6 ms·

That NPR story has been discussed previously on HN. A comment there led me to look into the study used for that chart, and it turned out that "data processing"

That NPR story has been discussed previously on HN. A comment there led me to look into the study used for that chart, and it turned out that "data processing" and "data processing technician" were counted as computer science fields back in that peak era for women. As those fields faded, so did the number of women. Now, that's not iron-clad explanation for the chart, but it's very much worthy of consideration as an explanation. It's entirely possible that women were never that high a percentage of what we now classify as computer science. In other words, maybe it's more a change in classification than anything else.

tonyarkles 12y ago
The flip side to that is that "Computer Science" traditionally wasn't about programming either, but closer to applied mathematics. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if a data processing technician's role back then was a lot closer to what a modern web developer does. Figuring out the best heuristic function for A* to do path finding through your dataset? Probably computer science. Writing SQL queries and presenting the results as HTML or JSON? Probably a lot closer to "data processing technician". Edit: looks like people are downvoting you because they disagree with you. I disagree too, but I think it's a valuable avenue to discuss.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  People are downvoting us because they can't come up with a good counter-argument and won't admit it. Their loss.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    Whenever someone says something like this, I immediately assume that they're a closed-minded individual who's ready to quibble with or dismiss anything that runs counter to their closed-off view of the world. I've simply never seen a comment like this alongside another from the same writer that goes something like "Oh, I was wrong about that. Now I know." So I wonder...is there anything that could be said to you that would make you say, "oh, I was wrong, now I know better"?
    - tomjen3 12y ago
      Normally I would say a published study but I have seen so many studies that had a horrible methodology, where the data was twisted to show something that it didn't (like this NPR study or the famous 1/4 of every women is raped at university) or where the authors plain went ahead and lied. At a minimum for anything to be convincing it would have to show why there were less women who start studying computer science than men and that same thing can't be why there are more women who chooses to become nurses than there are men who choose to become nurses (since that something would then be either biological or societal in either case it wouldn't be an issue with our field). Depending on the specifics, I reserve the right to raise further objections.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        What kind of training do you have in sociological research? I mean, you obviously consider yourself qualified to assess study methodology. I'm curious about why.
        Frondo 12y ago
        Hey, downvoters, what exactly is contentious about asking this guy--and I have no idea who he is except that he's widely dismissive of published science--about his background or training? If we weren't talking about something as hot-button a topic as sexism in tech, but someone was all "tiny invisible biting demons? I just don't know about this so-called germ theory...", wouldn't it be fair to ask, what's their background in medical research?
        pkinsky 12y ago
        >If we weren't talking about something as hot-button a topic as sexism in tech, but someone was all "tiny invisible biting demons? I just don't know about this so-called germ theory...", wouldn't it be fair to ask, what's their background in medical research? Medicine makes concrete, testable predictions that are used every day. Sociology isn't there yet. Sociology, to me, lies somewhere between theology and medicine on the credibility scale. I wouldn't expect an atheist to educate herself on the finer points of of the Trinity and the Holy Ghost before taking her opinion on modern American Christianity seriously, for example.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Data Processing Technician at the time was more along the lines of things like running batch jobs, loading punch cards, loading tapes, and so on. And straight-up data entry work as well. And some of it was like IT people now, but generally less technical. It was more mechanical, not a coding type job. It's pretty different from what we classify as computer science degrees now.
sosuke 12y ago
I never knew that, my mom did "data processing" for years! She knew Excel, really knew the formulas and everything.

tonyarkles 12y ago

The flip side to that is that "Computer Science" traditionally wasn't about programming either, but closer to applied mathematics. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if a data processing technician's role back then was a lot closer to what a modern web developer does. Figuring out the best heuristic function for A* to do path finding through your dataset? Probably computer science. Writing SQL queries and presenting the results as HTML or JSON? Probably a lot closer to "data processing technician". Edit: looks like people are downvoting you because they disagree with you. I disagree too, but I think it's a valuable avenue to discuss.

tomjen3 12y ago
People are downvoting us because they can't come up with a good counter-argument and won't admit it. Their loss.
- Frondo 12y ago
  Whenever someone says something like this, I immediately assume that they're a closed-minded individual who's ready to quibble with or dismiss anything that runs counter to their closed-off view of the world. I've simply never seen a comment like this alongside another from the same writer that goes something like "Oh, I was wrong about that. Now I know." So I wonder...is there anything that could be said to you that would make you say, "oh, I was wrong, now I know better"?
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    Normally I would say a published study but I have seen so many studies that had a horrible methodology, where the data was twisted to show something that it didn't (like this NPR study or the famous 1/4 of every women is raped at university) or where the authors plain went ahead and lied. At a minimum for anything to be convincing it would have to show why there were less women who start studying computer science than men and that same thing can't be why there are more women who chooses to become nurses than there are men who choose to become nurses (since that something would then be either biological or societal in either case it wouldn't be an issue with our field). Depending on the specifics, I reserve the right to raise further objections.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      What kind of training do you have in sociological research? I mean, you obviously consider yourself qualified to assess study methodology. I'm curious about why.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        Hey, downvoters, what exactly is contentious about asking this guy--and I have no idea who he is except that he's widely dismissive of published science--about his background or training? If we weren't talking about something as hot-button a topic as sexism in tech, but someone was all "tiny invisible biting demons? I just don't know about this so-called germ theory...", wouldn't it be fair to ask, what's their background in medical research?
        pkinsky 12y ago
        >If we weren't talking about something as hot-button a topic as sexism in tech, but someone was all "tiny invisible biting demons? I just don't know about this so-called germ theory...", wouldn't it be fair to ask, what's their background in medical research? Medicine makes concrete, testable predictions that are used every day. Sociology isn't there yet. Sociology, to me, lies somewhere between theology and medicine on the credibility scale. I wouldn't expect an atheist to educate herself on the finer points of of the Trinity and the Holy Ghost before taking her opinion on modern American Christianity seriously, for example.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
Data Processing Technician at the time was more along the lines of things like running batch jobs, loading punch cards, loading tapes, and so on. And straight-up data entry work as well. And some of it was like IT people now, but generally less technical. It was more mechanical, not a coding type job. It's pretty different from what we classify as computer science degrees now.

sosuke 12y ago

I never knew that, my mom did "data processing" for years! She knew Excel, really knew the formulas and everything.