How does biology explain the low numbers of women in CS? Hint: it doesn't.

[terriko]

This is an updated version of what I used to do back-of-the-napkin style on whatever paper was handy when someone told me in person that women just weren't good at math, and that's why there were so few women in computer science. I'm not sure what possesses people to say stuff like that to female mathematicians, really.

How does biology explain the low numbers of women in CS? Hint: it doesn't.

View more presentations from Terri Oda.

I wrote it between the hours of 4 and 6am because I was having severe insomnia, but a few people have looked at it since and don't seem to think I'm insane, so I'm sharing it. :)

Like it? Hate it? Catch the Mathnet reference? Let me know.

Comments

[terriko]

Computer science algorithmic analysis requires, among other things, pretty basic inductive proofs. These are taught in first year for math students, which is why we all considered CS students dumber than slime mould when they invariably couldn't understand induction in 3rd year and we have to listen to them whine about it in algorithms class (which was one of the cross-listed ones).

So actually, yes, it requires stuff from the math department, but it is apparently not always the stuff CS folk actually *take*.

(To be fair, our department did try to teach inductive proofs to first year students. When I was an undergraduate, ~60% of CS students dropped that course after failing the midterm and had to take it later...)

[heliumbreath]

I should probably disclaim that I studied CS a very long time ago (Calvin, class of '83) and it was then a newly-established major program there. CS curricula generally are likely to have gotten a lot more refined in the years between our trips through the system, though the remaining gray matter in my head probably isn't similarly improving with time.

A quick look at one of my old textbooks shows induction covered, and I do remember the concept.