Re:Programmers Need To Learn Statistics or I Will Kill Them ...
by jamiequint on Thursday August 30, 2007 @02:29AM
(#48156)
Computer Programmers .... 3.9%
I count 9 women out of about 230 which comes out to...
3.91%
What is the point you are trying to make anyway? Are you going to go on to tell me black people suck at programming to because they don't compose 25% of that list (but do compose 25% of graduates in CS from the stats you linked)?
Get over yourself.
Re:Programmers Need To Learn Statistics or I Will Kill Them ...
by mynameishere on Thursday August 30, 2007 @02:35AM
(#48158)
Women comprise 25.3 percent, not 3.9 percent.
Re:Programmers Need To Learn Statistics or I Will Kill Them ...
by jamiequint on Thursday August 30, 2007 @03:55AM
(#48166)
fair enough, I misread the chart, but my last statement still stands (with numbers swapped 3.9% black, 25% female). Your point?
Re:Programmers Need To Learn Statistics or I Will Kill Them ...
by bvttf on Thursday August 30, 2007 @07:49AM
(#48187)
His point was that female programmers aren't superior to male ones. Remember he quoted "women are better programmers because they have less ego". Which is a huge load on both counts.
Re:Programmers Need To Learn Statistics or I Will Kill Them ...
by Tichy on Thursday August 30, 2007 @07:58AM
(#48190)
Replying to that by "no, men are better programmers than women" doesn't seem the way to go. Especially in response to a rant about faulty statistics skills. That argument with 99% whatever certainly was extremely faulty (I can't even begin to describe how faulty, it is just waaaaaaay off). It just goes to show that some carefulness with statistics would be a good idea. Anyway, that response basically proved the point of the article.
raw numbers
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:_0JxL7T75-sJ:www.bls.go...
versus prominent programmers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programmers
I would suggest if you strip off some of the dubious or ceremonial entries ("ada") the picture gets worse still.