Code.org: More Money For CS Instructors Who Teach More Girls

theodp writes "The same cast of billionaire characters — Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Eric Schmidt — is backing FWD.us, which is lobbying Congress for more visas to 'meet our workforce needs,' as well as Code.org, which aims to popularize Computer Science education in the U.S. to address a projected CS job shortfall. In laying out the two-pronged strategy for the Senate, Microsoft General Counsel and Code.org Board member Brad Smith argued that providing more kids with a STEM education — particularly CS — was 'an issue of critical importance to our country.' But with its K-8 learn-to-code program which calls for teachers to receive 25% less money if fewer than 40% of their CS students are girls, Smith's Code.org is sending the message that training too many boys isn't an acceptable solution to the nation's CS crisis. 'When 10 or more students complete the course,' explains Code.org, "you will receive a $750 DonorsChoose.org gift code. If 40% or more of your participating students are female, you'll receive an additional $250, for a total gift of $1,000 in DonorsChoose.org funding!" The $1+ million Code.org-DonorsChoose CS education partnership appears to draw inspiration from a $5 million Google-DoonorsChoose STEM education partnership which includes nebulous conditions that disqualify schools from AP STEM funding if projected participation by female students in AP STEM programs is deemed insufficient. So, are Zuckerberg, Gates, Ballmer, and Schmidt walking-the-gender-diversity-talk at their own companies? Not according to the NY Times, which just reported that women still account for only about 25% of all employees at Code.org supporters Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. By the way, while not mentioning these specific programs, CNET reports that Slashdot owner Dice supports the STEM efforts of Code.org and Donors Choose."

Comments

There is no "shortfall".

[Animats]

There is no "shortfall" of coders. There's just a glut of employers who want just-in-time employees cheap. Ones they can lay off at any time. Ones they don't have to send to training classes.

Women went into IT in the late 1990s, when it looked like a good career choice. Now it isn't, so they don't.

Re:There is no "shortfall".

[alexhs]

I guess that they're trying to solve the mythical man-month conundrum by having women instead.

Re:There is no "shortfall".

[hawguy]

I work for a company who would love to hire good coders. They pay well, hire permanently, and have no problem sending people to a few training courses.

All employees have to work on a 4 month contract first though, as a sort of test. The vast majority are useless, as is evident during that trial phase. We have no trouble finding resumes, but have significant trouble finding good coders.

The shortfall isn't in occupation, it's in talent. At least my own job security is good.

Maybe your 4 month contract requirement is weeding out the good coders that don't want to give up a full-time job for a 4 month test that may leave them without a job if they don't live up to some hard to quantify metric of "good enough". And apparently most people fail your test and end up out on the street after the 4 months.

A full time job is no guarantee of future employment, of course, but I doubt I'd be willing to take a contract job that "might" turn into a full time job in 4 months.

Re:There is no "shortfall".

[Charliemopps]

Exactly right, they've decided that they should be able to pay their software engineers slightly above what McDonald's workers make. So they looked at McDonald's workers and determined they could be paid so little because there are so many of them... viola, we needs lots and lots of coders so there is more competition in the workforce and we can therefore pay them less. I don't know any company that's having trouble finding programers, but I know LOTS of programers that can't find jobs. The idea that this is some sort of noble cause they're fighting to help anyone but them selves is a joke.

Re:There is no "shortfall".

[khasim]

Maybe your 4 month contract requirement is weeding out the good coders that don't want to give up a full-time job for a 4 month test that may leave them without a job if they don't live up to some hard to quantify metric of "good enough".

Too bad I don't have mod points. That's exactly the case.

Think about EVERYTHING that a good programmer has with an average employer.
Paycheck
Medical
Dental
Vacation
And so forth.

Is the 4 month contract paying so much to offset the other disadvantages? Primarily VACATION. Because 4 months means that Christmas and such will happen if the contract starts from September through December. Which puts the ending from December through March. That's HALF the year right there.

And if the programmer has kids then summer vacation is an issue as well.

Hey, just give up on your family for 4 months while we "evaluate" you.

And hope that you and your family are very healthy during those 4 months because health insurance is expensive.

So what the "testing" is really doing is selecting for younger coders without experience who are willing to take on such contracts to build up their resumes.

Re:There is no "shortfall".

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your 4 month contract requirement is weeding out the good coders that don't want to give up a full-time job for a 4 month test that may leave them without a job if they don't live up to some hard to quantify metric of "good enough". And apparently most people fail your test and end up out on the street after the 4 months.

These types of "test periods" are often just a disguise for temporary work, they don't actually plan on ever keeping anyone on permanently. They disguise it like this so the people think that if they do a really good job they'll have a better chance... but they don't. It's a good way to get a lot of productivity out of a temp worker, and a lot of more naive coders will contribute some of their best work.
Then you kick them down the road, you don't have to pay out expensive benefits, retirement, severance, etc. and can brag about how you only hire permanent, full-time positions.

Most good coders avoid such shops like the plague- it's just screaming "take advantage of me".

How can those incentives help?

[SuperKendall]

First of all, I too really want to see more females working in the tech industry. I think it's one of the more female friendly work environments around, especially since the experience can be so tailored to your interests.

That said, I don't see how those incentives are healthy or really help anything. I don't think everyone would enjoy or be good at coding; so incentives that make instructors coerce people into entering a programming class mean fewer spots for people who would enjoy and benefit from the class.

Instead we need to focus on efforts that get females to seek out classes like this (efforts like AppCampForGirls) , not get instructors to lure females into the class...

Re:Horse, meet water

[immaterial]

Sorry, Billy. Can't have you in the class. It would jeapordize my bonus...

Teaching programmer?

[TechyImmigrant]

I don't know a single competent programmer that started programming because someone taught them how. They started programming because they wanted to.

Manipulating teachers isn't going change that outcome.

 

Re:Teaching programmer?

[fredprado]

You don't know a single competent programmer who just started programming just because they wanted to. They started programming because they had the opportunity to, and the support.

Bullshit, I self taught myself. I had no teacher and my parents were computer illiterate, and many of the greatest programmers I know followed the exact same pattern.

And keep in mind that there wasn't the internet then, I had to learn from the few books on the subject I could acquire or borrow in the public library. Today all you need is access to a computer and to an Internet connection.

probably unconscious, but nevertheless well-researched and documented

Sorry to pop your bubble, but the only documented bias that exist these days is against male students, and in every field of knowledge, not only in CS, and it is a bias reinforced by initiatives like this.

Great idea

[__aaltlg1547]

Penalize teachers for things they can't control. How do you as a teacher ensure that at least 40% of your students are girls? Throw out some boys that are interested in programming?

Other Fields?

[Anonymous Coward]

So will the same apply to nursing teachers if not enough male students enroll?

Re:Other Fields?

[Arker]

Yes, and let's not forget to fine mechanics schools that fail to recruit "enough" females and cosmetology schools that fail to recruit 'enough' males as well.

For that matter why not just make it law that whenever people gather, for any reason, at any place, at any time, there must be exact parity between the genders.

Re:Other Fields?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Some years ago (1990s I think - it was quite a while ago anyway), the University of Washington proposed what amounted to reverse affirmative action in their teaching school with the goal of increasing the number of men going into that female-dominated area. They got slapped down pretty hard by the various women's groups, and quickly back pedaled.

What's sauce for the gander is obviously not sauce for the goose.

Re:Other Fields?

[Nerdfest]

There is no "reverse discrimination", only discrimination.

Re:Other Fields?

[VortexCortex]

So will the same apply to nursing teachers if not enough male students enroll?

Know what? Most Janitors are men. Hey, Coal miners too. We should mandate 50% men and women in all fields of employ. You wanted to be a councelor? Sorry, we need more women coal miners. You wanted to be a programmer? Sorry, we need more male hair dressers.

TFA is bullshit. Equality isn't 50% men vs 50% women. Equality is equal opportunity, and proportional representation. If 30% of applicants are female, and 50% of accepted applicants are female, then that's not equality it's sexism. If you have the opportunity to do something -- Be a coal miner or hair dresser or romance novelist or computer programmer, etc -- and you decide NOT to do it, then we shouldn't force you to do it. It's a fact that humans are sexually dimorphic: Men have penises, women have vaginae and breasts and bear children. It's moronic to think that human brains are somehow immune to being affected by those same genes that make our bodies so different. In fact, we've observed differences in male and female brains. Neither one is better than the other. We should offer them the same set of choices -- The same opportunities; However, we shouldn't be surprised when the genders have preferences for or against different jobs. Men and women are different. Anyone who thinks otherwise can, and should, go fuck themselves.

IT and CS are kind of shitty jobs right now -- Those same fucks who are pushing for more female applicants regardless of if they want to enroll? Yeah, they're also the ones putting ads in the newspaper and turning down any qualified applicant for any reason they can only to say they meet the requirements so they can fill the jobs with the lower paid H1B visa employees they're lobbying for having more of. Penalize teachers because girls are being smart enough not to sign up for that shite? Fuck you Zuck and the elites you rode in on.

What does this do?

[XB-70]

This is sexism at its very worst. Funding one gender over another only serves to create animosity between them and suppress the gender that is not given preferential treatment. Why don't we put the funding towards researching how each gender takes up information and teach to those pedagogic methodologies? Education is one of the few areas where we have made minimal progress in the last 100 years. Students are NOT getting noticeably smarter. If we achieve the ability to learn more, faster, we all will win.

Why are you posting as anonymous?

[khasim]

If the place is so great then name it.

The vast majority are useless, as is evident during that trial phase.

... and ...

The shortfall isn't in occupation, it's in talent.

Talent usually falls along a bell curve. And half the programmers out there will be worse than the other half of the programmers out there.

If you're having trouble finding the good programmers then you either aren't advertising the job openings enough or there is some problem with the pay/environment/project that causes the better programmers to choose other employment.

Re:Why are you posting as anonymous?

[Anonymous Coward]

50% of people are below average. No more, no less.

If you consider average people, and slightly above average people to be mediocre or worthless perhaps the problem is your own expectations of what constitutes baseline average?

My experience:
Employers want Rockstar talent for intern prices
Consumers want high quality products/services for Walmart/McDonalds prices
Employees want easy jobs that pay like the work is hard

It's called self-interest. It's a predictable human behavior. The innovative companies are the ones who manage to take an adversarial zero-sum game and find ways to align these conflicting objectives as much as possible(or are just so profitable & cutting edge they don't have to care yet).

The easiest ways for an employer to align these conflicting objectives is to find something other than money to incentivize employees to work more for less. This can be basic things such as flexible hours, relaxed dress code, the option to work from home one day a week(or more), or providing a "campus" like environment where they can receive personal mail & eat at their desk without any need to leave.

The managers who demand strict conformality, pay shit, and then are surprised that creativity suffers shouldn't be despised so much as looked at with amusement. Talented people have talented friends and if your employees are all so miserable that they would not recommend their employer to their peers it doesn't really surprise me you're having a hard time filling positions. Find some of the demands that do not offer a significant direct profit to you but pose a hardship on your employees which your managers are asking for because the consider them to be basic expectations. Relax them. Keep doing this until your employees are happy enough they would recommend working there to friends. "The pay isn't great but the benefits make it worth it."

The other option is to lower the barriers to entry until you can hire people that are disadvantaged yet capable enough to be grateful for peanut wages.

Great examples of this:
-smart people without degrees who are grateful for a job title(that normally requires a degree) even if they are only getting paid their education level.
-creating entry level positions and training average employees until they are great employees.

Good employees(at a fair price) are not hard to find or make, but most people want a free lunch without doing anything beyond posting an ad to monster.com

No sympathy here.
 

because it matters?

[argStyopa]

Really?

The politically-correct bullshit has to stop - do people REALLY believe there's a concerted effort to keep women out of coding? It must be so, because that's the only situation in which this sort of thing would matter.

What you've just told CS instructors is to MAKE SURE every last woman in their course passes, and there's a financial reward for it.

Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?

Re:because it matters?

[VortexCortex]

Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?

Maybe the women are more likely to tolerate being underpaid. If training more coders is an effort to keep wages down, it might make sense to train a class of people who have historically worked for lower wages.

Except that your revisionist historical bullshit is wrong. Women who work the same jobs for the same time as men are paid more than men, this has been true since at least the 70's. Never married women make more money than never married men. What happens when folks get married? KIDS. So, The husband may work a bit harder while the wife takes maternity leave to have a baby. Women are more likely to spend time off work with their kids. Then some deluded feminists with an agenda come along and tally up the pay of all women and all men, ignoring the choices that women and men have made were different. Then they go on about some wage gap myth that never existed in the first place.

Furthermore, your argument makes no sense. If women naturally worked harder for less pay, then it would be foolish for any business to hire a majority men. Contrary to what you're implying: WOMEN ARE NOT DUMB. Get it through your fool head: You are wrong about the wages. STOP listening to the "women are always victims" bullshit. It's wrong. Read a history book or ANY unbiased sampling of wage data for fuck's sake: Running a home and raising a kid used to be a full time job before all our modern conveniences came into existence. Men and women are different. They have different bodies and behaviors thanks to millions of years of evolution as a sexually dimorphic race. They make different life choices at different rates. We give them equal opportunity and they express their differences in the choices they make.

Hypocrites

[korbulon]

It's easy for these assholes to talk, they were the extremely lucky ones in a winner-take-all industry which often metes out its rewards in absurd and haphazard ways.

You really want to make this world a fairer place: how about paying all your employees a decent wage, and maybe even take a cut from your ridiculously high comps? Then you might be providing an actual reason for more people to get into coding, including the ones with vaginas.

Useless sexist assholes

[cfalcon]

Sexist assholes hard at work. Ignore the skilled and dedicated boys, we're trying to something something who the fuck knows.

Useless morons. I guess we can write off code.org as being anything but shitsacks.

Re:Vocabulary exists for a reason

[dgatwood]

It [the word "females"] just sounds creepy. You can logically argue that it's not on slashdot but don't use it in real life or people will think you are weird.

It's not the word. It's the way you say it in that Ferengi voice.

Just saying.

Re:Horse, meet water

[Cryacin]

Funny how companies scream about too much regulation and artificial legislation, until they do the regulation and artificial legislation.

Code.org: Inspire Students with Male Role Models

[theodp]

Kind of odd that just a few paragraphs after saying it will cap teachers' grants for classes with too many boys, Code.org instructs teachers to: 'Inspire your students: introduce computer science and make it exciting, creative and for everyone. Show your students the Code.org film, "What Most Schools Don't Teach": it features Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and Black Eyed Peas founder will.i.am and NBA star Chris Bosh talking about the importance of programming."

Re:Businesses can't hire people who don't exist.

[Ol Olsoc]

Did you miss the part about training more? It's pretty much the whole summary.

There is a very odd misconception in the world today. That is the idea, that all you have to do is plug in someone, anyone, into a job slot, and the results are the same.

It certainly isn't. The question that needs asked, is do an equal amount of young women even want to become programmers?

I have participated in many "Take your sons and daughters to work" days, and have been in on the efforts to get young women interested in tech fields and engineering.

These are the daughters of tech people and engineers, so you would expect there to be some interest.

Haven't found much at all. The young ladies prefer fields like lawyers, MBA's, and medical fields. This is a sampling of hundreds.

So we are left with perhaps forcing young ladies into tech fields?