Why Are There So Few Female Software Developers?

April 18th, 2010, 5 Comments »

Speaking of gender and the technology industry, the New York Times took a swing at that vexing question: why are there so few women in Silicon Valley? Writer Claire Cain Miller has done a ton of research and gathered sundry studies and reports to try to glean some answers. A few facts that were of interest:

  • “Only 18 percent of college students graduating with computer science degrees in 2008 were women, down from 37 percent in 1985, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology.” This, of course, is a radical departure from post-secondary trends where about 59% of American college students and 57% of Canadian university students are women. I tried to find a illustrative breakdown by gender and field of study, but couldn’t.
  • “Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies, and 22 percent of the software engineers at tech companies over all, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology.” Speaking anecdotally, I’ve never seen a software development team where one in five engineers were women. The average, in my experience, is more like one in ten or one in 15. I did some Google Images searches to try to illustrate this point. What’s your experience been?
  • “Women own 40 percent of the private businesses in the United States, according to the Center for Women’s Business Research. But they create only 8 percent of the venture-backed tech startups, according to Astia, a nonprofit group that advises female entrepreneurs.”

Do Startups Need Technical Founders?

The article spends a lot of column inches on the subject of female founders of startup companies, and whether women are getting frozen out of venture capital investment. It reminded me of one of the lessons I’ve learned working in and around the tech startup culture for the past 13 years.

Your startup’s likelihood of success increases significantly when some or all of the founders are technical. I’m not entirely sure why this is, but here are a few guesses:

  • You can boot strap the development from day one, because you can participate in the programming work.
  • You’re less likely to get hosed by your contract developers, because you speak their language and can act as an effective quality control monitor.
  • You’re more able to assess the skills of the developers you hire.
  • You’re likelier to have already worked in a startup, so you may have gained some insight into how to run one effectively.

I’m not alone in reaching this conclusion. An executive I know who works with VC funders recently told me that at least one technical founder was an important criteria for who he wants to work with.

I don’t know how pervasive this perspective is. Nor do I know how correct it is. In my personal experience, the companies I’ve known (many of them clients) that have been most successful have had technical founders. On the other hand, Stewart had a Masters of Philosophy and Caterina had a Bachelor of Arts when they started Flickr, so it’s not a hard and fast rule for success.

Still, this might be one explanation for some of the extra hurdles women may face when seeking funding. They’re, statistically speaking, less likely to be technical, and that becomes an additional barrier. Whether female startup founders are actually engineers or not, they’re obviously battling sexist stereotypes.

As a footnote, I don’t think that we need gender parity in every job on the planet. We should achieve opportunity parity, where anybody can qualify for any job regardless of their gender. But if we hit that target (how would we know if we had? Good question), and end up with, for example, a 33%/67% split among women and men in computer science, we should be satisfied.

5 Comments »

Math is Hard, Let’s Go Into Other Professions

May 26th, 2008, 9 Comments »

Reddit points to what promises to be a controversial article about women’s preferences for work:

Now two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women – highly qualified for the work – stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.

I’ve always felt that a goal of 50-50 splits in all workplaces seemed a little artificial. Men and women are different, and so each profession probably has a natural ratio of men to women. Some are going to be 75-25 in favour of women, and others are going to be 60-40 in favour of men.

Of course, we need to design a working world where women don’t face discrimination or inequity, regardless of what job they want. That’s tricky, and it’ll only get trickier if we start making assumptions about what women want.

There was another interesting point in the article, discussing how men and women tend to differ in achievement:

Women who are mathematically gifted are more likely than men to have strong verbal abilities as well; men who excel in math, by contrast, don’t do nearly as well in verbal skills. As a result, the career choices for math-precocious women are wider than for their male counterparts.

This is pretty anecdotal, but that was definitely true for my high school class. The smart boys were good at Math and the sciences, but usually not top of the class in English or Literature. The top-performing girls, conversely, seemed to be good at everything.

9 Comments »

How Do We Feel About Bangs?

December 20th, 2007, 12 Comments »

Lesley Feist, Indie Rock Chick and Obvious Advocate of BangsContinuing on trivial topics, and inspired by this R-rated rant about bangs, it’s time for a poll. Two polls, actually. Please, you know, only vote in the appropriate gender box.

For those of you reading this in RSS, you’re going to have to visit the post to experience the poll magic in full effect:

And, to be clear, we’re talking about ‘bangs on women’ (keep your off-colour jokes to yourselves–no, hang on, email them to me), in both cases.

UPDATE: I was complaining to Gillian–my source for new music, and she sent me the bangs link–about how every indie rock chick seems to have bangs.

Leslie Feist: Bangs.
Jenny Lewis: Bangs
Tegan and Sara: Bangs. Bangs.

I’m not a big fan of bangs. Particularly the kind of bluntly cut, straight across ones. Clearly, though, I’m in a minority.

Speaking of Feist, does anybody else think that she’s the Chrissie Hynde of her generation? Distinctive voice, great songwriter, bangs?

12 Comments »