Posted on 12/18/2005 7:00:11 AM PST by A. Pole
I disagree, successful software engineering and project execution for nontrivial applications is very tough. Your master (the computer) is unrelenting in exposing your errors. There is no second prize, you have to win. You have to make sure that hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of logical steps take place in proper sequence without error. One has to be obsessive/compulsive to stick to an often years long path in designing, evaluating, implementing and proving a solution, and finally achieving the goal at two in the morning, eliminating the "last" critical bug in the application.
Software engineering requires good math and logic skills to let one conceive of an approach to solving a problem using a dumb computer. Let alone having the audacity to propose a project budget and schedule to implement a solution to the problem.
And of course, the work is hardly compensated for the dedication it takes to master. It would be far more lucrative for an intelligent person to master office politics, learn the law, develop writing skills, become an ad executive, a plumber, a salesman, an accountant, etc.
bump
The processing cells make you smart. The networking cells enable you to get along with folks without being slapped silly with a 2X4 every 20 minutes or so until you figure out that he's your sergeant, and that's your place in the formation.
Men and women are different, and in any "developmental" work place, those differences are going to assert themselves in the most powerful ways.
Ping back. US women are smarted, they see no future in this. The only future is working for the government or financed by the government.
''I have not built my own computer, I don't know everything about all the different operating systems," she said. ''These people would just sit in the front of the class and ask these complicated questions. I had no idea what they were talking about."
Please tell me this is Scrappleface...
I guess you missed the "math or engineering" part of my answer. Most technical fields are just as exacting as computer science and unforgiving of error. Each field has its own language and unique way of thinking. Over the years I have gained respect for them all and the lines between them sometimes blur. If anything, the systems engineers (who actually design the system) have the toughest task. In most cases, they are the ones who give the computer scientists their marching orders.
While I would agree that business and liberal arts fields require less (logical) rigor, don't underestimate the value of getting people to do what you want them to do. Unfortunately, many techies are better at dealing with absolutes and lack the people skills to manage.
Don't you see? Read carefully this passage:
"Today, Souvaine chairs the Tufts University computer science department, which has more female professors than male. But few younger women have followed in her generation's footsteps. Next spring, when 22 computer science graduates accept their Tufts diplomas, only four will be women."
So although a small minority of graduates are women they get majority of faculty positions. If this is not a discrimination, what is?
We are going to see more of it. After the Larry Summers affair, there is an enormous pressure on appointing women. I predict this will lead to a firm quota of 50% female professors, men will be forced out, or won't even bother to go to graduate school.
This is a radical project which will be pursued at any cost, even if it results in destruction of US science.
bingo
Plus I think it's pretty obvious "how computers can impact society."
Put this in the "duh" department.
It's actually no more complicated than that, as a previous poster said, most girls (and I R one) are not interested in how computers work any more than how cars work. They just want them to work.
Why should I learn anything about my car when I can just go to Jiffy Lube? Same thing with computers.
The stupid is when women then start complaining that there aren't more female mechanics at Jiffy Lube.
Women *can't* really be nerds. Not like men.
You have to be smart to be nerdy. Smart women usually don't have all the other characteristics that one thinks of as nerdy. Even if they're homely, lack fashion sense, or whatever. They just never cut it as real geeks.
Wow. Where to being?
First of all, the analogy of computer science with technicans at Jiffy Lube is just totally wrong. The ability to design and implement large software applications is a very marketable skill that pays very well. Even computer technicans make pretty good money and require at least a year of training and many certifications. I would think one could function at Jiffy Lube after a week of OJT.
Your second comment about computers being just another appliance is harder to counter. My teenage son made a similar comment just the other day. Most of us who are older may still think of computers as something special, but today they really are just comodities. However, one could say the same thing about cars, airplanes, or any other complex piece of machinery.
Computers, and the science behind them, remain very complicated even if its possible to use them without really understanding how they work. Beause of this, it takes years of education and training to write the software that enables less knowlegable people to be computer users. That expertise doesn't just grow on trees, which is why you can make a good living doing it.
OK, we have a situation now becoming obvious where men are starting to avoid college and this is what the fools who set academic policy come up with?
I think you misunderstood what I said. I agree with your comments completely.
Yes, I understand that both cars and computers are complicated machines that take a great deal of expertise and skill to understand and work with. My point was that one of the reasons women don't go into computer science is the same reason they don't become mechanics: THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED.
I wasn't comparing a mechanic at Jiffy Lube to someone who can build a mainframe from the ground up.
I was simply saying that for many women the inner workings of computers are just as uninteresting as the inner workings of cars. To them, both computers and cars are "appliances" that they would just as soon pay someone else (a "professional") to understand, repair and maintain.
My point was most women would no more be interested in learning how to build a computer than they are in learning how to repair a car engine. From their point of view: life is too short! :-)
My point was most women would no more be interested in learning how to build a computer than they are in learning how to repair a car engine. From their point of view: life is too short! :-)
Gee, if life is too short for this stuff (in their view), then women have no business complaining that they are underrepresented in this/that field--let alone discriminated against.
Yep. That was my point, too! See last line of my post! That gripes me as well.
Some years ago I was reading through the "employment opportunities" pages of an academic journal. I saw a large percentage with the wording "Women and minorities strongly encouraged to apply". Translated into plain English: "No white males should even bother to apply, this position is reserved"
well I can tell you this, in my Calculus class this past QTR and from what I can get from everyone coming back this QTR, there were exactly 2 women in it.
Neither are going to do anything technology related. One is going to be a High School math teacher and the other is working on some sort of medical degree....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.