Slashdot Mirror
CSTA: Google Surveying Educators On Unconscious Biases of Students, Parents
theodp writes: According to a Computer Science Teachers Association tweet, Google is reportedly asking educators to assess the unconscious bias of students and their parents for the search giant. "We are in the early stages of learning how unconscious bias plays out in schools, and who would benefit most from bias busting materials," begins the linked-to 5-page Google Form, which sports a ub-edu@google.com email address, but lists no contact name. "This survey should take 15 minutes to complete, and your responses are confidential, meaning that your feedback will not be attributed to you and the data will only be used in aggregate form." The form asks educators to "list the names of organizations, tools, and resources that you have used to combat unconscious bias," which is defined as "the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner." A sample question: "Who do you think would benefit most from unconscious bias training at your school (or program)? Rank the following people in order (1=would most benefit to 5=would benefit least) training: Student, Parent (or guardian), Teacher (or educator), Guidance counselor, Principal." Google deflected criticism for its lack of women techies in the past by blaming parents' unconscious biases for not steering their girls to study computer science, suggesting an intervention was needed. "Outreach programs," advised Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."
Your gross oversimplification is indeed ridiculous, but since that's not what Google is claiming it only speaks to your own (miss)understanding of the issue.
From an early age there is subconscious bias, not just from parents but from teachers as well. Since children tend not to be very interested in sex for the first 10+ years of their lives, and when they do become interested it's usually the unwillingness to educate and influence that is the problem, it's not really the same thing at all.
There has been a lot of study in this area. I know, it's sociology and psychology, both "bunk" sciences where the inability to provide control subjects who are isolated from birth is a severe handicap, but some people are trying to use it to improve things. And, well, it does seem to work, e.g. for the treatment of PTSD. So I'd say we should at least give it a try.
Anyway, we know that social factors and parental bias have a strong influence. The classic example is pink being a girl's colour. Most girls come to associate pink with their gender at an early age, yet 100 years it was considered a masculine colour and soft, pale blue was feminine. So if we can inadvertently flip that around, perhaps there are other changes we can make deliberately that will actually improve things.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"As I have a daughter, I know better. Of course bias is a big part of it, expressed verbally and non-verbally. Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias."
Not only that. In Germany, they found out that teachers are unconscious biased against lower class pupils on the sole first-name the kids have. Because lower class parents often name their kids like celebrities or characters in TV-shows, while the more educated classes name their kids more traditionally.
If the kids are called Kevin, Bejoncé, Kanye or Ronny for example, they get lower grades for the same content.
The bias has even a name, it's called 'Kevinism'.
https://namecurator.wordpress....
http://www.ctvnews.ca/kevin-ch...
Shocking that parents are happy when their daughters like feminine things. It's almost like they don't think they're defective males and their views on clothing is orthogonal to computer issues.
There's nothing biased about that unless it's clearly hostility to the idea of women spending a lot of time on it. Unless she's doing "something geeky" with it like learning how to write code, doing semi-advanced artistic work, etc. then they probably have a point. I knew plenty of parents of boys who told their kids to GTF off their computer and go outside because all they were doing is surfing the web and playing games. Nothing biased about that either.
And in real life, geek =~ dork to a lot of people, particularly women and particularly with younger geek males. A number of us grow to the point of being able to match the charisma and confidence of "normal men," but many of don't get there. We have not, and likely never will, reach a point where this stuff is considered cool on par with sports and stuff like that.
Most of the reasons why geek culture is considered more palatable is because the STEM industry booms combined with the decline in many fields has reduced our economic competition for social status. If you haven't been paying attention, the legal profession has been hit very hard by a glut of graduates and a dearth of positions that pay a wage better than a VB6 legacy app maintenance position.
Yes you can do it. Statistically, you won't and for the same reason that you will never kindle an interest in "nurturing jobs" in a majority of males no matter how aggressive you are.
I know a very religious family that has a very good track record of getting their daughters into STEM fields. The older daughter was naturally interested, so they just put the opportunities there in front of her. You know how they got their younger daughter involved? They told her that if she couldn't prove how she was going to support herself on the degree, they wouldn't pay for it. Didn't matter to them what she chose, just couldn't be something stupid like a BA in Psychology or Political Science. Worked like a charm at motivating her to be practical. Turns out that rather than focusing on bias, forcing women to choose a productive major or simply not go to college on their parents' dime works pretty well.
No one is researching the bias leading to medical schools with 90% women.
Actually there are people researching that. Lack of male nurses is a problem. The American Assembly for Men in Nursing offers support and scholarships in the US, for example.
No one is researching the bias leading to 99% male construction workers, or garbage men.
I spent five seconds searching for this on Google and it turns out that actually there is plenty of research and academic discourse on this subject, as well as newspaper articles and the like:
http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/p...
http://www.academia.edu/634834...
http://www.equalityhumanrights...
http://www.theguardian.com/sus...
http://www.theguardian.com/sus...
People do care, you are just too lazy to even type a few words into Google.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC