3 ms·
I agree for the most part. In terms of getting more women in tech the most important change isn't necessarily to encourage starting early but rather to encourag
by InclinedPlane 12y ago
I agree for the most part. In terms of getting more women in tech the most important change isn't necessarily to encourage starting early but rather to encourage tech as a pragmatic career choice. To be honest that's why most men are in tech and in CS programs. And the more women are in CS and engineering programs, merely because it seems like a good way to make a living, the more accepted that will be and the easier it will be for other women to see that as a legitimate lifestyle choice and a career that won't just be a constant upstream fight against the current. That's the sort of thing that leads to a positive feedback loop of women going into tech until it's no longer seen as unusual.
On the other hand, there is something to be said for fostering early passion in tech. A lot of times folks end up in tech because they rekindled or amplified some earlier passion or interest. Your story of coding at 13 is somewhat rare but it's even rarer to find someone who ended up in tech who had no prior interest in the field whatsoever. A young boy at 13 may not have an interest in programming or see software development as a likely career choice, but they will likely see it as a desirable choice. And they will see various techie activities as things their friends do, things they should be expected to do, things that are fun and doable, etc. That sort of thing makes it easier to get into tech early and makes it easier to get into tech later because it doesn't seem like such a crazy jump. Additionally, often times it's the folks who got into tech due to an early passion who end up being some of the most successful.
Anyway, I've left and come back to this a couple times so I'm probably rambling. My point is that each half of the equation (early vs late engagement) relies on the other to some degree, and though it's the late engagement which is more impactful, encouraging early interest is still important.
- mercer 12y agoI think you're making a lot of sense. I would like to see statistics on this, but at least for me and many others who switched to software development after college, it's definitely the case that we had periods in our childhood where we were into programming, or at least tinkering on our computers. I never really realized that this might've made it much easier for me to make the switch after an entire college period of different things.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoFor myself, I never imagined I'd be a software developer when I grew up, I always figured I'd be a scientist or something else. In college I started studying math because that was what I was good at. I got into chemistry and physics too because I was was also good at those and interested in them, as I'd been for a long time. Computer Science as a thing to study didn't occur to me until a bit later, even though I'd been programming since grade school, and learning computer science since high school. First just classes off and on, then later delving into what my graphing calculator could do and then the family computer. Meanwhile, I was reading books like The New Turing Omnibus and learning how to program and CS fundamentals, just 'cause it was fun. I had assumed that actual developers did things much different and it wasn't until college that I figured out the truth.