> Nothing that happens between twelfth grade and death decreases the percent of women interested in computer science one whit.
Statistics [1]: 56% of women in technology leave their employer mid-career, and 24% of these women take a non-technical job with a different employer. "This is double the turnover rate of men."
It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decreases women's interest in CS. It is not due to women leaving their career for family either, since many of this 56% decide to continue working, but in a non-technical role.
I'm probably going to get the shit flamed out of me for being a woman daring to comment in a thread about feminism, but fuck it. Maybe the Internet might surprise me.
I'm one of those 56% of women who left mid-career for a non-technical job; I don't have a family of my own, so that wasn't a contributing factor. Sexism was not the primary reason why I left, but it was a major factor in my decision. I returned to the field after a decade because no other job has been as satisfying as coding is, but it's still a really unbalanced field.
The things that most guys don't get is that it's usually not anything they consciously do. It's unconscious behavior. The one I wrestled with the most - and still wrestle with - was the unspoken assumption that because I'm a woman that I'm not technically competent. If I enter a technical conversation with male colleagues, their default stance is that I'm either less knowledgeable than they are (even if I'm the senior dev), or that I'm wrong. Either I get challenged and attacked on what I say, or I'm talked down to like a child. My male colleagues don't treat other men this way, even if the men they're speaking to is non-technical.
It's also about isolation. I'm on a team of 30, but counting myself, there's only two women. The only thing that's unusual about it is that there's two of us. It's far more common for me to be the only woman in the room. I can count the number of female developers I've worked with on one hand with fingers to spare. Tech is an incredibly isolating field for women; we're in an environment that is frequently uncomfortable (and sometimes outright dangerous) with very few allies and even fewer mentors and leaders. The women mentors and leaders we do see are often publicly lambasted and denigrated for existing, or harassed completely out of the field.
It's not getting easier to be a woman in tech, it's getting harder. Used to be I could connect to other women techies online without much difficulty; now we find our community spaces overrun with trolls and strident voices about phantom spectre of "the SJW". I can't read about women coders on places like Slashdot or HN without the legions of comments about how feminism is evil and women are inferior. I'm a developer in a highly specialized field, and I have seriously considered ceasing any contribution to the Internet outside of my code deployments, because there's only so much harassment one person can take before they just give the fuck up.
The one I wrestled with the most - and still wrestle with - was the unspoken assumption that because I'm a woman that I'm not technically competent. If I enter a technical conversation with male colleagues, their default stance is that I'm either less knowledgeable than they are (even if I'm the senior dev), or that I'm wrong. Either I get challenged and attacked on what I say, or I'm talked down to like a child. My male colleagues don't treat other men this way, even if the men they're speaking to is non-technical.
I really appreciated this comment. As a black software engineer I feel I've experienced a lot of the same condescension and isolation in my career. Most days it isn't so bad that it makes me want to quit, but sometimes it is that bad. I can definitely understand how someone could get to the point where she would want to leave the field altogether.
I liked the parent article, but what I think the author misses is that the dismissiveness we sometimes encounter from collaborators isn't just about hurt feelings or disrespect, but can actually pose a serious obstacle to solving the problem at hand.
> It is not due to women leaving their career for family either, since many of this 56% decide to continue working, but in a non-technical role.
I'm not sure how you jumped from A to B there? Yes, this is an anecdote, but I know more than a handful of women who were in non-technical roles to begin with, started a family, and then entered a completely different industry when they went back to work. Most of them just didn't like what they were doing in their old job.
You quite possibly have a valid and correct point, I'm just having a hard time justifying it based on my own experiences.
It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decreases women's interest in CS. It is not due to women leaving their career for family either, since many of this 56% decide to continue working, but in a non-technical role.
I would posit, that this "something," if it exists, is also experienced by older programmers and by programmers who, for whatever reason, have a harder time presenting themselves as a "Standard Silicon Valley guy."
As an oddball older programmer, I would attest: I strongly suspect this "something" definitely exists.
Don't forget ugly people, short people, and fat people.
That "something" is bias and is going to be impossible to overcome so long as we let human emotions be involved in decision making processes. The best you can do is recognize them and try to overcome them (when appropriate), but they are still there (and you are then just being biased with your anti-bias, since you are more likely to catch your known biases).
The comment you are replying to was deleted before I could read it so I don't have sufficient context to know if this distinction matters, but the part you quoted talks about interest in computer science, but the stats you cite are about practicing computer science. There are many reasons one might stop practicing something other than losing interest in it.
This quote caught my eye from the FAQ section of the fellowship page:
Can a single person apply for funding?
Yes, but the odds of being accepted are lower. A startup is too much work for one person.
A statement such as "A startup is too much work for one person" seems unusually stark and absolute for a company as progressive as YC. There are always exceptions, as mattkrisiloff as noted below.
There is a reason that solo founder companies are considered exceptional.
I've been running my own solo small business for 8 years now. No need to mince words, it sucks. Trying to do the same, but with a startup? Where rapid growth is the key indicator for whether your business is dead or alive? I honestly don't believe most people are capable.
They are very strongly advising people to get help. It's good advice.
But they use empirical evidence to back up that statement. YC is in the trenches everyday and see how much work it is. It's an observation from past experiences.
I never used the Homejoy service, but I was in the audience for the Startup School Europe talks last year where Adora gave a fantastic speech (Notes: http://theinflexion.com/blog/2014/07/26/notes-from-startup-s...) about going through so many ideas and working so hard to get to Homejoy. The talk's ending had a 'And look, we made it, so you can too' feel, and I had no idea that they were doing anything but crushing it after all those years of grinding work.
Its hard not to be disheartened when a pair who seem to have worked as hard as they have still don't make it with an idea. I just hope they keep going.
I get the opposite reaction when I hear of someone grinding away until they've got a startup. I understand that investors invest in people. But the idea has to have a life of it's own, and a value on its own. I remember when urban adventure games were a thing, and a thing that tended to attract very energetic people. But it was shown that no matter how much hustle you've got, urban adventure games are not an investable thing.
Success comes primarily from doing the right things, not working hard. If you work hard, but are doing the wrong things, your chances of success are slim to none.
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but after a few minutes of googling I am still unclear on the answer so I thought I'd ask it here. I am about to start studying in the US (college), so I was wondering if the USDS accepts non-American citizens? Even without a green card? (I'm British, btw).
Sort of, but ef is acting like a pre-accelerator. The money (1100 pounds a month) for three months is not really serious either.
My idea was more go out and hire all the great people (they are not that hard to find, just hire), pay them well (none of this 50% of the market wage in return for 0.0002% of the company), and put them to work with the minimium of outside friction. If you went to hire talent with an offer of good pay, total freedom in business direction, minimal VC politics, and solid financial support you would be able to put together some amazing teams. On top of this you could give up listening to crazy pitches from spotty 22 year olds.
It is not that hard to identify the great people to hire if you are hiring people with a proven track record. I agree it is hard to identify which people with potential will be a success (ie the new graduates), but if you widen your search you should be able to identify those people who have actually built something great.
"Also, the sooner "pull" payments become a rare exception, the better."
Credit card charges that are pull-based are generally a bad thing, but not all pull-based payments are bad for consumers. For example, the Direct Debit scheme in the UK requires the consumer to be notified 5 working days before payment is taken, and the consumer has the right to get a refund from the bank without dispute; it is then the bank's job to go and get the money bank from the merchant. This latter feature in particular is important, and should be implemented for credit card pre-authorisations as well.
I don't see how is that direct debit system better for consumers than what we have here in Portugal, where the consumer is the one initiating the debit authorization (using a code provided by the merchant).
Because it would be unfortunate if one were to accidentally forget to authorise one's mortgage payment to be paid for a few months, only to find oneself repossessed. Direct debit allows a regular bill payment to be forgotten about, but with the protection that you are informed well in advance of any changes (for instance if the mortgage interest rate goes up).
If your house gets repossessed after missing a payment, you have something very wrong with your legal system. Not even my $5 VPS gets repossessed after missing a payment.
The point is it gives you all the same powers with the added convenience of being able to passively approve payments. Active direct debit agreements can be viewed through banks' online banking services and you can cancel them with one click. I don't really see how your system is better for consumers.
I've done a full-time 5 day course at Steer on iOS and a 10-week evening course at General Assembly on Ruby. Both were useful, but IMO not worth the cost. I have friends who have completed the GA full-time bootcamp, and some who have done the Makers Academy one. MA seems to be better for helping you become a real software developer, rather than someone who knows a bit about apps.
Yes. You are generalizing. Massively. There is no possible situation in which a VC I had met could ask me out without making me feel extremely uncomfortable, to put it lightly.
There are lots of logical reasons for this reaction, and I will list some of them briefly. 1) Power of VC network is implicit threat to 'play nice' and go along with it, even if VC in question has no intention of being nasty in any way. 2) The power imbalance already implicit in VC/founder relations makes 'asking me out' incredibly tense. 3) It would make me doubt myself- "Is every other VC I am talking to (since they are 90% men) just interested in me for that reason?".
The reasons you list are often cited reasons why managers or people in authority should not "fraternize" with subordinates. You're right, very logical reasons, and why most companies frown on that behavior.
I understand that founders want to be taken seriously, and and investor blurring the lines between professional and personal relationships can jeopardize that, but not all relationships with investors are like that, and I'd imagine not all founders would doubt themselves if approached after the fact.
I am biased, because in Seattle, the VC community isn't as threatening from a "play nice or else" perspective.
Also, I'm a sucker for romance and the boy meets girl, and live happily ever after story.
I think balls187 left off one important point as a VC: make it clear that you aren't interested in investing in their company, but want to go for coffee/lunch/whatever on a purely personal basis.
As a founder, the discomfort comes from not knowing the VC's intentions and how you are supposed to act with regards to your company. The VC needs to draw a clear line (ruling out investment and all other professional involvement) that takes a lot of that discomfort out of the situation, and removes the mixing of business and pleasure.
> make it clear that you aren't interested in investing in their company, but want to go for coffee/lunch/whatever on a purely personal basis.
You're 100% right (which is why I said don't mislead).
However, this is far more nuanced, than I first imagined. From purely a dating perspective, I'm not sure how a guy could recover from rejecting a women professionally, to getting her to accepting a date.
I guess the circumstances would have to be something like investment thesis don't align "we do biotech, your company is education."
In startups, I'd argue that founders personal lives and their businesses are inextricably linked, and rejecting one, is tantamount to rejecting the other.
Which makes for an inbalanced dynamic as acabrahams mentioned, which could be troublesome.
I've been waiting for something like this to arrive for a while. In Israel and the West Bank, services called sheiruts act as mini-buses; they're taxis that pick up multiple passengers going in the same direction, usually for the same price as a public bus ticket. When buses are scarce, they are a really useful service. Could UberPool be like this?
Sounds similar to songthaews in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Aside from bikes, they seem to be the primary way of getting around and you just hail them like a taxi, talk to the driver to confirm that they're headed in somewhat the right direction, and it all works a bit like a dynamically selected bus route.
In Brazil, mainly in Rio de Janeiro, we have the kombis (usually, but not necessarily VW Kombis) that are basically the same. São Paulo, used to have them, but they were taken off the road. Personally, I find them to be much more convenient than busses half the time, especially since the city really only responds to increases to demand around election time.
i.e. a route becomes increasingly crowded to the point you can't get on the bus anymore. The problem gets so bad over a few years that you have to let 3-4 busses pass. An election comes up and miraculously the increased demand is met. kombis help alleviate these shenanigans.
2. One L by Scott Turow
3. The Dark Forest by Cixin Liu
4. The Time Machine by H.G. Wells
5. Believer: My Forty Years in Politics by David Axelrod
6. The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells
7. Augustus: First Emperor of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy
8. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson (re-read)
9. I, Claudius by Robert Graves
10. Consider Phlebas by Iain M. Banks
11. The Fear Index by Robert Harris
12. Red Dragon by Thomas Harris (re-read)
13. The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris (re-read)
14. Hannibal by Thomas Harris (re-read)
15. Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin (re-read)
16. Ready Player One by Ernest Cline (re-read)
17. Claudius the God by Robert Graves
Re-reads take hardly any time at all, so I'm not sure whether to count them. If you're not, then 11 books read so far.