3 ms·
The graph you linked to. I'm comparing the 1984 numbers to latest available, since 1984 is what the linked piece talks about (and which I mentioned in the origi
by cscheid 12y ago
The graph you linked to. I'm comparing the 1984 numbers to latest available, since 1984 is what the linked piece talks about (and which I mentioned in the original comment)
> drop off was nearly identical for men
> women did seem to drop off more
These two statements cannot be both true at the same time.
- cheez 12y agoIn this case, a drop off needs to be compared to a peak value which 1984 is not. 1984 is before the 1986 peak. I'm not saying they're exactly identical but it's clear that there are similar patterns. Perhaps not "nearly" identical, but similar enough.
- tibiapejagala 12y agoWhat are you trying to prove with this cherry-picked time points? Author notices that number of women in CS significantly went down in 1984 and searches for reasons. According to the graph provided in the parent comment it was actually CS as a whole which went down. Both lines on the graph are awfully similar, and one can assume that there wasn't any sudden catastrophe for women in CS at that time. When analyzing 'What Happened To Women In Computer Science?' the absolute number is not important, but the ration of women in CS and when that went down (and why).