Why women are reluctant to enter the field of Computer Science and Statistics?

Women represent only 20% of computer scientists and less than 10.5% of engineers (excluding
bioengineers)i. This scanty proportion is lower than the percentage of women in the professions
of MDs, or lawyers (approximately 30i%). Such low level of participation in technological
professions cannot be explained by the need for women to maintain an acceptable work-life
balance, not easily achievable in any professional life. This reality refutes the hypothesis that
women take a field of studies just for the work-life balance.

Researchers have attributed the reason, which motivates some women to choose a technical field
like engineering or computer science, to intrinsic personal leanings, strong family support; an
adequate cultural environment, the presence of a member of the family in these fields; and early
exposure to the profession.ii,iii

Except for family support, if such factors are the decisive elements explaining the choice by
women of technical fields, I should be an aberration, as well as all my female classmates who
chose this field. All of us had limited exposure to computers, and still, we decided to get our
degrees in computer science. We all came from different cultures and family composition, but
we all of us were raised in families that provided us great support in our studies, and emphasized
the importance of having strong mathematical skills.

We all came from an educational system that put the study of math a priority at the elementary
level. All of us started working our mathematical reasoning skills in elementary school, with
word problem solving, and in middle school with the early introduction to complex mathematical
reasoning through geometry, and in high school with theorem proving. I believe our strong
backgrounds in math helped us embrace with ease the field of computer science.

My personal experience is consistent with the findings of Janet E. Mertz and Janet S. Hyde of the
University of Wisconsin-Madisoniv. Mertz concluded that: "If you provide females with more
educational opportunities and more job opportunities in fields that require advanced knowledge
of math, you're going to find more women learning and performing very well in mathematics."v

1
The findings of these authors do not show any differences in natural gifts between the sexes
which could explain the discrepancies in performance between boys and girls. The difference
noticed might be better explained by educational factors, directly relating to curricula in these
math and physics matters.

Educational factors could explain why, in the US, only 18% of twelve graders perform at or
above the proficient level in sciencevi. Even students taking advanced classes in mathematics
and physics lag behind their fellow students from other developed countries at equivalent levels
of education. In this country, half of college freshmen are required to take remedial courses in
mathematics. This high proportion might reveal that the American Educational System finds the
teaching strong mathematical skills non-crucial to its student body.

The primary and secondary education schooling constitutes a major factor in determining what
women will take as a major at the university level. If their math skills are weak, their choices
decrease abruptly. Medicine and law are more accessible than computer science or engineering
for those who do not possess the adequate background in math and physics. Only students who
have acquired strong mathematical skills have the intellectual tools required to perform
successfully in computer science and engineering.

We cannot expect girls to choose computer science, or engineering if their mathematical skill is
lacking. Watering down the curricula in these matters just to make them more accessible might
worsen rather than increase the participation of women in college-level computer-science
education. If girls are not equipped with strong mathematical tools when they access college,
especially complex analytical capability and reasoning, they will systematically fail in computer
science, unless they are ready to take intensive remedial classes in math. Computer science is
not only programming but also solving hard problems—NP, AI, networking, algorithm design,
natural language processing—that require strong analytical skills that come only through years of
training.

I came to computer science with scanty exposure to it. In fact, my first interaction with
computers was a disaster. I could not write a simple program to make the computer draw a

2
square. At the university level, I started with a BS in biology, and the only reason I chose to
register in computer science 101 just because a friend told me how hard the course was. I took
the course, and I can tell you that it was really tough. However, I persisted and decided to get a
degree in computer science; and as I had no computer at home, I was forced to spend hours in the
computer lab and to reduce my social life to a strict minimum. It took me a lot of efforts, and
many sleepless nights, and, finally, I overcame!

I went on to pursue master degrees in Computer science, and in Statistics. I owe my

performance in this field to the strong mathematical background I acquired before college.

3
i
Pamela Wilson, Fact Sheet 2006, DPE Research Department, 2006
ii
James Bond, “Harvard President Faces Faculty Revolt Over Sexism Claims,” The Times, February
17, 2005.
iii
Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in STEM fields—the Congressional Hearings, July
2009.
iv
Janet E. Mertz and Janet S. Hyde,"Gender, Culture, and Mathematics," published in the June 2, 2009,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
v
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/?pa=mathNews&sa=view&newsId=600
vi
http://www.nationalmathandscience.org/index.php/staying-competitive/