![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
terrikoThis 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.
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.
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.
Re: Induction
Date: October 31st, 2009 02:08 am (UTC)For the record, my *high school grade 11* computer science course included (meaningful*) recursion. In Pascal. And had a >80% pass rate, including students with no major aptitude for CS/math who were destined to be liberal arts majors. The pass rate in the first year engineering "Problem Solving and Computers" course is 50%, after curving the grades.
I'm gonna stop ranting now, before I get too carried away.
Alex
*meaningful = used for problems that actually benefit from recursive solutions, like graph traversals and the like. Not just calculating n!.