13 ms·

Women in Science

29 points by acangiano 12y ago

kendallpark 12y ago
> If you are extremely introverted, you might prefer to work as a computer programmer. ??? Really?
- ovi256 12y ago
  Yes. Pose a simple question, get a simple answer. What is so surprising about this assertion ?
  - kendallpark 12y ago
    I resent the implication. Programming != introverted activity.
serve_yay 12y ago
Honest question: So how's the architect biz? It seems like architect is one of those vaguely aspirational occupations (like lawyer) that could have gotten swamped in recent decades with folks such as Bill. People just looking for a good job, not necessarily on fire with passion for it. (Not that I'm saying you have to be full of passion for something in order to do it as a job - quite the contrary.)
frossie 12y ago
Wow, it was hard to look past all the offensive crap to get angry at all the logic holes. Let me see if I can keep this PG. >age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month >age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year Actually the median total time to degree is far lower for STEM than it is for other fields. TTD in Physics and Astronomy is 7.0 years compared to 10.2 in the Humanities http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/nsf06312.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/nsf06312.pdf >compensation for executives at public companies is reported every year. Yes, becaues Forbes executive positions are SO much more open to women that academic scientific careers, it makes total sense to compare them. >Consider taking the same high IQ and work ethic, going into business, and being put on the fast track at a company such as General Electric. Rather than being fired at age 44, this is about the time that she will be handed ever-larger divisions to operate, with ever-larger bonuses and stock options. A tenured academic has the same chance of being fired as GE employee. Or it's just as easy to be a postdoc as a GE stock-option executive. Yeah right. > At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children. Because every woman aspires to have babies at 22. > "I'm not sure if I'll be able to get any job at all. Note that when a grad student says that, there is ALWAYS an implicit "... on what I would prefer doing". Unemployment rate for Physics PhDs is just under 10% - this is rough the same for any occupation in the "professional" sector if you consider involuntary part-time workers (not many part time science jobs) http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/technology/2014/07/STEM_phd_charts/Spreadsheet_Physics.xls http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/t... http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat21.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat21.htm > A woman who is smart and organized enough to earn a PhD in science would also likely be smart and organized enough to find a higher-income co-parent. What is the profit potential when suing someone earning more than $250,000 per year? Yes, because (a) women use their career skills in finding husbands and (b) being a physicist and suing a rich ex for alimony are comparable choices - after all, why else would you be marrying? You have to be effing kidding me. > The most serious concern is that the field that a youngster found fascinating at age 20 will no longer be fascinating after 20 or 25 years. Yes, because only scientists get bored with their careers. Every person who decided to do advertising sales on the other hand, is still having a blast. > A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals Right, guys do science cause they are too dumb to know better. And people become petty criminals as a career choice. And don't forget women don't do anything as pointless as playing video games (I mean ha ha ha, next you're going to tell me that women PLAY videogames, imagine). Look, the postdoc system ubiquitous in STEM is exploitative. Every person working in science, man or woman, knows this. And it's a perverse outcome of a funding and success model based on citation rate. But to say women don't go into science because they're too smart for that is the same as saying that African Americans don't go into IT because they too smart want to hang around geeks and carry a pager. It's insulting to everybody concerned and completely and utterly inaccurate.
- Fomite 12y ago
  Yeah, this article was terrible - both full of some serious holes in its actual facts, and then dripping with sloppy reasoning.
  - cozzyd 12y ago
    Its most serious flaw is the assumption that everyone cares about money as much as he does.
- dgabriel 12y ago
  The stuff about child support is actively gross and totally incorrect. Median child support in the US is ~$500/mo; vanishingly few people have the kind of money he's talking about. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf
  - ArmchairEcon 12y ago
    That the average person who pursues a job is not very successful economically does not mean that the job is not worth pursuing for someone who is thoughtful and talented. As noted above, if the median child support is only $6000 tax-free dollars per year that suggests that high-income potential fathers are an underutilized resource. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c... shows that the median computer programmer gets paid $75,000 per year. That doesn't stop thoughtful and talented programmers from earning a lot more (though collusion by employers, e.g., Apple, has interfered with what would have been a market).
- ArmchairEcon 12y ago
  "Unemployment rate for Physics PhDs is just under 10%" -- that sounds pretty bad if you assume that someone with a physics PhD is smarter than average and has more years of education than average.
cauterized 12y ago
As an actual woman in computing, who's not particularly interested in having kids and chose her career for practical reasons, I find this article (and many other articles and comments like it, written by men and relying on stereotypes and blatant assumption) to be offensive. And before you tell me to grow a thicker skin: by calling this offensive, I don't intend to squash anyone's ability to speak. But I absolutely have the right to be pissed off when someone pretends to speak for me. It makes me lose respect for the person who thinks they can pontificate about someone else's experience and motivations.
- dgabriel 12y ago
  I'm an actual woman in computing WITH kids, and I found the article offensive, as well. There's something in there for all of us to dislike.
- facepalm 12y ago
  Didn't he explicitly not speak about women like you (who go into science/engineering), but about women who choose a different way of life?
  - cauterized 12y ago
    Yes, based on stereotypes and blatant assumptions. Do you really think a significant portion of people in this world make a conscious choice to survive on child support rather than following an interesting career? He's talking about the CHOICE of whether to enter a STEM career as a woman. I faced that choice just as any other woman did, and believe me that most of the purported reasons mentioned in that article weren't part of the equation at all. Regardless, the fact that I'm in computer science doesn't make the author any more qualified to talk about women's experiences and motivations.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      Is it offensive to assume somebody is acting rationally? Some would consider the opposite offensive (and thereby the author also offends men in his article). I think the "planned alimony" accusation is offensive, but it should be easy to check (statistics on women living off alimony and their average income). I'm sure some women plan that way, but they might not be a significant fraction. I still remember reading advice on how to best become an "alimony mother" in a popular women's magazine (allegedly pick a married man, he can't afford a big fuss and will silently pay up). Not sure if it was meant as satire, but the idea has certainly crossed women's minds. I also know women who planned to become single moms from the start. However, if you include the classic plan to become a stay at home mother, I'm sure a lot of women plan that way. For sure women take into account family friendliness when planning their career. Also, you seem to assume that being a mother is not interesting. I think you being in Computer Science might not have any bearings on the authors qualifications at all.
facepalm 12y ago
It doesn't have to be alimony - you can also remain happily married and live off the income of your spouse. According to this googled article, 29% percent of mothers of children under 18 are stay at home mothers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/08/women-stay-at-home-mothers-work/7468163/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/08/women-s... Two thirds of them are supposedly married, so I guess the alimony case might be around 10 percent of all mothers.
- ArmchairEcon 12y ago
  http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-single-parent-families#detailed/1/any/false/36,868,867,133,38/any/429,430 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-... says that about 35 percent of U.S. children live in single-parent families or 25 million children total. In any case, the fewer the number of women competing to collect child support from high-income men the higher will be the returns to that strategy and the more attractive it will be compared to working for wages.

Women in Science

29 points by acangiano 12y ago

kendallpark 12y ago

> If you are extremely introverted, you might prefer to work as a computer programmer. ??? Really?

ovi256 12y ago
Yes. Pose a simple question, get a simple answer. What is so surprising about this assertion ?
- kendallpark 12y ago
  I resent the implication. Programming != introverted activity.

serve_yay 12y ago

Honest question: So how's the architect biz? It seems like architect is one of those vaguely aspirational occupations (like lawyer) that could have gotten swamped in recent decades with folks such as Bill. People just looking for a good job, not necessarily on fire with passion for it. (Not that I'm saying you have to be full of passion for something in order to do it as a job - quite the contrary.)

frossie 12y ago

Wow, it was hard to look past all the offensive crap to get angry at all the logic holes. Let me see if I can keep this PG. >age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month >age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year Actually the median total time to degree is far lower for STEM than it is for other fields. TTD in Physics and Astronomy is 7.0 years compared to 10.2 in the Humanities http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/nsf06312.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/nsf06312.pdf >compensation for executives at public companies is reported every year. Yes, becaues Forbes executive positions are SO much more open to women that academic scientific careers, it makes total sense to compare them. >Consider taking the same high IQ and work ethic, going into business, and being put on the fast track at a company such as General Electric. Rather than being fired at age 44, this is about the time that she will be handed ever-larger divisions to operate, with ever-larger bonuses and stock options. A tenured academic has the same chance of being fired as GE employee. Or it's just as easy to be a postdoc as a GE stock-option executive. Yeah right. > At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children. Because every woman aspires to have babies at 22. > "I'm not sure if I'll be able to get any job at all. Note that when a grad student says that, there is ALWAYS an implicit "... on what I would prefer doing". Unemployment rate for Physics PhDs is just under 10% - this is rough the same for any occupation in the "professional" sector if you consider involuntary part-time workers (not many part time science jobs) http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/technology/2014/07/STEM_phd_charts/Spreadsheet_Physics.xls http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/t... http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat21.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat21.htm > A woman who is smart and organized enough to earn a PhD in science would also likely be smart and organized enough to find a higher-income co-parent. What is the profit potential when suing someone earning more than $250,000 per year? Yes, because (a) women use their career skills in finding husbands and (b) being a physicist and suing a rich ex for alimony are comparable choices - after all, why else would you be marrying? You have to be effing kidding me. > The most serious concern is that the field that a youngster found fascinating at age 20 will no longer be fascinating after 20 or 25 years. Yes, because only scientists get bored with their careers. Every person who decided to do advertising sales on the other hand, is still having a blast. > A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals Right, guys do science cause they are too dumb to know better. And people become petty criminals as a career choice. And don't forget women don't do anything as pointless as playing video games (I mean ha ha ha, next you're going to tell me that women PLAY videogames, imagine). Look, the postdoc system ubiquitous in STEM is exploitative. Every person working in science, man or woman, knows this. And it's a perverse outcome of a funding and success model based on citation rate. But to say women don't go into science because they're too smart for that is the same as saying that African Americans don't go into IT because they too smart want to hang around geeks and carry a pager. It's insulting to everybody concerned and completely and utterly inaccurate.

Fomite 12y ago
Yeah, this article was terrible - both full of some serious holes in its actual facts, and then dripping with sloppy reasoning.
- cozzyd 12y ago
  Its most serious flaw is the assumption that everyone cares about money as much as he does.
dgabriel 12y ago
The stuff about child support is actively gross and totally incorrect. Median child support in the US is ~$500/mo; vanishingly few people have the kind of money he's talking about. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf
- ArmchairEcon 12y ago
  That the average person who pursues a job is not very successful economically does not mean that the job is not worth pursuing for someone who is thoughtful and talented. As noted above, if the median child support is only $6000 tax-free dollars per year that suggests that high-income potential fathers are an underutilized resource. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c... shows that the median computer programmer gets paid $75,000 per year. That doesn't stop thoughtful and talented programmers from earning a lot more (though collusion by employers, e.g., Apple, has interfered with what would have been a market).
ArmchairEcon 12y ago
"Unemployment rate for Physics PhDs is just under 10%" -- that sounds pretty bad if you assume that someone with a physics PhD is smarter than average and has more years of education than average.

cauterized 12y ago

As an actual woman in computing, who's not particularly interested in having kids and chose her career for practical reasons, I find this article (and many other articles and comments like it, written by men and relying on stereotypes and blatant assumption) to be offensive. And before you tell me to grow a thicker skin: by calling this offensive, I don't intend to squash anyone's ability to speak. But I absolutely have the right to be pissed off when someone pretends to speak for me. It makes me lose respect for the person who thinks they can pontificate about someone else's experience and motivations.

dgabriel 12y ago
I'm an actual woman in computing WITH kids, and I found the article offensive, as well. There's something in there for all of us to dislike.
facepalm 12y ago
Didn't he explicitly not speak about women like you (who go into science/engineering), but about women who choose a different way of life?
- cauterized 12y ago
  Yes, based on stereotypes and blatant assumptions. Do you really think a significant portion of people in this world make a conscious choice to survive on child support rather than following an interesting career? He's talking about the CHOICE of whether to enter a STEM career as a woman. I faced that choice just as any other woman did, and believe me that most of the purported reasons mentioned in that article weren't part of the equation at all. Regardless, the fact that I'm in computer science doesn't make the author any more qualified to talk about women's experiences and motivations.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Is it offensive to assume somebody is acting rationally? Some would consider the opposite offensive (and thereby the author also offends men in his article). I think the "planned alimony" accusation is offensive, but it should be easy to check (statistics on women living off alimony and their average income). I'm sure some women plan that way, but they might not be a significant fraction. I still remember reading advice on how to best become an "alimony mother" in a popular women's magazine (allegedly pick a married man, he can't afford a big fuss and will silently pay up). Not sure if it was meant as satire, but the idea has certainly crossed women's minds. I also know women who planned to become single moms from the start. However, if you include the classic plan to become a stay at home mother, I'm sure a lot of women plan that way. For sure women take into account family friendliness when planning their career. Also, you seem to assume that being a mother is not interesting. I think you being in Computer Science might not have any bearings on the authors qualifications at all.

facepalm 12y ago

It doesn't have to be alimony - you can also remain happily married and live off the income of your spouse. According to this googled article, 29% percent of mothers of children under 18 are stay at home mothers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/08/women-stay-at-home-mothers-work/7468163/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/08/women-s... Two thirds of them are supposedly married, so I guess the alimony case might be around 10 percent of all mothers.

ArmchairEcon 12y ago
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-single-parent-families#detailed/1/any/false/36,868,867,133,38/any/429,430 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-... says that about 35 percent of U.S. children live in single-parent families or 25 million children total. In any case, the fewer the number of women competing to collect child support from high-income men the higher will be the returns to that strategy and the more attractive it will be compared to working for wages.