Overconfidence = STEM Success?

source: ihatepresentations.com

/* It's been a long blogging hiatus. Am I going to get back to a more regular schedule?  I don't know, but I'm going to try. */

The "confidence gap" is a phenomenon I and many others have covered in spades before - the fact that women tend to have less confidence in their own abilities than men and the corresponding detrimental impact on women's advancement in the workplace, particularly in STEM fields.  An interesting academic article (h/t CNET) validates this phenomenon, but with a new twist -- it turns out that it may not be that women have unreasonably low self-perception, but rather that men may have a delusionally high self-perception.  And that self-perception translates into self-selecting out of STEM-based careers.  Or as the study puts it, "[t]he findings suggest that gender gaps in STEM fields are not necessarily the result of women underestimating their abilities, but rather may be due to men overestimating their abilities."


The article describes a pair of studies.  In the first study, college students, mostly freshmen, were given a pair of 15-minute tests, comprising 7 SAT questions each.  Between the first and second tests, the students were asked to estimate their performance, and were subsequently given a score for the first test.  The students then took a second test and were asked to estimate their performance.  After the first test, the men over-estimated their performance and women slightly underestimated their performance.  On the second test, those who had over-estimated their performance the first time did slightly worse, and those who had under-estimated their performance did slightly better.

In the second study, only one test was given, after which students were asked to estimate their own performance and state whether they expected to pursue math-related studies.  Those who over-estimated their own performance were more likely to be intending to pursue math than those who under-estimated their performance.  It's worth noting that while men were substantially more likely to over-estimate their performance than women, the women who did over-estimate their own performance were equally likely to intend to pursue math-related courses and careers as the men who similarly had high self-perception.

So the bottom line seems to be that we should be encouraging kids to see themselves as more successful than they really are in order to keep them going.  Maybe there is something to the trophies for everyone philosophy.

#LikeAGirl

[Image Source]

One of the Superbowl commercials that really stuck with me was the "Like A Girl" commercial (extended version embedded below).  It asks the viewer to question how using the phrase "like a girl" in a derogatory fashion impacts adolescent females.  I've never liked this phrase, but I never really thought about how hearing it impacts young girls.  But the commercial's assertion that building an association between being feminine and being inferior would undermine self-esteem makes perfect sense to me.  And once you have established that girls are inferior, there is no reason why that inferiority would only apply to physical prowess.

Also, as insults go, it's quite antiquated.  Sure, women tend to be weaker and slower than men, and if "like a girl" merely referred to speed or strength, that would be one thing - but it doesn't.  Running, throwing, or hitting like a girl means that you are using bad form, looking clumsy and foolish.  There probably was a time, perhaps when my mother was a child, when girls were not taught how to play sports and college women played six-on-six basketball in skirts.  But at least for the last several decades, it's incredibly common for girls to play coed team sports as young children, learning to run, hit, and throw just like boys do.  So why does "like a girl" conjure up images of doing something poorly?  It shouldn't, and I will call it out when I hear it being misused.

Links Roundup - January 2015

In my attempt to get back on a semi-regular posting schedule, here are some stories I've found
interesting over the last couple of months:

Separate those with prior programming experience from those without for introductory CS classes?  In its call for grant proposals to grow undergraduate computer science  participation, Google suggests this and other strategies to cut down on the intimidation factor in entry-level CS classes.

It's the best women who are more likely to leave the tech industry, says the LA Times.

When did women stop coding, and why?  NPR has some data and thoughts.

Telling the stories of pioneering women in STEM - some great stories at told on this new page from the White House.

Just an Hour - I missed CS Education Week, but it's never too late to try an hour of code.

Why does it matter?  National Geographic has several good reasons why ensuring that women and others with different perspectives can and has benefited the progress of science.

Advice for software engineers - female or otherwise. Hackbright Academy ended 2014 with a list of 12 great pieces of advice.  I especially like #9 - ask for help.  I'm notoriously bad at that one.

The Only Girl in the Room

Source

A lot of people, myself included, worry that geek culture drives women away from technical roles, but that has never been a personal issue for me.  I actually share a lot of the interests and hobbies that constitute geek culture, but that leads to an entirely different problem - one based entirely on perception and meta-perception.  My best friends are usually guys.

As a teenager I built my own computers and experimented with various alternative operating systems (OS/2, Linux, BSD, and even BeOS).  I co-SysOp'd a BBS starting when I was 12 and ran my own solo for a few years in there.  I'm perfectly happy to discuss with you the correct order in which to watch Star Wars (it's 4,5,2,3,6), even though I'm more of a Star Trek person (although, unlike my male friends, I actually liked Wesley Crusher).  In college, I spent about as many hours pushing heavy speakers around campus and hanging lights from trusses as I did attending class.  And more recently I've become obsessed with an incredibly geeky and amazingly addictive game (Ingress - Warning: causes insomnia, purging of one color from your wardrobe, volunteering to go on random errands, and planning of your life around 5-hour cycles).

What do all of these have in common?  They are all overwhelmingly "guy things."  That means it's almost certain that I am going to be hanging out with a bunch of guys -- it's not uncommon for me to be the only girl in the room in my hobbies as well as my job.  I don't mind.  My husband doesn't mind.  My relationship with these guys is no different than their relationships with each other, and yet sometimes I can't help but worry what other people (their wives/girlfriends, other coworkers, random strangers) think seeing us spend time together.  I'm sure the same thoughts are running through their heads.

In an earlier post, I suggested that we try to make sure that geek culture does not become an implicit job requirement for technical jobs - and I think that's especially important in light of the fact that even girls who share geek culture can run into problems.  But there is a reason we geeks like these things, and I think there are probably some helpful skills that are cultivated in pursuit of geeky hobbies.  I'm not going to stop my geeky hobbies, even if it means being surrounded by guys.  So if you see me spending time with a guy, don't assume there's anything between us.

Guest Post - Bias and Frustration: @puffskein

I apologize for the long blogging hiatus - I've been busy and distracted, but that's no excuse. While I'm working on polishing a long-form post and a link roundup to post soon, I wanted to share the perspective of a friend of mine.  She is in a technical role in a company not traditionally in the "tech industry" and encounters exactly the same kind of bias and frustration those in the tech industry face.  Below are her own words, detailing the issues she faces and the exhaustion she feels needing to prove herself at every new encounter.  I'm pleased to say that she has worked through many of the issues she describes below, but this experience is all-too-common.

By @puffskein

Recently I have been pleased to see a number of articles talking about the problems women face in the “Tech” industry. I have been honored to be surrounded by a group of very smart women whom I know because I was privileged enough to go to a very good university. Then work reminded me of all the subtle biases all professional women face.

I work in an industry that is for some reason not considered to be “tech” industry - even though I’ve jokingly described the company I work for as “trying to be like google but for advertising.” In the vein of STEM is for everyone, we need to broaden what we think of as the Tech industry - and start critically thinking about how we consciously and unconsciously treat women in all professional environments.

I have many male and female friends who are directly working as managers and leads in very technical fields. A few of them have erroneously pointed out to me that I don’t really work in the tech industry, or if you think that’s bad try working at a tech company, or the best, well, yes you code and do math, but you’re hiding in a border field. Women need to stop themselves whenever they feel they may say something to another women that minimizes their experience (this goes for more than just work related stuff - for instance, if a woman tells you about terrible street harassment DO NOT ask what they were wearing, it is irrelevant and rude).

Yes, I write code - usually for statistical purposes - but also sometimes for fun or just because I wanted to solve a problem. And no, that is not what we should be looking at when we consider whether or not a fields is technical or STEM related. It’s great to encourage people to code - but it is not going to solve the gender biases, both blatant and subtle, that women experience on a daily basis in the workplace. And I assure you that women experience the same things in non-STEM fields - having worked in a commercial kitchen, and a professional theatre (yep, both “male dominated” fields).

For years I thought it was just that I was “young” or looked young. But over the last few months I’ve realized it has nothing to do with that. Throughout my career I have been hit-on in unwelcome ways (by both male and female colleagues - to the point at one company where I felt I had no choice but to leave). I have been questioned by clients along the lines of “wow, did you do this all by yourself little girl?” I have had female executives at my own company say to me, “wow, you really know your stuff,” as if they were somehow surprised that another woman could be incredibly knowledgeable and competent. So please don’t think I’m just picking on men.

Many of these behaviors were not intentional or done with malice, and I make an effort to call people on them because they may not even be aware they’re doing it. I’ve even managed to make some colleagues aware of these situations so that maybe when they see them happening to other people they will stand up for what is right. This is still an uphill battle and the people who are aware of it are often left feeling like the weight of the issue rests on their shoulders and that it is their role and responsibility to change it. This I think is why many women who are successful in these fields duck out after a time. It is exhausting.

Every time a new “incident” occurs, it eats at you and your self-confidence, and through your shield of righteous indignation. No matter how much you know the person didn’t mean to do it. They didn’t mean to assume your male colleague came up with that idea (even when he said that you came up with it), it’s just a socially ingrained tick. It can leave one feeling a deep sense in futility towards doing good work - why bother if you’re not going to be recognized even when someone tries to make sure you are. Why get advanced degrees in your fields, when you will still be forced to prove yourself to every person you interact with just because you happen to be female? It is also exhausting to call out these issues every time they occur - people assume you’re being a combative b-word (which I actually take as a compliment, but some people do not, and I’ve gotten “performance review” comments along the lines of “too assertive” - which would never be written in a negative way on a male colleagues performance review).

As a society we need to address these subtle biases, not merely by convincing more young women to go into technical fields, but by also convincing more young men to follow their hearts to fields that might be atypical, or not be considered “masculine” enough. It needs to stop being about us “women” vs. them “men” - and stop putting the weight of solving this societal issue on women.

Specialist Science Teachers Send the Wrong Message

Science isn't just people
in white lab coats

There is apparently a push in Australia to put specialist science teachers in every primary school.  On first blush, this sounds like a good way to ensure that students have access to high-quality science education in early grades.  However, Charlotte Pezaro, educator, scientist, and PhD candidate says that this strategy is misguided.  She has a couple of concerns, most notably that this will "perpetuate the myth that science isn’t for everyone; that it’s for 'special', 'smarter', or 'nerdy' people, instead of the diverse group that primary school teachers are."  As she says, the science you learn in primary school is something that every adult should be able to understand, and having generalist primary teachers teach the subject helps demonstrate that fact.

Especially at a young age, the message should be that everyone should learn science, regardless of whether they think they want to be an elementary school teacher or an astrophysicist.  This is, by the way, the same concern I have for many "girls in STEM" programs - that they send the message to girls that it's abnormal to be into STEM subjects.

But wait, you say - we have specialists teaching music, art, and physical education, and those aren't just for "nerds."   True, but it is clear that those subjects are not part of the core curriculum.  And I think even as a child I subconsciously understood that those weren't really things I had to learn, unlike what we did in the normal classroom.  The fact that my teacher may or may not have been good at music, art, or sports probably did send the message that it was OK for me also not to be good at those things; given my lack of artistic abilities, that was probably good for my self esteem.  On the other hand, I don't think we should be giving such an easy-out for science.

But I do think there is a place for science specialists to enhance the regular curriculum.  I remember in 3rd or 4th grade, we had a scientist who was the parent of a kid in another class come in once every two weeks for a special science lesson.  These were highly interactive, visual, and fun. We built electro-magnets, saw chemical reactions, and had other demonstrations of the type you'd see on Mr. Wizard's World (pictured left).   If the purpose of the science specialist is to make science more fun, rather than to teach the core science curriculum, then I think it's a great idea.

#YesAllProfessions

Recently, I've seen an uptick in articles about how people in various non-engineering/science professions should learn to code. From MBA students learning to code to know their business better to law students learning to think like a lawyer by first learning to think like a system designer, the cognitive benefits of learning to code are obvious. Fields such as finance are so heavily tied to data-driven processes that one venture fund actually put an algorithm on its board.  

While simply knowing how to program has myriad benefits even if you never write another line of code in your life, once you know how to code you are more likely to identify ways in which writing code can help you do your (non-tech) job.

You won't find writing software anywhere in my job description, but if I were to list all of the times I've written a computer program to help me better perform my job, I'd be writing all day. Writing code allows me to sift through large amounts of data to help myself and my colleagues make better decisions.   I make maps, graphs, lists, and summaries by writing short programs that we would otherwise either enlist interns to devote time making or would otherwise be unable to do entirely.

These programming tasks are often very small - sometimes taking just minutes to complete, and rarely more than a few hours.  Just to explain the problem to a non-lawyer developer would often take as much time as it takes me to write the program because I have the benefit of having both a complete understanding of the problem and the skills necessary to solve it.

This is, I'm sure, part of why V. David Zvenyach is writing a free online Coding for Lawyers book. While computer science is a complex and challenging field, learning to write simple programs it not hard.  I encourage everyone to take advantage of various free online resources to learn to code, such as the Code Academy or the Hour of Code exercises on code.org.