Happy Birthday, Ada! [CSEdWeek]

Today is the great Ada Lovelace's birthday. In case you have't noticed my icon, she has always been my favorite computer scientist, so I was delighted to see today's Google's doodle:

Ada's birthday celebration also helps kick off Computer Science Education Week (CSEdWeek) which, as a computer science educator (and friend of NCWIT), I am honored to support. CSEdWeek is a worldwide effort to increase interest and participation in the awesomeness that is CS. Lots of great resources on the CSEdWeek website, go check it out.

Finally, in other exciting FCS news, it turns out yesterday was Grace Hopper's birthday! Two famous FCSes were born one day apart. I think that's really cool. Any of you share birthdays with Grace or Ada? This is actually a fun math problem, and, indeed, forms the basis of a cryptological attack called the the birthday attack.

See! Not only is CS everywhere, but:

Computer Science Education Week

I forgot to mention this before, but this week is Computer Science Education Week. The website has some pretty great resources for helping encourage you, your students, your kids, etc for getting started in CS, including links to Alice and Scratch (fun starter languages I've always loved), Computational Fairy Tales (which I'd never seen before but really love now!), Computer Science Unplugged (from our friends over at NCWIT), and a wealth of other things.

I really like their Which Computer Scientist Are You page, because it contains women and people of color.  You can guess who I'd pick...

Signal Boost: Stand With Science

Junior PI Scientist-Mom-Wife wrote to ask me to signal boost Stand With Science, and I am more than happy to oblige. I'm actually going to repost her words here, to tell you about this effort.

Next week the Congress Joint Select 'super' Committee on Deficit Reduction will decide where to make the next big cuts. If they do not agree or find a plan to reduce spending, sweeping cuts will be put into effect that will likely affect everyone in science and academia.

A group of MIT students have started a letter urging Congress not to cut science funding and they are amassing signatures. They include an amazing video that describes the importance of science, engineering and technology to our daily lives and to American jobs. It's a positive message, and really accessible to the public.

There are now about 7000 signatories on this letter, including Nobel Prize winners and numerous well known scientists (you can view signatories Bob Horvitz #6854, Philip Sharp #6866, Bob Weinberg #6846, Susan Lindquist #6727, Doug Melton #6994, Ray MacDonald#3652, Gary Ruvkun #3712, Didier Stainier #4064, Richard Hynes, Luisa Iruela-Arispe #5087, Andrew Ewald #6899, etc...) and the number keeps growing.

The video and petition have clearly gone viral, which is great. The main message is that the future of science is at stake.

This video and letter have been covered by the NY Times, Science (AAAS) and many other news organizations and blogs. We need faculty and respected scientists to help further this worthy request to Congress.

If you have time, please view the MIT student video and consider signing the letter.

Here's the video:

Readers, please sign this letter. Bloggers, please blog about this. Make some noise. The last thing we want to do in this economy is cut STEM research funding - let's send a strong message to Congress.

Vanished!

MIT has produced a science video game for kids that looks to be both a lot of fun and educational. It's for kids aged 10-14.

Image Descrption: A screen shot from the Vanished game.
Credit: MIT

Here's an excerpt from an article about the game:

The game’s conceptual origins lie in discussions researchers in the Comparative Media Studies group have had with Smithsonian officials, dating back about four years. The creation of “Vanished” took place after the MIT researchers won a grant to develop the game from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2009.

The NSF has an interest in projects such as “Vanished” due in part to the agency’s findings, over many years of research surveys, that much of the public’s science knowledge comes from outside the classroom. The grant for developing the game came from the NSF’s program in “Informal Science Education,” which seeks new ways to interest students in science.

The MIT researchers hope that participating in “Vanished” will help break down myths among students, and help them realize that in asking questions and hunting for information, they are performing tasks central to science.  

“Scientists aren’t a priesthood of people with secret knowledge,” Osterweil says. “They don’t walk around with it all in their heads. They do research to find it out.”

Here's a link to the game. Enjoy! It's only available for two months (and started about 2 weeks ago), so be sure to play between now and the end of May. 

Women and non-Asian minority CS faculty and PhD student populations (in 2006)

Well, people can say what they like about the NRC rankings, but just looking at the data for the CS departments, I see some pretty graphs here, and some potentially promising correlations.

(See that outlier on the right? Three cheers for Tufts! 56% female faculty, baby.)

(I'm not pleased with that huge cluster of 0% non-Asian minority faculty. But three cheers for FIU, Iowa, and Auburn!)

I haven't yet started removing outliers or doing anything fancy, but for kicks I ran some correlations on these four variables of interest:

For anyone not used to reading ugly SPSS outputs, we find a significant correlation between non-Asian minority CS faculty and non-Asian minority CS PhD students, r = .308, p < .01. We also find a sig. correlation between female CS faculty and female CS PhD students, r = .281, p < .01. And, it turns out if there are non-Asian minority PhD CS students there is also a high likelihood of female PhD CS students, r = .247, p  < .01.

These are not super-huge correlations, and it's likely the outliers are conflating things, but it's still promising just from the graphs. If I have time over the weekend I'll play with the data a bit more formally and see what turns up.

Why men still get more promotions than women

Very interesting article in The Harvard Business Review on male vs. female mentoring, and the difference it can make in business contexts.

All mentoring is not created equal, we discovered. There is a special kind of relationship—called sponsorship—in which the mentor goes beyond giving feedback and advice and uses his or her influence with senior executives to advocate for the mentee. Our interviews and surveys alike suggest that high-potential women are overmentored and undersponsored relative to their male peers—and that they are not advancing in their organizations. Furthermore, without sponsorship, women not only are less likely than men to be appointed to top roles but may also be more reluctant to go for them.

The article is a bit anecdotal in parts, but has some underlying interesting ideas in it that are grounded in research. I'm not sure how applicable it is to academic careers, but having a mentor who in addition to giving you advice can help sell you and your ideas to others (institutional peers, editors, etc) is almost always, in my experience, a helpful thing.

Regarding Quotas

In my post on nurture vs. nature, thehackerfairy asked about my thoughts on some comments left after a recent Guardian article on this topic. The article helps support my claim that really it's a social problem we're facing in CS, not some difference due to biology. And the article cites my favorite developmental neuroscientist, Lise Eliot, as support.

I couldn't find the particular comment HF was alluding to, but I think the basic idea was, "Well, if men and women are biologically equal, let's get rid of quotas / affirmative action / encouragement initiatives / etc." I've seen this argument pop up in other communities of underrepresented people as well.

Here's my opinion: I am more than happy to see all of these inclusion initiatives be eliminated... once the groups of people they're targeting stop being systematically discriminated against. And for anyone who doesn't think women, people of color, people with disabilities, and LGBT people are being systematically discriminated against in STEM, I say: please come out from under that rock.

Open peer review done right

There's been a lot of talk recently on the idea of open peer review, open source science, and so on. arXiv was sort of intended to serve this role, but at least in my subfield it's uncommon to put papers on there before they've been accepted by a "proper" conference/journal. In general we use it for open archival purposes, but not for initial peer review.

Image by Network Osaka

However, I recently saw a really nice use of open peer review. Vinay Deolalikar of HP Labs sent a manuscript to a few of his colleagues which was a proof of P ≠ NP. This is one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in CS, in fact it's such an important problem that The Clay Mathematics Institute offers a $1 million prize to anyone who can solve it. I won't burden you with the details of the problem or proof because that's not what this post is about, and will instead refer you to this excellent summary in New Scientist if you are interested.

So Deolalikar sent this proof to his colleagues, and Greg Baker (with permission) posted the manuscript on his blog. Somehow the blog post got Slashdotted and next thing you know everyone was talking about it. What I find really remarkable was how in many places there was a nice, civil discussion among the theory types about the strengths and weaknesses of the proof. (You can read about this in Richard Lipton's blog starting here).

What I especially loved was the peanut gallery. People were just thrilled to be watching the action. Even people with no background on the topic were offering support and encouragement. Here are some comments from Lipton's blog:

 Go Vinay!

I agree with the spirit of this posting. I am not an expert in complexity theory so I am unable to provide any feedback (not even elementary). However, I like it that there are researchers like Vinay who are not afraid of tackling the hardest problems. I am anxious to know what are the consequences of Vinay’s work.

-Anon@ 11:23pm

And these two really made me say, "awwww" (boldface is mine):

Professor Lipton,

Your accessible and well-written writings motivate me to continue studying mathematics. I develop software for a living; to stay sharp, I try to study ‘real’ proofs in my spare time. Complexity is an amazing field… I cannot wait to see what we’ll learn about computation (and its relation to physics, and to everything else).

Thanks for the inspiration!

-Robert W 

“P.S. I hope these discussions are helpful to the community at large.”

This member of the community at large can’t understand a word you say, but is nevertheless fascinated by every new post and comment. Seeing the review process unfold in public has rekindled my long-dormant interest in mathematics. I intend to register for a class this fall and (who knows?) perhaps pursue that Ph.D. after all these years.

Don’t infer from the paucity of experts who can contribute to the public conversation that you might as well confer entirely in private; on the contrary, public discussion is an immense service to the community. Thank you.

-Fritz Juhnke

I applaud Lipton for cultivating a positive exchange of ideas and place for civil discussion and making the review public for all to watch. Even though things got heated at times, in general the discourse was constructive and positive. Top complexity theoreticians came together to help Deolalikar out, for no reason other than they think it's a cool problem and they're nice people, and I think that's just fantastic.

Just a guy from New Hampshire

I was flipping through the June issue of the IEEE Women in Engineering magazine, and came across an interview with Dean Kamen. Kamen is a really fantastic (albeit eccentric) inventor, responsible for: the first stair climbing wheelchair, the segway, the first insulin pump, and other neat things. The article was focused on his recent novel inventions for extremely efficient power generators and water purifiers to be given to people in developing countries. I absolutely loved this quote:

Image by James Young Art

He has been called an idealist, an optimist, and occasionally even naïve for his big ideas about fixing the world’s problems. Kamen says he sometimes even wonders himself. 'I think, well, if with all their resources the United Nations and everyone can’t do it, I must really be nuts trying to do it myself—I’m just some guy from New Hampshire.'"

The article goes on to discuss his efforts in STEM outreach and education. I liked this quote too:

"'You get what you celebrate' is a common catchphrase of Kamen’s. He has noticed a crisis in United States culture: young kids are growing up excited about being football stars and actors, not engineers or scientists. Despite the one-in-a-million chance of succeeding in show business or professional sports, our society encourages kids to prioritize these dreams over other options. Celebrating Britney Spears and Shaquille O’Neal over our inventors, scientists, and engineers skews too many kids away from careers in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, resulting in a nationwide shortage of engineers and scientists and a drop in our global standing in technology development. The solution, obviously, is to change our culture."

Indeed! (Though I'm not sure I buy the shortage part. IEEE has a bit of a bias here.)

Communication Styles and Skin Thickness

I've started this blog, mainly, because of some recent articles in the NY Times by John Tierney regarding the reasons why their are so few women in STEM. While some of his writing contained bits of truth, mostly it was a thinly veiled opinion piece that the editors should never have put in the 'science' section.

But I have no desire to attack Tierney or the Times editorial staff beyond voicing my displeasure at both. What I want to discuss here is why women really leave STEM.

It's all about the people, and their communication styles.

Photo by Articulate Matter

Throughout my life, I have participated in many activities where there are hardly any women - CS departments, engineering companies, tinkering groups, ham radio, some sports. Aside from occasional pleasant surprises in my professional life (such as once attending Grace Hopper), I'm often the only woman in the room. But generally I haven't found this to be a problem. I am lucky in this regard, I know this can be a problem for many women, especially at first. But over time I've learned strategies that help me to not feel intimidated giving a talk in front of a room full of men, to not feel worried about speaking up in meetings, and to hold my
own arguing to the death about software design.

But the one thing that has, on occasion, made me want to leave technology entirely and open a bakery are people who come across as jerks. People who are deaf to the tone of their affect, who do not understand that their mannerisms would be considered rude by most people, who act seemingly unconcerned about how others might feel in reaction to what they say. The good news is these people are usually gender-egalitarian in their thorniness, but I think sometimes for some women, enough encounters like this make you want to leave the rose garden.

"You need to grow a thicker skin" and "Don't take it personally" are comments I heard early in my career, and still hear as advice given to young women embarking on theirs. Women are told, particularly in academic science, that if they want to be successful they need to be able to handle the beatings that can come in a manner that is unquestionably brash, rude, and humiliating. We are told to not cry in front of others, we are told to not lose face, and ultimately, we are told to act like men. (Except not too much, because then you become unlikeable, and that's also a career killer for STEM women. Surprise!)

The problem is that most women I know have much lower emotional pain thresholds when it comes to their professional lives than most men I know. And while other professions have their share of people interaction problems, they seem to be less tolerated to the degree they are in STEM. I've attended many a talk where someone in the audience interrupts the speaker, repeatedly, to nitpick. Nobody will ever pull Dr. Jones aside and say, "You had some good points, Dr. Jones, but did you really have to be so rude making them?" The problem is, Dr. Jones is not going to notice the quiet sighs and subtle eye rolls every time zie acts up during seminar. Dr. Jones does not get hints. Dr. Jones may or may not respond to directness, but by the time others in the group have worked up the gumption to say something, it's years too late. The humiliated person is long gone, from the organization and perhaps from science itself.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed on mutiple levels. Yes, wronged people need to rise from the ashes, get their game on, and fight back. But everyone else needs to stop acting so tolerant of brash behavior in science. And for people who act brashly, they need to learn, as much as they are able, some more positive interaction behaviors.

I don't think most people are jerks. I just think many of them are completely unaware of how they are coming across.