
Why Women Leave Engineering (2011) [pdf] - mpweiher
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NSF_Stemming%20the%20Tide%20Why%20Women%20Leave%20Engineering.pdf
======
mpweiher
Incidentally, Professor Fouad has follow-up studies:

\- NSFGears: why men leave

\- NSF ENGAGE: why men and women stay

Should be interesting, but I haven't seen any published results yet.

[https://uwm.edu/education/people/fouad-
nadya/](https://uwm.edu/education/people/fouad-nadya/)

~~~
hood_syntax
Thanks for the information, interested to see the results of those studies.

------
MrTonyD
This study is consistent with another internal study that I read about.
Essentially, working conditions, bosses, crazy hours, generally unreasonable
expectations, and lack of appreciation all combine to make an unpleasant work
environment. In that other study they also made the point that men felt
exactly the same way about their job - but more women had the freedom to take
action and leave the job. So this isn't just about women in the workplace. It
is about how corporations are allowed to create jobs without any consideration
for their employees - we are simply resources to exploit so that they can get
rich.

~~~
013a
This is similar to something Jordan Peterson has argued [1].

In short: Societies which afford economic rights to women have flourished, but
women pay a huge price for it. The question shouldn't be "why aren't more
women in positions of power", but really "why are there any men who are insane
enough to occupy those positions" when social science has already proven that
money beyond a certain number doesn't make you happier and the work conditions
are absolutely atrocious.

Women are much more sane than men, and anyone who argues that we should have
more women in power is arguing that women, as a class, should be terminally
unhappy. Which isn't to say that the same opportunities shouldn't exist, and
in many fields they don't, but be careful when conflating opportunity and
outcome.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvUtDdlNGwY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvUtDdlNGwY)

~~~
kaybe
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't you expect a better total outcome with
saner people in positions of power?

~~~
013a
But sane people, generally, do not attain positions of power. If they did, our
system would usurp them in favor of someone "insane". Its something that is
fundamental to how some humans operate.

If I'm President and I don't wake up at 4am to handle a crisis in Syria, I am
showcasing a pattern that will probably mean I won't be re-elected. What I've
described is horribly unhealthy, if done consistently. Yet, we need people
like that if we want to scale and grow as a species. We need crazy Presidents,
crazy CEOs, crazy engineers, crazy doctors, crazy lawyers, etc.

The point I wish were more widely accepted is that its alright to not be in
these positions. I've heard people say "Its unacceptable that we haven't had a
female President because I want my daughter to grow up in a world where she
could be President." Two things: First, yeah! If that's what your daughter
wants, then she should have that option, and having precedence and a role
model helps. But, more importantly: You as a parent don't understand what it
takes to be President. You should want your daughter to be happy, not
powerful.

------
shoefly
I don't plan on leaving but there are a few fears that make me think about it.
These are: Not being taken as seriously as my male colleagues (by men and
women). Worrying about being hired for the wrong reasons. Getting boring grunt
work that deadens my brain. Not being asked by the team to join them at beer
events. And I like beer.

A lot of these things I mention actually happened to me at a few software
corporations where I worked early in my career.

My solution was to code my own products on the side. The products became very
popular, made much more than I did at the corporations I worked for, so I
started my own business.

In those early days before I left, I was starting to drink the coolaid that I
deserved grunt work because I sucked, but that turned out not to be the case
in the end.

------
swat535
Fun anecdote: My girlfriend's mom has a double PhD in both computer science
and accounting. Her dad is also an electric engineer. She is also really good
in math.

She passed advanced math classes in a few months of studying. Did her algebra
and got into a top school for engineering. After months of me persuading
switches to SWE.

Few semester after despite having top grades she drops out of CS and now does
design

I've asked her many times what happened and the only reply I got was: it's not
for me. Given her incredible talent I find this hard to believe.

I still catch her checking out CS course material and even her mom argues with
her over this. She can get her a top position in SWE team at top company as
she is a senior analyst there.

Yet she still insists she likes graphic design more.

Either we are pushing women too much to get into CS or there is something
inherently wrong in this field that disallows them to get in, it might be the
culture, it might be the hours, who knows.

For her, I know for a fact the issue wasn’t that she found it too difficult,
she had top grades during her last semester in CS

Anyways, just my own personal experience with this issue

I am really baffled.

------
jlebrech
I tried changing industry and feel as a man it's very difficult to change once
you've been pigeonholed. maybe for women there's this thought, "oh of course
she's had enough of it" and they are taken seriously in their switch.

Not that it's of any benefit to either gender.

------
losvedir
I'm mildly interested that the document has this quote:

> _It is nice they brought me in for equal opportunity survey points but don’t
> waste my time if you don’t take females seriously._

which uses "females" instead of "women". Recall, that was the offense the
March for Science twitter account got lambasted for[0], for which they later
apologized[1]. I remember being surprised at the time and wondering if it was
just a few inane twitter followers, but I found a lot of articles, e.g. this
one[2] by Jezebel about how it's rude and offensive.

Still don't know what to think. I never really thought anything about using
"females" that way, but nonetheless filed it away as a usage to avoid, so it
caught my eye to see it here.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/sciencemarchdc/status/834840542848679936...](https://twitter.com/sciencemarchdc/status/834840542848679936?lang=en)
[1]
[https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC/status/835145373098323969](https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC/status/835145373098323969)
[2] [http://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-
females-16...](http://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-
females-1683808274)

~~~
danharaj
It's common in clinical and academic language. There's a certain kind of creep
who uses them to describe social relationships, usually in a reactionary way.
The clinical connotation coupled with the regressive opinions has turned it
into a red flag of sorts for when someone's about to say something gross about
humans.

Depending on the context, one norm is more relevant than the other.

------
randyrand
Are there any studies for why men leave engineering? For a point of
comparison.

