Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Saturday June 07 2014, @05:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the food-for-thought dept.

A huge nationwide push is underway, funded by the nonprofit Code.org's corporate and billionaire donors, from Amazon and Google to Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, to introduce American schoolchildren to coding and to redefine it as a basic skill to be learned alongside the three R's.

Code.org's curriculum has been adopted by 20,000 teachers from kindergarten to 12th grade. But if coding is the new lingua franca, literacy rates for girls are dropping: Last year, girls made up 18.5 percent of A.P. computer science test-takers nationwide, a slight decrease from the year before. In three states, no girls took the test at all. An abysmal 0.4 percent of girls entering college intend to major in computer science [PDF]. And in 2013, women made up 14 percent of all computer science graduates down from 36 percent in 1984. The imbalance persists in the tech industry. Just this week, Google released data showing that women account for just 17 percent of its tech employees.

The problem is not only getting girls to computer class, but keeping them there.

See also girlswhocode.com.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:49AM (#52822)

    You should realize that your argument is the functional equivalent of saying that black people were happier being slaves, that the problem isn't the system, its all the rabble-rousing getting people worked up. I think the reason you've never seen any discriminatory behavior on all your time teaching comp sci is because you aren't an unbiased observer. Its like how none of the people working on wall street think anything that might be wrong with modern finance is solely the fault of government regulation.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @04:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @04:25AM (#52850)

    What the fuck are you smoking? Your equivocation of women making a choice to not be in I.T. positions to forcing people into slavery is batshit crazy. Get the fuck out of here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @06:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @06:23AM (#52883)

      That's not the equivalence here, but I can see how it might serve a sexist to frame it that way. It lets you avoid facing the point that blaming the people who try to correct a wrong for the wrong has been standard operating procedure by those who defend inequality no matter who it involves.

      FYI: Equivocation [merriam-webster.com] does not mean what you think it means.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @02:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @02:59PM (#52953)

        You haven't proven that there is a wrong.