The following is the full text of a letter I wrote to the Wired interviewer.
Dear Lakshmi Chaudhry -
Your recent interview with Dr. Borg is fascinating on a philosophical and sociological level; she makes several useful points about how the sexes are socialized and educated differently. The broad idea she tried to get across, that women deserve equal opportunities with technology, is right on the money. However, the interview is also quite misleading.
The first problem is with the age of Dr. Borg's data. A quick search of the Department of Education web page shows that the most recent data on the sexes' fields of study date back to 1995-96 - hearkening back to a time when only a fifth the number of people who use the Internet today were online. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the percentages (both male and female) of students entering computer science have increased in the intervening years, given the opportunities for exciting and lucrative employment in that field.
Second, it is important to look at the data as a whole. Only 324 women received bachelor degrees in computer science in 1971; in 1995, over 6,900 women did. Put another way, women received 14 percent of all comp-sci bachelor degrees in 1971, and 28 percent in 1995. The number of women granted masters in computer science went from 164 in 1971 to 2,699 in 1995. The number of women granted doctorates in computer science went from 3 (!!!) in 1971 to 161 in 1995.
So, on the whole, the number and the percentage of women getting degrees in computer science has increased dramatically.
Dr. Borg claims that the number of women going into engineering has "leveled off in the last five years." Dr. Borg probably has little or no data from the last five years, since there is such a dearth of available evidence. But let's consider the data that are available, which go through 1995-96. What can she possibly mean?
* Has the number of women getting undergrad degrees in engineering decreased? Nope - the number and the percentage have both held pretty steady since the late 70s. About 2 percent of all women who get bachelors get them in engineering, and about 13 percent of all men who get bachelors get them in engineering.
* What about compared to men? Have men been outpacing women in getting these degrees? No. In the 50s and 60s, men received very nearly 100 percent of all engineering bachelors. By 1980, women earned 10 percent of them, and by 1996, women earned 16 percent.
* Has the number of women getting bachelors in computer science decreased? Yes - in fact, this is the only "leveling off" anywhere in the data. However, this is because the number of women AND men getting bachelors spiked in the early 80s and decreased through the mid-90s. As far as the data indicate, fewer women AND men are getting bachelors in computer science, but despite the dip, the percentage of women scholars getting comp-sci degrees is holding steady. A related statistic, the percentage of the comp-sci degrees that go to women, has barely moved, except to parallel the spike in the mid-80s.
To summarize my two main points: (1) the data Dr. Borg and others cite to prove that the technology gender gap is widening are severely out of date; and (2) even so, the data do not actually show what they purportedly show.
Dr. Borg's fearful and pessimistic attitude ("I'm quite frightened.... [T]he rollercoaster will go down eventually.") is not warranted, and not justified by facts. Yes, there is a technology gender gap, but it is closing.
Now, I greatly admire many things you have written, including your recent piece on the Harris polling firm, which did a good job of explaining a technical matter. However, the sentence used to summarize your article on Wired's homepage ("the number of women in computer science is actually decreasing") doesn't even correspond to Dr. Borg's claim, which is that the *percentage* of women in these fields is decreasing. Also, you seem to miss that point (percentages vs. numbers) in your follow-up question, asking about "these declining numbers" - when in fact, the numbers are not declining.
(Incidentally, you asked about math and *sciences*. In other fields of scientific endeavor, the gender gap has disappeared. For example, in biological sciences over half of all degrees have gone to women in recent years.)
This is very important, and deserves clarification, not just because your interview is in danger of crossing the line between journalism and activism, but because these distorted and outdated facts can inappropriately influence policymakers. Politicians and regulators are apt to act on incomplete evidence, and if they are fooled into believing the technology gender gap is widening, they may make inappropriate decisions.
************** Post-script: My letter was published on Wired's Rants and Raves page. I also received a gracious reply from the interviewer, who acknowledged that "Maybe I should keep a closer eye on the dek (front-door teaser) next time." -ATK
Clearly the Web is useful for raising money - candidates have raised millions of dollars online this year, to the point where the Web may seriously influence national American politics for the first time. (In fact, Mr. Gore's Democratic opponent, Mr. Bradley, has apparently raised more money over the Internet than in 45 states.)
But beyond the money, what do you see as the long-term effects of the Internet on politics? Do you, like Dick Morris, envision the Internet transforming into a forum for political reform, a place where citizens will "make their voices heard" directly, thereby diminishing the power of lobbyists and "entrenched interests"? Or will our political system simply transfer to the Web with a few adaptations to adjust to the faster speed of Web life? How will politics in the information age - I mean decades down the road, not months - be practiced differently than today?
One of the important implications of claiming there are "continents" on the web is that each continent, with its own culture and habits and (most important) patterns of use may end up with different structural design from the others.
For instance, Bill Joy of Sun argues in this Techweb piece that there are "six webs," each with different uses and needs.
Whether you call them webs or continents, will they remain associated? Will there be new means of accessing each one? How long will the web model last? Will Internet architecture develop layers to meet the varying needs of the different communities that wish to be online, but not in a cookie-cutter way?
In other words, beyond the "cultural" differences on the web (which sometimes mirror, sometimes amplify and often usefully distort cultural differences in society), what will the physical implications be, in terms of how we connect?
Slashdot Mirror
The following is the full text of a letter I wrote to the Wired interviewer.
Dear Lakshmi Chaudhry -
Your recent interview with Dr. Borg is fascinating on a philosophical and sociological level; she makes several useful points about how the sexes are socialized and educated differently. The broad idea she tried to get across, that women deserve equal opportunities with technology, is right on the money. However, the interview is also quite misleading.
The first problem is with the age of Dr. Borg's data. A quick search of the Department of Education web page shows that the most recent data on the sexes' fields of study date back to 1995-96 - hearkening back to a time when only a fifth the number of people who use the Internet today were online. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the percentages (both male and female) of students entering computer science have increased in the intervening years, given the opportunities for exciting and lucrative employment in that field.
Second, it is important to look at the data as a whole. Only 324 women received bachelor degrees in computer science in 1971; in 1995, over 6,900 women did. Put another way, women received 14 percent of all comp-sci bachelor degrees in 1971, and 28 percent in 1995. The number of women granted masters in computer science went from 164 in 1971 to 2,699 in 1995. The number of women granted doctorates in computer science went from 3 (!!!) in 1971 to 161 in 1995.
So, on the whole, the number and the percentage of women getting degrees in computer science has increased dramatically.
Dr. Borg claims that the number of women going into engineering has "leveled off in the last five years." Dr. Borg probably has little or no data from the last five years, since there is such a dearth of available evidence. But let's consider the data that are available, which go through 1995-96. What can she possibly mean?
* Has the number of women getting undergrad degrees in engineering decreased? Nope - the number and the percentage have both held pretty steady since the late 70s. About 2 percent of all women who get bachelors get them in engineering, and about 13 percent of all men who get bachelors get them in engineering.
* What about compared to men? Have men been outpacing women in getting these degrees? No. In the 50s and 60s, men received very nearly 100 percent of all engineering bachelors. By 1980, women earned 10 percent of them, and by 1996, women earned 16 percent.
* Has the number of women getting bachelors in computer science decreased? Yes - in fact, this is the only "leveling off" anywhere in the data. However, this is because the number of women AND men getting bachelors spiked in the early 80s and decreased through the mid-90s. As far as the data indicate, fewer women AND men are getting bachelors in computer science, but despite the dip, the percentage of women scholars getting comp-sci degrees is holding steady. A related statistic, the percentage of the comp-sci degrees that go to women, has barely moved, except to parallel the spike in the mid-80s.
To summarize my two main points: (1) the data Dr. Borg and others cite to prove that the technology gender gap is widening are severely out of date; and (2) even so, the data do not actually show what they purportedly show.
Dr. Borg's fearful and pessimistic attitude ("I'm quite frightened. ... [T]he rollercoaster will go down eventually.") is not warranted, and not justified by facts. Yes, there is a technology gender gap, but it is closing.
Now, I greatly admire many things you have written, including your recent piece on the Harris polling firm, which did a good job of explaining a technical matter. However, the sentence used to summarize your article on Wired's homepage ("the number of women in computer science is actually decreasing") doesn't even correspond to Dr. Borg's claim, which is that the *percentage* of women in these fields is decreasing. Also, you seem to miss that point (percentages vs. numbers) in your follow-up question, asking about "these declining numbers" - when in fact, the numbers are not declining.
(Incidentally, you asked about math and *sciences*. In other fields of scientific endeavor, the gender gap has disappeared. For example, in biological sciences over half of all degrees have gone to women in recent years.)
This is very important, and deserves clarification, not just because your interview is in danger of crossing the line between journalism and activism, but because these distorted and outdated facts can inappropriately influence policymakers. Politicians and regulators are apt to act on incomplete evidence, and if they are fooled into believing the technology gender gap is widening, they may make inappropriate decisions.
Thanks for your time.
Yours,
Adam Keiper
Washington, D.C.
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
**************
Post-script: My letter was published on Wired's Rants and Raves page. I also received a gracious reply from the interviewer, who acknowledged that "Maybe I should keep a closer eye on the dek (front-door teaser) next time." -ATK
Clearly the Web is useful for raising money - candidates have raised millions of dollars online this year, to the point where the Web may seriously influence national American politics for the first time. (In fact, Mr. Gore's Democratic opponent, Mr. Bradley, has apparently raised more money over the Internet than in 45 states.)
But beyond the money, what do you see as the long-term effects of the Internet on politics? Do you, like Dick Morris, envision the Internet transforming into a forum for political reform, a place where citizens will "make their voices heard" directly, thereby diminishing the power of lobbyists and "entrenched interests"? Or will our political system simply transfer to the Web with a few adaptations to adjust to the faster speed of Web life? How will politics in the information age - I mean decades down the road, not months - be practiced differently than today?
A. Keiper ________________________
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
One of the important implications of claiming there are "continents" on the web is that each continent, with its own culture and habits and (most important) patterns of use may end up with different structural design from the others.
For instance, Bill Joy of Sun argues in this Techweb piece that there are "six webs," each with different uses and needs.
Whether you call them webs or continents, will they remain associated? Will there be new means of accessing each one? How long will the web model last? Will Internet architecture develop layers to meet the varying needs of the different communities that wish to be online, but not in a cookie-cutter way?
In other words, beyond the "cultural" differences on the web (which sometimes mirror, sometimes amplify and often usefully distort cultural differences in society), what will the physical implications be, in terms of how we connect?
A. Keiper
____________________
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society