Slashdot Mirror
Girls-Only Computer Camps Formed At Behest of Top Google, Facebook Execs
theodp writes: Reporting on Google exec Susan Wojcicki's appearance at DreamForce, Inc.'s Tess Townsend writes: "The YouTube CEO said her daughter had stated point-blank that she did not like computers, so Wojcicki enrolled her in a computer camp. The camp made her daughter dislike tech even more. Wojcicki reported her daughter came back saying, 'Everyone in the class was a boy and nobody was like me and now I hate computers even more.' So, mom called the camp and spoke to the CEO, asking that the camp be made more welcoming to girls" (video). Fortune reported last July that it was the urging of Wojcicki and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg that prompted iD Tech Camps — which Wojcicki's and Sandberg's kids had attended — to spin off a girls-only chain of tech camps called Alexa Cafe, which was trialed in the Bay Area in 2014 and expanded to nine locations in 2015. Earlier this month, Fortune noted that Wojcicki's daughter attended the $949-a-week Alexa Cafe summer camp at Palo Alto High, which was coincidentally hosted in the multi-million dollar Media Center (video) that was built thanks to the efforts of Wojcicki's mother Esther (a long-time Paly journalism teacher) and partially furnished and equipped by sister Anne (23andMe CEO) and ex-brother-in-law Sergey Brin's charitable foundation.
Did Sergey Brin go to computer camp?
How about Carly Fiorina or Sheryl Sanberg?
What is "computer camp" all about anyways? dumping your kid somewhere so you can have some time to yourself?
Maybe Wojcicki should ask her daughter which "camp" she wants to go to if any!?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
If it's sexist to girls to keep them out of computer science classes, then it's sexist to boys to keep them out of computer science classes. If girls feel uncomfortable being the odd ones out, then, being equally human, the same thing can be said for boys who are not allowed to have their own spaces to pursue the same interests. Therefore funds should be divided to service both camps. Any other position is sex discrimination. If funds are being diverted from classes where everyone is welcome to classes where only those with certain traits are welcome, especially traits that are argued as not being relevant in the first place, then that's systemic discrimination against those who are not welcome. You can't argue for 'safe spaces' for some and not others while arguing for equality. We're either all entitled or Either we're all entitled to 'safe spaces' or none of us are.
I have a better idea. Leave the camps open to everyone. This way kids learn that life is about getting long with the opposite sex, and that society is not obligated to isolate them from those they find 'uncomfortable' for whatever reason. If girls choose to opt out where they can't get privileged treatment, then that's a character flaw they need to work on. After all, this is what we tell boys (and men) all the time.
Segregation is the answer. Sometimes groups need a space where they can be away from the things that are giving them problems, with the goal of later re-integration.
You heard it here first. Up next, white only bathrooms, and asian only programing camps.
We already segregate in education.
We segregate by age, often sorting kids into arbitrary "boxes" depending on their birthdays. It's usually quite difficult and disruptive to break out of age segregation in the public school system.
We segregate by ability level, placing students in "honors" classes or better "sections" of students, which has both benefits (teachers can tailor lessons more) and drawbacks (once a kid gets sorted in the "lower" section, it can be difficult for him/her ever to catch up to the higher section, even if very motivated and a "late bloomer" in terms of interest/ability).
These types of segregation are based on particular beliefs about age-based schemes of development and supposed goals of tracking based on previous student performance. They're well-accepted as legitimate, but obviously they fail to provide the best benefit in many cases of particular students.
The question about segregation is whether or not the overall differences justify the separation. Generally, the differences in black and white humans, for example, would NOT justify separate bathrooms (obviously).
We know that boys and girls develop physically, psychologically, socially, and intellectually on somewhat different timescales as adolescents. We know that adolescence is often a time of heightened sexual tension and awkwardness, which can result in significant differences in behaviors between segregated sex groups vs. mixed ones. We have studies that have shown both benefits and drawbacks of segregating sexes in education -- for one example, adolescent girls often are more deferential or less likely to assert their own opinions in a mixed group compared to an all-girls group. This can impact whether girls speak up to ask questions or to offer their opinion in class exercises, etc.
So, the question is not whether we should allow segregation -- we already allow segregation according to some schemes based on broad criteria (like age). If we got rid of age segregation and went back to a "one-room schoolhouse" model, it would inevitably be beneficial to some students, fo example. (Many private schools and Montessori-based schools take this approach, having classrooms that span 2-4 "grade levels," which often benefits both the young kids, who learn by watching older kids, and the older kids, who reinforce their knowledge through teaching and explanation.)
The question is whether the differences in behavior, interest, and educational quality coming from segregation by sex in this particular education context are enough to justify the separation. I don't know whether they are or not, but acting like "all segregation is bad" or refusing to acknowledge that we already do it is needlessly inflammatory and unproductive.
Seems simple enough to me. The girl will have a wildly unrealistic idea of what being a software developer is like, so that when she enters the working world, she will be totally disillusioned and hate it, and have to re-focus her education in her mid 20s.
As opposed to the boys who go to computer camp and spend all day in meetings and screwing with build errors, merge conflicts, and management changing the requirements mid-project?
I stole this Sig