Very good article. I must admit, the more I read about Thiel, the less I like him.
It's unclear to me why they think that SV is more meritocratic than anything else. Sports still seems much more meritocratic than SV. Any industry that depends so much on getting funding hardly seems like it would be especially meritocratic -- at least at first blush.
Whenever you call something "meritocratic" it's almost always a circular definition. How do you define "merit" in Silicon Valley and how do you know the "most meritorious" are the ones winning? If you don't have an independent objective measure of "merit" other than "success in Silicon Vallay" your assertion is merely tautological.
I'd agree, although refine your criticism further: it's not so much a tautology as that "success in SV" selects for "people who appeal to VCs" which may or may not have anything to do with any other forms of merit (like the intelligence or technical merit people love to claim as being the underpinnings of "meritocracy".
The ones who 'sell' the best and who have the most connections and resources get ahead in today's Silicon Valley. It's as simple as that. Nothing 'meritocratic' about that.
It's the 5th Paper Belt hub: the financial center of technology. Silicon Valley itself is dying, but Stanford is going to remain a top university, so it'll generate the MDs and VPs of this new increasingly IB-like industry, and tradition is strong, so San Francisco has at least 50 years (in my estimation) at the lead of the finance-of-technology business. It'll also house a lot of management consultants specializing in outsourcing, an industry that's not going to go away until labor arbitrages disappear (at least 30 years).
As for where technology itself will "go" next, I have no earthly idea. But you're right that in 2014, the Valley is a salesman's world. If you can raise funding, the balance of power between tech talent and fundraising has never been better for you.
The more I read words by people who have read about Thiel, the more I wonder how armchair critics without much achievement on their resume can expend so much hater energy. Since when was success only deserved by those who could do, or think, no wrong?
Admittedly, I can kinda-sorta understand becoming a libertarian if you grew up in Northern California: its local/municipal/regional governments are a special kind of stupid that you only get when combining lower-class reaction with landowner chauvinism with new money elitism.
Of course physical genetics give many athletes an advantage, but any athlete will tell you that training - both mental and physical - are the only things that will make an athlete or team win and can frequently make up for predisposed characteristics that may be disadvantageous (shorter stature, smaller frame, etc). As far as meritocratic environments go, sports is certainly among the top.
A claim from a blogger on these issues: performance enhancing drugs in athletics widen the gap between the genetically gifted and the less so. Seems reasonable, but not intuitive.
> It's unclear to me why they think that SV is more meritocratic than anything else. Sports still seems much more meritocratic than SV. Any industry that depends so much on getting funding hardly seems like it would be especially meritocratic -- at least at first blush.
Fair point. Sports may indeed be fairer and more objective than other industries - results are easily measured, and are objective. And it's clear that the tech industry is far from perfect. However, tech does have several things that make it fairer than other industries:
* You don't need a degree to get into tech. Sure, it can help - the article here is about Stanford, one of the best places to study at - but the industry also has plenty of self-taught people. To at least some extent, talent can rise despite not having e.g. parents that can pay for college.
* The tools you need to self-teach are cheap, and getting cheaper. Personal computers are common these days. For comparison, some sports require almost no tools, but some do (e.g. skiing). Music is similar (some instruments are cheap, others not so much). But most careers don't work that way. You can't be a self-taught lawyer or doctor or soldier or social worker.
* Talent has the opportunity to present itself in an abstract way. You can create an anonymous github account and prove your skills, and no one would know any demographic information about you. Something similar has happened in classical music, with people performing behind curtains so as to remove any bias due to their gender or race, and it was very helpful there. For comparison, sports doesn't work that way - you have to see people when they compete, so racial prejudice etc. might still have an impact. In tech and classical music, while things aren't perfect, there is a fairly natural way to diminish such effects, simply let people only see the abstract result of their work.
* Some fields absolutely require a strong mentor, like in academia (perhaps also in sports? I don't know). This disadvantages people that have a hard time finding such mentors, either due to prejudice on the part of potential mentors, or just a lack of connections, or weak social skills. In tech, some people benefit from mentors, but there are also lots of examples of people that have never had a mentor and do very well.
* Telecommuting is much more common in tech than other fields, even if it isn't ubiquitous there. We have the technical capability to let people work from home in tech, in most roles, and it makes things fairer in many ways.
* You make a valid point that industries that depend on getting funding are less fair than others, all things being equal. However, tech has been driving down the amount of necessary funding, through open source software, things like AWS, etc.
Again, tech is far from perfect, and has many flaws. Still, it's worth mentioning the good aspects.
There's some truth in what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree, but here are where I see you being overly optimistic on the matter of SV's meritocracy.
> You don't need a degree to get into tech.
As soon as the market draws back, the non-BA programmers are going to be shut out (and most will have to go to school). I wish it weren't that way, but that seems to be how these things work. The more pedigreed you are, the less you fall.
That said, a bit of blue-collar street smarts can also serve you well. The people who really take a dive are the middle-class earnest types who aren't high enough on the socioeconomic spectrum to be protected, but were never low enough to learn how brutal the world can be when resources are scarce and contracting.
> Talent has the opportunity to present itself in an abstract way. You can create an anonymous github account and prove your skills, and no one would know any demographic information about you.
You can get an engineer position, but you won't become a founder that way. There are no blind auditions to raise VC.
> In tech, some people benefit from mentors, but there are also lots of examples of people that have never had a mentor and do very well.
What would you call the guy who offers the first introduction to the first investor?
I agree with your points. Regarding the last one, I meant more the case of technical people, that never had a mentor. There are a lot of people like that in SV that are doing great. But I certainly concur that for getting funding, you do need connections, difficult or impossible without them.
As I said before, I'm not saying anything is perfect, and there are plenty of flaws. I would say that more flaws exist in getting funded than in having a successful career - which is most people in tech in SV.
I'm inclined to agree but, honestly, Peter Thiel is one of the better and more thoughtful ones within that set. Closed networks like "the Paypal Mafia" are really, really bad for the world and Thiel is at least showing some interest in looking outside of it. In general, I think he's less elitist than most of them are.
One thing to remember about Silicon Valley is that it's still suburban California. It's fucking provincial. It has orders of magnitude more money (and the house prices reflect it) but it's even more like that "Agrestic" suburb in Weeds than anything in contemporary Southern California.
I still remember, in the 1990s, Northern California thought of itself as "the Good California" because it wasn't the norm for 16-year-old boys to get Ferraris and 16-year-old girls to get boob jobs as birthday presents. In 2014, any perception that Northern California is culturally better in any way is false. Silicon Valley is a lot more brash than Hollywood is. I actually like most Southern Californians that I meet.
I'm finding, as I get older, that West Coast privilege is more irksome and obnoxious to me than the East Coast variety. Most Harvard and Yale grads are down to earth and, to be honest, most Stanford graduate (except MBA, which is sociologically Undergrad++) students that I meet, I like... but this Stanford Welfare that produces Snapchats and Clinkles has got to fucking stop before it brings humiliation to the very idea of technology and sets us back 25 years. As I get older I hate the hypocritical pseudo-liberal privilege of tech more than the stuffy, blue-blooded East Coast variety. People are surprised by this, but those supposedly stodgy and "conservative" investment banks are far better places to be a woman, or minority, or just over 40, than VC-funded tech in the Valley. Silicon Valley is just a depressingly dysfunctional society and, over time, I think people are catching on to the fact and are starting to say, "I don't want anything to do with that shit". That's a real problem, because there are a lot of people doing great work (inside and outside of Silicon Valley) in technology, and I'd hate for their efforts to be hindered or set back by these stupid distractions coming from a few bad Stanford apples.
Have you been on the east coast very much. For a lot of it. It's dog eat dog. The attitude in DC is "your car is worth less than my deductable." There is a reason for the term Massholes, it's not even contested. NYC is priced out because of the finance sector, geography, and the fact that there are too many people there.
I'm not trying to take away from your critcisms of the west coast. But claiming that the Ivy league universities are more humble on the east coast is just blatantly incorrect. It's a status token. Prestige is a big deal.
Personally, I found that Chicago tends to be more blue collar. They bring in a lot of the homeliness of the Midwest. It also connects transport, infrastructure, and manufacturing.
The more I read about Peter Thiel the more I see him as incredibly smart and incredibly anti-competitive. He is open to admitting to it, but it's not a healthy business strategy to do that. (As how we've seen Redhat and others succeeded with an open business)
Yeah, there are things I dislike about the East Coast. (Oddly enough, I'm moving to Chicago in January. I'm really looking forward to it.) I'm not a fan of DC's culture. As for Boston, I like the younger crowd a lot, but there's definitely a lack of progressivism that I see in Boston companies.
New York real estate is obnoxiously expensive, but yes, the people are more down to earth and less pedigree-obsessed than their counterparts in San Francisco. I won't pretend that pre-existing social class doesn't matter in New York; it's just not as big of a deal on a practical level. It matters if you're trying to get into nightclubs or exclusive parties, or to get your wedding published in the Times, but it doesn't infect your work life nearly as much. If you flash pedigree at your job too often, you become a pariah. I know a trader who was mocked after his wedding hit NYT, and I've known other people to be fired (in finance) for having too much visibility (for non-work "society" shit) in the press. Whereas in the Valley, you have to become a celebrity to have a career.
The difference between Stanford and Berkeley is founder with 30% (after the first round) vs. engineer with 0.5%. The difference between Harvard and Cornell is a $100k hedge fund job with a $20k signing bonus and a similar job with a $15k signing bonus.
On Chicago and the Midwest in general, I'd love to see the Midwest take off in technology, and I think it can. It's an underrated part of the country. I was just, for this purpose, comparing the blue-blooded noblesse oblige East Coast mentality to the monstrosity that's grown up in Silicon Valley (it's unfair to apply its stereotypes to the rest of the West Coast).
Moving to Chicago in January. Man, just hope that we have a warm winter, unlike last year. Take it with a grain of salt. I'm a east coaster born and raised. I only moved to chicago a year and a half ago. Something I noticed about Chicago: I met all of my neighbors within a week of moving in. I had never known my neighbors let alone was able to acknowledge them beyond a nod while on the coast.
If you want to go for a beer sometime after you move in. I would be willing to do that. Also, take a look at the CJUG, we're pretty active. I've heard good things about the Erlang and ruby group. It also seems that the code and cans meetup group is taking off.
Speaking of the midwest, can anyone comment on the tech culture in Kansas City? There seems to be a few large tech oriented companies and thriving job market (Sprint, Garmin, H+R Block, ...). Plus as the first metro to get Google fiber, I've heard there's a bit of a start up scene now.
>those supposedly stodgy and "conservative" investment banks are far better places to be a woman, or minority, or just over 40, than VC-funded tech in the Valley.
I read this yesterday; it's pretty jumbled. It's an article that jumps around a bit describing how a couple of the people from the Stanford Class of '94, specifically David Sacks and Jessica DiLullo Herrin, made a lot of money using the internet.
It doesn't really get into the reasons there are fewer female than male entrepreneurs from that class, at least not with any depth, and then it concludes by saying that people from that class are getting into internet startups now.
I agree, it wanders all over the place like they had to meet a quota of words. I don't think the article really communicates what it was like for the "computer nerds" off in a weird, unproven, tiny little corner of the world nobody cared about or believed in. I think if you explore that, you'll start to understand why women weren't as much a part of that weird subculture. It wasn't all bad, I worked closely with women at IBM in 1994 (working on OS/2) that was also the year WIRED started to go mainstream. TV ads started to show URLs. Java went mainstream in 1994. But before 1994, almost nobody knew what the Internet was. Once the Internet went mainstream, people already familiar with the technology had a huge advantage: nerds.
In 1994 when I was at the University of Florida, only one dorm on the entire campus had "Internet" access. But it wasn't web access, we only had telnet. The moldy dorm was 100+ years old and barely had air conditioning. They called it "Fletcher Island" because we were cut off from everyone else--there was maybe 6 of us guys on the whole campus that had Internet. And there was only one guy that knew how it worked--he never spoke, was very pale, and he lived like a hermit back in the dark corner of this ancient building. The air quality was so bad that I got sick and had to move out. Maybe 2-3 women lived under us but we never saw them because the hallways were locked to keep the sexes apart.
How exactly are they measuring this "gender gap"? At one point it seemed their argument was that female graduates didn't found as many companies as male graduates. (Though it seems like there could be a lot of different explanations for that.) The quote about how women "played a support role instead of walking away with billion-dollar businesses" comes from the founder of a web site for female writers, which made me wonder if it was more advocacy than analysis.
I am concerned about the role of women in Silicon Valley, so it was nice to see that the Times' reporter notes that few women "described experiencing the kinds of workplace abuses that have regularly cropped up among women in Silicon Valley." It would've been nice if this article had more statistics about what specifically happened to the class of '94
Why do articles like this always divide it by gender and never combine gender and race? There are more Asian women featured in this article and probably included in the class than black (and potentially hispanic) men, despite the fact that the population of black men is and was in 1994 larger than Asian women.
I've always wondered why the tech industry is so obsessed with the gender gap and yet almost completely ignores the race gap.
Is the gender gap really a bigger problem, or is it because men in tech think they are more likely to socially benefit from championing gender equality?
The gender gap is every bit a society wide issue. When I was in middle school and high school, I didn't know a single girl who was interested in technology. This says that this issue begins when girls are young and is either something imprinted on them by society or something that is innate.
I haven't seen anything that suggests that our industry is more able to solve the gender gap than the race gap. Both of these problems have complex causes that extend far outside of the scope of what one industry can fix, but I don't see any reason to fixate on one at the expense of the other, which is exactly what we're doing.
>The gender gap is fairly unique to the tech industry...
This isn't unique to the tech industry at all. The gender gap is present in numerous blue collar professions--some of which pay very well (electricians, plumbers etc...)
>...and it is pretty extreme.
My graduating class at Illinois for EE was 95% male.
And I'm sure you can find many equally extreme examples that demonstrate the race gap.
There are other gaps as well. Rural vs urban, rich vs poor, single parent vs 2 parent households. Yet none of these receive anywhere the press that the tech gender gap does.
Certain aspects of male/female difference are definitely innate. For example, among young infants, females are more interested in faces and people, while males are more interested in mechanical objects. I believe a study showed this effect was present & statistically significant only a short time after birth (too soon to be influenced by culture).
There are well-known differences in brain structure, such as the portions of brain used for language. Women have an edge in verbal reasoning, while men in spatial.
Male IQ has more variability than female IQ, resulting in more men in both the top and bottom percentiles. This may explain why more men are executives, and why more men are homeless (that's just my suspicion). Studies have also found that male IQ is higher on average by (variously) 3-5 points. From my personal observations, men are more likely than women to focus intensively on one activity, to the exclusion of all others, like skateboarding, or surfing, or computer programming, or gaming.
Men weigh more than women, have more muscle mass, have 40-60% more upper body strength, and 25-30% lower body strength, though with training the gap narrows to 0-8% (so perhaps this difference is more cultural). Men outperform women in most athletic areas, though perhaps not in distance running. Women live years longer than men and have lower rates of mental illness.
Women and men earn equal pay when you control for the job worked, the hours worked, and the amount of experience. I believe a study showed that single male and female professionals with no dependents, equal time in the workforce, working equal hours, earned equal amounts. The pay gap arises because slightly fewer women work high-paying jobs, they work fewer hours per week / take more time off, and drop out of the workforce at higher rates (e.g. stay at home parent).
A good summary of research and sources are available in Wikipedia articles like "Sex differences in intelligence" and "Sex differences in psychology". Certainly do not take my word for any of this, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally, I think we should make sure that every person is judged based on individual merit, and be encouraged and supported to pursue what they're interested in with no preconceptions. That's what equality means to me.
It would help if you could explain which fact you do not find convincing, and I will attempt to provide sources that you can use for further research, if you are interested to seriously examine the issue or have a serious discussion. A lot of original sources are cited by the Wikipedia articles.
For example: "Sex differences in human neonatal social perception".
> Abstract. Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.
Christ, it's "abuse" now to bring up inconvenient but real facts? If your tribe's thinking is that rigid and dogmatic, is it any wonder we can't seem to actually come to a consensus on gender politics?
It's abusive to troll any website posting radical or extreme POVs as "facts." HN is not a place I care to invest my time, and if any person here is sincere in believing that men are superior to women, imho they should be kicked off.
I've posted a collection of facts that are, to my memory, all supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. Facts aren't radical, they're just wrong or right. I do not understand your allegations about them being extreme. These are not new results; they are for the most part accepted results in their respective fields. "Sex differences in neonatal social perception" (link below) is 14-year-old well regarded research.
I assume you do not contest the truth that men weigh more, have more muscle mass, or have shorter life spans? Which point do you contest? Every point I mentioned has - unless my memory is failing me - similar scientific evidence behind it. If you are sincerely interested to learn more about this, then please point out which fact seems dubious and I will be glad to (if I think you are earnest and sincere) help point you to the original research. I have tried to provide you with this data: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8790525
If you have a reason to believe the facts are wrong, then please explain, preferably with a justification and reference. I've done my best to present the facts as I know them - do what you will with the information. Let's stop here if you are not interested to discuss the evidence I've presented.
Evangelical Christians have these kind of argument tactics down to a science—how to convince anybody through peer-group research w/in communities of scientists intent on "proving" banalities that socialization more often overcomes—and separately, that feed more limiting stereotypes than they benifit anybody or further productive research.
I am a mechanic and a gearhead. A former motorcycle racer, with a pixie physique. An ice hockey player, and a robotics hobbiest. Your praised research has shaped society to present me and others like me with far more barriers, than it has presented to anyone, benefits with any kind.
Hence: my assertion that your evangelism of this research as anything positive. Share some Eugenics research, why not?
Social consequences from non-scientific interpretstions of scientific work, are more often than not dangerous. Leave the science to the scientists, and be a human engaged with other humans as we choose to co-exist.
I am skeptical of your claim that sharing scientific research or interpreting science is more harmful than good. Please provide justification. I do not think that being ignorant leaves anyone better off. Scientists in general do not make social policy. Every person who votes and participates in our democracy makes social policy, to some extent - even if only city council, school board, etc. Some understanding of an issue is better than none, even if their understanding is worse than a scientist's. The right correction in these situations is more knowledge, not less. Today's college students have as much or more knowledge and understanding of their fields as expert scientists did only a few centuries ago. We have to start somewhere.
Research into sex differences has yielded real benefits. Research into differences in life expectancy, bone density, heart disease, etc., have helped a lot of people. Some issues are largely gender-specific, like breast cancer, and better understanding the nature of sex differences can yield crucial insight into treatments.
Research is also gradually gaining a scientific understanding of the cognitive differences between men and women at higher levels of behavior. See "Foetal testosterone and the child systemizing quotient" (European Journal of Endocrinology, 2006). Paraphrased:
> A growing body of evidence suggests that, on average, males spontaneously "systemize" to a greater degree than do females. "Systemizing" is a cognitive process defined by the drive to analyze or construct systems. Our study explored foetal testosterone (fT) levels as a candidate biological factor influencing sex differences in systemizing. Males (mean 27.79) tested significantly higher than females (mean 22.59) on systemizing quotient, confirming that boys systemize to a greater extent than girls. This study suggests that the levels of fT are a biological factor influencing cognitive sex differences and lends support to the empathizing–systemizing theory of sex differences.
This same research also offers insight into medical conditions. The authors discuss the application to understanding autism:
> Individuals with [autism] score
higher than normal males on the [systemizing quotient], who in turn score higher than normal females. Baron-Cohen has
described autism as an extreme manifestation of some
sexually dimorphic traits. The extreme male brain (EMB)
theory of autism is an extension of the [empathizing-systemizing] model of sex differences and proposes that individuals with ASC are impaired in empathizing and are at least average or superior in systemizing relative to their mental age.
In other words, better understanding of fetal testosterone may give us insight into the causes of autism, which hopefully will some day lead to early detection and prevention. Autism is four times more common in men than women, by the way. I could also see this research having applications to education, specifically in the type of learning material and activities that might be most effective for male and female students.
The science I'm presenting is not fringe. You'll find a good deal of it in a typical college psychology textbook. "Leave science for the scientists" is a point of view with poor respect for human intelligence. Like the majority of autistics, the majority of scientists are also men. I think women, and people in general, ought to think about these issues critically. Psychology, especially social psychology and evolutionary psychology and similar fields, lend themselves well to at least a degree of "pop" analysis and understanding. The subject of these fields is the human condition, with which we all have experience. A person off the street will not have the necessary experience with control theory to understand a paper about robotics. By comparison, one does not need a doctorate in psychology to grasp the implications of, for example, the famous Stanford Prison Experiment.
Also, I really don't think this matters — because in my opinion ideas should stand or fall on their own merit; and anyway I am not posing new ideas or presenting results of my own, just summarizing ideas presented by others — but since you brought up the issue of "leave science for the scientists", I will mention that I am a scientist by education and a senior scientist by job title. I consequently do not feel deterred by "leave science for the scientists".
If you dabble in robotics as a hobby then you know that it's possible to gain a lot of understanding as a layperson, even in a challenging multi-disciplinary field like robotics is. Certain fields can be accessible, and in my opinion psychology is one of the most accessible. A casual reader may not have a nuanced understanding, or an idea of how to apply the result to other areas, but they will have some understanding, a mental hook for further knowledge.
Laypeople can dabble effectively in scientific analysis. For example, take a look at "Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793346 . Insightful content written in a science-focused style. Author is a software engineer in the video games industry.
Research has context. Individuals as backseat-scholars, often times miss this context. Conducting and looking-to research studies for a living, I know this well.
Not a conversation I think is worth wasting time or energy on, when a beautiful day and so many other things are just bigger priorities. Macro point: efforts to qualify "normal" in specified groups w/in sociology, are dangerous. Especially for young people on the shit end of that 'normal' stick (in this case, women) the damage far outweighs any possible benefits that you or others could reap from the research.
Black people are dumber than white people, per their DNA—haven't you heard? So claimed the scientist who stole another's work to claim the Nobel (and by coincidence, a woman who'd died years previously was the OG scientist—not verified until years later): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/james-watson-profi...
Stay away from seeking to validate divisive science that normalizes bad social behavior. It benefits nobody, outside of other scientists seeking such studies as chain-links in more socially beneficial work.
Ethics matter. Live it, breathe it, or please exit the entrepreneur and/or science communities.
50% of society are women. ~30% of tech employees on avg, are women—with women in technical roles or leadership being far less. Black Americans comprise 13% of our population, and Latino Americans comprise 17% of the population. In Tech, they represent ~2% and ~%3% of our workforce, respectively.
Anybody who does not think this is a significant problem, has no business participating in the creation of products for any human to usw in their lives. None.
I always find it quite indicative of American attitudes that this article took "number of companies founded" as a metric of success, and ham-fistedly conclude that the men are "ruling".
Why not take "happiness with current quality of life" as one? Incorporate that into your survey, and see how many men and women report back as being satisfied and happy with their lives.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with more men than women being into computing? They cite examples of women who were in computing dropping out. But surely lots of men dropped out, too. But the women made more news. And since there were more men, more remained to go on and get rich on the internet. It's just bad, bad science. Please apply some proper statistics instead of stirring up emotions with anecdotes.
I knew this would come up. You probably think because computers weren't marketed to women? What if electronics companies only marketed to men because it was mostly men who were into electronics? Then rinse, repeat, why were fewer women interested in electronics, and so on...
I don't have all the answers, but one answer is: because the women were doing other things. There seems to be this idea that women who don't go into engineering become "desperate housewives". In reality they become physicians or bankers or lawyers. The article actually mentions that.
The reality is that computing is a pretty anti-social activity. Yes, there are meetings and clients, but your main job is being glued to a computer screen, alone. Frankly, I don't think it is a recipe for happiness, and women are smart enough to recognize it. Also, women have more options - a major one becoming mothers. So less incentive to try hard, maybe? Even the article mentions that the famous female entrepreneur eventually dropped out to become a mother. Although of course in the next sentence they have to reframe it as "went to Austin for her husband's job" instead of "to become a mother". Can't have that.
I recently met a young woman who was torn between studying mathematics or becoming a social worker. I did not try to stir her towards maths, even though I myself have a maths degree. What argument could I have used, except the prospect of higher income? Frankly I think social workers are probably happier than mathematicians on average.
I didn't miss it. If they find it is not as much fun as they thought and they have other options, they drop out.
I'm pretty sure, for example, that women tend to be less concerned about the potential income of their profession.
I wouldn't be surprised if women are on average less antisocial than men, for the simple reason that women are desired by the world. Men wonder how to talk to women, women wonder how to avoid being talked to (great simplifications of course). So computing would on average be less attractive (in the days before facebook anyway).
Too much hype. What this article does not mention is that all of these people are now in the sunset of their careers. Even the ones that achieved a lot are already declining from their peaks. I'm much more interested in what the class of 2015 is going to do.
