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.
Suddenly this push for segregation makes sense - "Fools and their money..."
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Somehow, I'm betting she still doesn't like computers.
We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
This is the equivalent of fathers that insist that their boys play a sport. Sometimes the kid really isn't interested in computers.
Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently. Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?
Why single out computer camps? I'll feel the same repugnance if the girl in question was forced to go to fashion camp. We've spent the better part of the last 30 years convincing girls that they can do anything they want to, and now you expect us to applaud this behaviour?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.