That term has certainly increased in usage over the last several decades, and was not always in use in the decades prior to the 1980s. So what did the study use in its place? That's a valid question regardless of who raised it.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
Sure, but "we don't know, therefore let's provisionally go the MRA's unsourced claims," is not a sound interim position.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  As I said, it's an interesting question, regardless of the source. So I went and looked it up, since that seemed more productive than fighting endlessly over it. The NSF study helpfully includes an appendix that shows what fields they counted as "Computer Science", and it turns out that "Data Processing" and "Data Processing Technician" were indeed counted in that category. Of course, that says nothing about the relative numbers and how they changed, but it does raise a possible explanation for the shift in numbers as Data Processing died out as a field. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tabb1.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tabb1.pdf