One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed in than the computer software industry.
Clearly, they have something else in common. We just need to figure out what it is.
This essay, which invokes the "Google Memo", is subtly attacking a straw man. Even those almost the entire rest of STEM is better than CS, it's true that it's not balanced; it remains deeply imperfect. Physics and mechanical engineering, clustered with CS, remain the province of men. There's a expanse of STEM fields with female participation between 25-40% that you'd want to explain or correct. Is it stereotype threat? Implicit bias? Who knows? Probably not?
But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers. The work that a commercial software engineer does --- even at the lofty heights in which the profession is practiced in such a cathedral of software design as the Alphabet Corporation --- is simply not that hard; most of it is just wiring form fields to databases in new and exciting ways.
Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.
> But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers.
Uh. What?
As far as I can tell, it has _everything_ to do with that. These two things are so closely related i cannot fathom how you can make such a statement...
Also... You make the same point twice. To paraphrase you:
a) "academic CS is less intellectually rigorous and less hard to succeed in than chem/etc -- but there are less women in it"
b) "work as google is simply not that hard, just wiring form fields to databases -- but there are less women in it"
For both a) and b) you then point out that they are problematic and that we cannot explain them (and, for the record, I agree with you on both counts) - but they are still unrelated?
EDIT: To reiterate: I think you are right in that the gender imbalance is a problem and is hard to explain. It's just this disconnect that i don't get here...
> The sex difference in interest in people extends to a more general interest in living things, which would explain why women who are interested in science are much more likely to pursue a career in biology or veterinary medicine than computer science.
Right, so because as a woman she intrinsically like people more, my friend is now doing a postdoc about moths?
It may be the case that some intrinsic difference between men an women keeps the field of chemical engineering at 40-60 women/men, or mathematics at 35-65.
But those fields are cognitively more demanding than commercial software development or, for that matter, undergraduate computer science. No cognitive ability or innate affinity explains the degree of disparity in computer science as practiced in industry. If it did, you'd see it in related STEM fields.
The term for an argument gerrymandered around the data to the degree "CS participation disparity is innate" is is special pleading.
So, if that were the case, would you say that it's fair to now force these would be neuro surgeons, doctors, lawyers, microbiologists, etc.. to 'wire fields to databases', because in 2018 some people believe that has a somewhat high status in (mostly american) society?
> those fields are cognitively more demanding than commercial software development or, for that matter, undergraduate computer science
... you arrive at
> No cognitive ability or innate affinity explains the degree of disparity in computer science as practiced in industry.
Even if software development is "cognitively less demanding" in every sense (though I'm not convinced there is just one universal kind of cognitive ability), it may still be that women do not possess the "innate affinity" for it - namely, they do not like working in it, preferring other fields instead. To my understanding, there is nothing to contradict this explanation, and it makes perfect sense.
And I think you are right. CS is not that special imho, and the gender imbalance should be more similar to e.g. maths.
> The term for an argument gerrymandered around the data to the degree "CS participation disparity is innate" is is special pleading.
I'm curious, though... Do you have any kind of research that would back your point up? Anything that would refute this "special pleading"?
I mean... I think you are right, but then again I (and you?) are CS experts and not experts at chemical engineering. Could it be that we underestimate the difficulties in CS, and overestimate these in chemical engineering?
What those two have in common are shitty working conditions. Yes, coding is done sitting in climate controlled offices. But it is mostly shit: shit doc, shit managers, shit clients, shit hours, shit tools. Only dumbfucks who don't mind shit conditions for more money would do it.
I'm sure if you checked the gender balance in government coding jobs and in gamedev you'd discover how it is more about working conditions than sexism.
CS is often toxic in my opinion. I can recall one instance were a lecturer harped on about why "men are better than women" .
Wish i spoke up, but the guy ruled the place.
especially when CS folks are still considered nerds by default and nerds are still the butt of jokes.
It's not high status, there's just a window of opportunity where it's high paying compared to jobs with similar complexity (clerical office work). That, too, will end.
It's unlikely that's due to two completely different mechanisms, so I'd put more stock in theories that explain both situations.
Software developers have a $102,280 median salary. [1]
[0] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/registered-nurses....
[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
This is very misleading. Female post docs in the maths are below 30%, and computer science post docs are at about 20%:
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-wome...
There is no really justification to think that the maths "are doing better" than other STEM fields. It's certainly not a double digit difference.
> Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.
That's pure conjecture. There is very little evidence that this is artificial, and a few good reasons to think it's not. For instance, female participation in STEM in more repressive countries like Iran is at 50%, because it's one of a small number of careers they can choose from.
Pretty much every country in which women have more opportunities to choose from a wider selection of careers shows the exact same gendered STEM trends. Do you really believe these prejudices holding back women from STEM are somehow universal in precisely the same ways across dozens of cultures? And furthermore, that the fields that were even more sexist and old-boys-club, like law and medicine, couldn't keep women out, but a bunch of nerds with keyboards are far too scary for women? That frankly stretches credulity.
A better theory that reasonably explains all of this data is the things-vs-people hypothesis:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Not commenting on other points, but may be you are looking at it from an angle of an expert who has mastered it, so everything looks trivial. As, clearly its much more than that. It is like building extension for machines - the brains and the controls and also pure information management. That's why projects run into millions of lines of code. And the complexity is still growing, as we have new fields like ML emerging on top of it.
Well, it's more physically demanding, isn't it?
But your point is that there are areas where society screws men over, and that nobody cares, right?
So... Why do you raise that point when the topic is how society screws women over?
Wouldn't it be better to improve society? In both places?
They make 80k, I make at most 80k if I work at the highest-end webdev firms.
You claimed widespread prejudice, which has no supporting evidence.
And you may consider the article I linked to be rambling, but it's comprehensive.
There's a big "but": SW dev requires a certain mentality to be able to stick at it for a long time, without becoming bored out of your mind or going crazy about all the inefficiencies, dysfunction and utter meaninglessness of it all.
There's no evidence supporting the supposition that there is an innate ability gap. Social explanations are supported by the evidence and that's why people are trying to change the field to be more welcoming.
One of the key things to remember is that this isn't some fixed quantity – any argument for innate characteristics would have to explain why the rates started going down in the 1980s despite the field becoming increasingly popular and lucrative over the same decades and not seeing a similar trend in comparable fields such as math:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
The gender imbalance is systemic, and not at all that hard to explain. In the early 90s, as home PCs were becoming ubiquitous, they were in part marketed in the same vein as any other masculine hobby -- auto repair, diy tinkering, etc. The "titans" of early tech companies were men -- not because women weren't interested or weren't smart enough -- but because socially, the gender stereotypes were such that women need not concern themselves (i.e. "Women need not apply").
Ultimately, the same systemic sexism that refused women the right to vote until they pushed hard enough, or refused women equal pay, is the same systemic sexism that keeps women away from CS.
Someone else commented that perhaps it takes a certain "grit" (paraphrased) to maintain interest in CS. I think they're so wrong they're right: It takes a certain "grit" to continue in such a "programmer-bro" culture, where there are few female role models.
We do see it in related fields. Women comprise at least 50% of medicine, but they are not evenly distributed like men. Men are disproportionately surgeons, and women are disproportionately gynecologists and pediatricians. Similar distributions occur in actual STEM fields.
As I said in my other post, things-vs-people explains all of this data, but the sexism/oppression hypothesis does not. It's not a matter of cognitive ability, but it is a matter of affinity.
Another friend did make the jump, mostly for the money and career opportunities and she's struggling and feeling a bit demotivated. The CS theory is quite hard, and it's not something she's especially interested in.
These anecdotes don't prove anything, but I've been thinking for a while if the mental toll of this profession is really worth it.
We say that the others didn't make it into the industry, but what if the others are clever enough to avoid having to spend all day in front of a computer working on very abstract things that aren't really understood by most of the people in their lives, including their managers and a significant number of their colleagues.
Having to spend their free time studying just to keep up with the latest fashion, doing overtime, going through the interview gauntlet every damn time, getting shafted by incompetent business leaders and managers.
Programmers are kind of the punching bag of the software industry.
First, this is a straw man argument: I never argued for "innate ability gap". I argued for "innate affinity", which I understand as (quoting myself) "they do not like working in it".
Second, I never claimed there was evidence to support the correctness of "innate affinity" argument. I only claimed that it is a possibility, and OP should not have ignored it.
Third, there is no consistent evidence supporting "social explanations", and that's why people resist attempts to "change the field to be more welcoming" at the expense of hard-working, deserving white males.
> any argument for innate characteristics would have to explain why the rates started going down in the 1980s despite the field becoming increasingly popular
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
This is why my wife left the industry to be a full-time mom/homemaker. The problems she solves are more rewarding and the time/energy she spends on things are more worth it according to her. Why would she want to get out of bed every morning to churn out JS for some scummy corporation every day when she could be spending time with our kid, teaching them new things, hiking/backbacking/kayaking/fishing with them, etc.?
She's appreciative that I go to work everyday to pay the bills and sees her position as the more ideal one.
Most clerical jobs don't have a lot of surprises hidden in the middle of some undocumented feature. And things are not improving with the multiplication of dependence on SaaS and build and deploy mechanism.
Or just natural. I mean there's gender imbalance in most careers, as is also mentioned in that article; there's just less attention being paid to e.g. the gender difference in day cares (which is in part due to people's preferences in lines of work, but in that particular area a very clear case of gender discrimination and stereotyping)
All other points aside, this is simply an untrue statement - the lofty heights of the average software engineer at Alphabet is not even fractionally close to the pinnacle of "intellectual difficulty" in our professional field.
Biochem, when offered as an undergrad program, is offered through the biology department and has a number of standard biology department requirements that would be elective at best for chemistry undergrads. Biochem majors also take orgo following gen chem, just like chemistry majors.
I don’t know what “touchy-feely” means in this context, but “chem except you take orgo almost immediately” does not match with my experience at all.
Technical implementation details vs the big picture / domain.
Not anymore, a lot of it is automated now so if you can drive and operate some buttons (and a broom if need be) you should be able to get a job in that area.
I'm so sorry to hear you've had an underwhelming career working on boring projects. There's so much more that's passed you by.
Certainly there are specializations that are pushing the edge of research, but we are talking about an industry here, not the few research-y jobs that still exist.
On the other hand, I can't blame women for not wanting my job. IT has a reputation for attracting white, male, introvert nerds - and like many prejudices, there is some truth in this even if this is only because of the self-fulfilling aspect of it (I certainly do conform to this stereotype to some extent). It has been shown that females are generally more attracted to fields evolving around social interaction - and IT has quite a bit of the opposite reputation.
If we compare the situation in CS with the situation in sports the situation does stop appearing to be problematic. We never get worked up about the lack of male cheerleaders, ballerino's (have you even heard that word before?), or that few women play football. I fail to see the point of getting worked up about this specific example of inequality of participation.
The workplace shouldn't be your dating pool...
Can we rank these fields by day to day... sociability? Or how solitary they are?
Say, by the number of coworkers you talk to on a given day for a given number of hours. Or the amount of time you spend not at all speaking, and staring at a screen?
Can we approximate these somehow?
~~~
Can we rank these fields by prestige in the eyes of the median person? E.g. If you are a biologist, does a guy on the street think its more interesting and glamorous than being a programmer? Or less? Why?
From the people I've talked to about why they didn't go into computer science/programming, a lot of them see programmers as essentially overpaid janitors or hi-tech sewer workers. They make Facebook/civilization/the internet run, but just how isn't important, and it probably isn't fun. The people I talked to have no idea what the pay scale is for programmers (actually many programmers I've talked have no idea what the pay scale is for programmers either). So they don't consider a cost-benefit very clearly when rejecting CS/Programming.
It wouldn’t matter if you were accurate, it would still be rude and inappropriate, but note that tptacek is about the last person in the world I would describe as having had an underwhelming career working on boring projects (although I’m sure he’s done his share of those, too), so you got your facts wrong on top of everything.
1) There are multiple fields available for new entrants to the labor force to pick from.
2) Some of these have better working conditions than others.
3) Women tend to be a bit more mature than men at the age at which one picks a career and are more likely to consider working conditions when doing so.
This has nothing to do with whether people are caring that someone is screwing someone else or not per se. What it does mean is that improving working conditions in some fields would likely draw more women in, if the above theory is correct. I have no opinion on the theory itself.
Also, when kids make program choices, they do it by their 'perception' of the profession, not by actual professional reality.
To reflect on first op, first half of the article is straw man attack, second half is golden insight. The author must be really scared of cultural studies-like interpretation to fend off so many windmills before giving us some meat.
The overwhelming majority of kindergarten teachers are female (over 97%). Is this a travesty as well? Why can't various fields be dominated by one sex?
> is artificial
Our entire economy is artificial, so that goes without saying. I think you were insinuating that this is purposeful. It isn't.
> Is it stereotype threat? Implicit bias?
It isn't.
Women are simply more sensitive to work/life balance. For whatever reason, our industry seems to think it's normal to work 12 hours a day. Very few women want to spend 12 hours at a job. That's fine. Very few men want to spend time taking care of little kids. That's also fine.
Seriously? Why does it even matter if women don't want to work in CS? Why do we software "engineers" have the ego to think that we work in some great occupation and it's a "travesty" that women largely don't have any interest in working sitting in front of a computer all day.
We are glorified mechanics. Glorified by ourselves. We mostly build intellectually draining CRUD apps mostly and earn shit wages in super expensive cities like SF. Half of us are indentured servants via the H1b system. I think women are smart that they want absolutely nothing to do with this field.
We really need to get off of our high horses and stop believing we are "changing the world" via JavaScript.
For example, according to Glassdoor, a software dev in Chicago has an average salary of about 82k compared to about 120k for a nurse practitioner. Or if you want to compare earlier career, a junior developer is at about 67k vs. 68k for a registered nurse. You need to bound your statistics geographically to control for skewed labor markets when comparing salaries like this.
Most people in tech don't work 12 hours... it is not the norm. Maybe it's a Bay Area or early startup thing, but I never have.
Even if you were right, a lot of other office/"professional" jobs work just as much or longer than us. My friends (female and male) working here in NYC in other industries (finance, marketing, accounting, etc.) usually work 9-10 hours and don't take a lunch break (work while eating). Some careers like nursing are known for their crazy hours.
See, for example, "HP doesn't care about black people," the ongoing trend of tech devices that are sized for men's bodies and hands and not women, social networks that fail to consider how a stalker could exploit their access policies, etc.
Have you also considered a possibility that there is no explanation, and the gap is simply due to internal variability in the underlying dynamical system?
Although personally I favor the "different interests" explanation, let me expand on this a bit. Humans love explanations, even of random events, that's how superstition comes about.
There was an interesting biological experiment done with ants. If you put two identical piles of food the same distance from an anthill, you would intuitively expect that ants will eat from each pile in 50/50 ratio. However, it's not what happens; in reality, the ratio fluctuates over time, at points being 20/80 and can reverse to 80/20.
Why? Because behavior of each ant depends on strength of pheromone path to food that is produced by other ants. In other words, ants, to some extent, copy behavior of other ants. And this copying is enough to produce a large difference in ratio even in cases that are objectively absolutely equal.
So is it hard to conceive that humans also copy behavior of other fellow humans (actually, the above example is from Paul Ormerod's book Butterfly Economics), and that women might prefer a job where already are other women? Or where isn't an overwhelming majority of different people (i.e. men)?
The influence on individual decision can be very subtle, but yet can, statistically, lead to large differences in outcome.
I'd never go back to programming as a career unless medicine became completely untenable, and I doubt that's going to happen at the level I'm at now.
Part of why I like computers is that I can spend my day not talking to these fucking apes that infest this planet -- present company excluded, of course. I say this as someone who's not a social moron, who's recognized as an excellent teacher, and who's actually interested in team-dynamics and debugging miscommunication.
If I'd wanted to be a social worker -- I would have become a social worker. Who let all these social workers into the computer lab?
Anecdata -- dated a kick-ass Data Scientist, and a Molecular Biology Prof recently (separately). Their professional interests were a large part of their attraction to me. As I got to know them, the data scientist confessed that she didn't really like the math and wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't so lucrative. The Prof. was much less interested in biochemistry than in how people relate to science in the context of health care.
So dissapoint.
Similarly, I know that as an h1b hire, more often than not, I am just cheaper. No, the company is not hiring me because "I am the best in the world". I fear negotiating salary, fear leaving and am a little underpaid compared to the numbers I see on HN.
I hope women don't degrade themselves like we do to feed the massive profits of the big tech companies. I have faith that women are generally way more sensible then us guys and won't put up with this crap. Being a developer can be isolating, depressing and lonely.
The "people / things" role postulate is interesting, it may explain some of the differences. But I don't think it holds up in all cases (50% of chemist bachelor degrees are female (https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/membership/acs/welcom...) and chemistry really isn't a "people" oriented discipline IMHO).
In general culture, I do think some things get grouped into one sex or another based on pure marketing and image. The marketing style or image itself might play on certain characteristics of the sexes that are biological (for instance, men have more testosterone of course, so men will respond better to marketing and imagery that plays on testosterone oriented characteristics). But this might say nothing about the product itself.
For instance, I see nothing biological at all why in most Western societies, beer tends to be seen as a "masculine" drink and wine a "feminine" one. Rather, to me it seems to be pure marketing positioning at this time.
With CS, there may be some biological explanation which will produce a natural bias in the ratio. But there may also be a marketing / image / "role" component of CS that does depress the ratio as well. IMHO, the marketing / image part of this is always worth challenging.
And there is an ingrained stereotype with computer programmers: the popular image of someone into computers in Western media is, pretty much almost always, a socially awkward, non-athletic, nerdy male. (This stereotype honestly is actually honestly unfair to male programmers that aren't socially awkward or are athletic or aren't terribly nerdy.)
It would be interesting to examine the popular stereotypes and generalizations of programmers in other countries and see if sex ratios differ based on what the positioning is.
Science is fucking hard, and biology is fucking complicated. Trying to make this transition now, and ermahgerd I thought I dealt with complex system. Not!
If we only could figure out what is common below and above our field, we might get out of this place in astoundingly average in gender segregation and become exceptional. Whatever is holding men's and women's participation in each other fields may be something fixable.
I've seen it almost everywhere, that's been my experience, but that's anecdotal. I do primarily work with startupy companies and large corps with aggressive environments.
> My friends (female and male) working here in NYC in other industries (finance, marketing, accounting, etc.) usually work 9-10 hours
These are industries dominated by men ...
> Some careers like nursing are known for their crazy hours.
It's not the consecutive hour count that's the issue, but the total hour count. Nurses do work long stretches of time, but they also get long stretches of time off.
The article I linked also discusses similar trends in mathematics, ie. ~50% of math bachelors are also for women. Of course, what you can do with a bachelors in math is become a teacher, which is why the number of women doing grad and post doc math work falls to roughly similar levels as computer science.
There is no comparable horizontal skill transfer for a computer science degree into teaching, so there's less enticement from the beginning, and so less engagement. No doubt some women actually continue with math post docs because they actually find it more interesting than expected, and they change their minds about using the math degree for something else.
As for chem, besides teaching-oriented goals as with math, a lot of chem is closely related to life sciences, pharmacology and other disciplines which typically do show high enrollment among women.
The things-vs-people effect seems quite strong. I agree that it may not account for all of the differences, and this would need to be quantified to be sure, but it does seem to account for the many of them. Certainly much better than the oppression hypothesis, so why is the latter still the prevailing narrative?
> IMHO, the marketing / image part of this is always worth challenging.
Agreed. I think this should apply to all fields, like male nursing, pro dancing and flight attendants, whose stereotypes are typically highly feminized.
But we shouldn't then be up in arms if people still openly and naturally choose to segregate by gender, as seems to be the trend across all nations with high gender equality.
Becoming a Nurse Practitioner requires, at a minimum, a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, followed by licensure as an RN, followed by a Master's in a NP specialty, followed by certification as an NP. Practically, it requires more because most NP programs require practice as an RN in the specialty for at least 1-2 years prior to admission. Its a very small, elite subset of nursing.
Further, Glassdoor estimates are something like a real-time estimate of what the current values of a nonrepresentative measure would be; they really should be marked "for entertainment use only". Per BLS data, the median salary of the 1,930 NPs in the Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights Metropolitan Division is $101,930, about on par with the far more numerous software developers (Software Developers, Applications: 20,570 jobs, $99,430 median salary; Software Developers, Systems Software, 9,930 jobs $103,620.) [0] The Glassdoor numbers you give are way high for NPs and way low for devs.
Contrary to your suggestion of massive geographical distortion in median salary due to concentration of tech jobs in high-cost locations, this elite level of nursing is paid generally similar to software developers nationally, as well. (Nurse Practitioners, 150,230 jobs, $104,610 median salary; Software Developers, Applications, 794,000 jobs, $104,300 median salary; Software Developers, System Software, 409,820 jobs, $110,590 median salary.) [1] (Yes, these national numbers are a little different than those from the Occupational Outlook Handbook, also from BLS, that I posted upthread: the OOH is a high-level publication updated more recently, which also uses slightly different categorizations; so here I've used the national data that corresponds directly to the geographic specific data.)
No one has ever suggested that I shouldn't or can't go into HR. It just doesn't interest me.
edit: nvm, I misread. You lump MechE (and I'd guess EE) with CS, and I think are pointing out they're in the 15-20% range as opposed to the other engineering disciplines mostly around 30%. I incorrectly thought you were saying the other fields were around 50%.
In some cases, there is some genuine concern behind the rant -- some of the stereotypes out there that some people hold are indeed downright oppressive. However, a lot of the times, accusations of malicious oppression are probably overblown, even if there truly is some stereotype out there that is facilitating the divide to some degree. Often the stereotype and prejudice might exist, but more because of social construct, not because of malice.
So angry rants about the situation are probably the least productive way to look into this problem. And yes, as you say, stereotype issues affects all professions. Once we resolve this problems (if we ever do), I agree there is no reason to be concerned about natural drift.
Hm, are these US statistics? Cursory look at our electrical engineering (european post-communist country) study programme list of students reveals that out of ~50 students, there is exactly zero women (:(). There is decidedly more women in the CS programme (~14%)
I'm also trying to figure out what your point in the third paragraph is, exactly. If NPs are geographically distributed roughly equally and software developers are not, you would see exactly that median salary distribution. Again, that's the whole point - if you look only at national medians or averages, you're completely ignoring the effects of regional outliers. Take away SF, Seattle, NYC, and Austin, and then tell me what the median software dev salary looks like nationally. If you can't do that, look at non-tech cities and countries for an indicator of what unskewed salary comparisons look like between professions.
Right, it wouldn't bother me so much if the academics pushing the "oppression" narrative were a little more honest about how non-robust the evidence is. Instead, it's often just conveyed as fact, which just blows my mind. No wonder there's so much manufactured outrage on college campuses these days.
Like when the Damore memo came out, and academics on both sides lined up to agree and disagree with Damore's points, which often just devolved into attacking straw men. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the quality of the arguments I read and how uncharitable people were with the people disagreeing with them.
Edit: Like, there are literal studies [1] demonstrating how much better a theory things-vs-people are in explaining the STEM gender divide, but the narrative seems immune to facts and better theories.
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...
Really? Where do you work (as in what part of the country)? I'm in the Dallas area and have been for 20 years - everywhere I've ever worked has had lots of women (close to 50/50) in technical roles. They're almost all Indian, though (as are 90% of the people in any technical roles). Rare to see a female manager of any nationality, though.
There are many professional and specialist roles in the medical field that go beyond "nursing" but don't require going to med school for full MD training. You have occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners, behavioral therapists, and probably many others I don't know about. Last I checked, all of the fields I mentioned are majority women. The salary ranges clear $100k though there's a generally higher education requirement for a given pay range. Although I think that is more an issue that tech has a uniquely low bar for formal education and a higher bar for informal education and experience.
I didn't ignore it, I addressed it implicitly with the reasons I rejected the validity of NP to software developer comparison; but to address it explicitly:
The median RN plaisibly makes in the same rough range as the median junior dev (“junior dev” being a seniority level within an occupational rather than a distinct tracked occupation in the BLS data, this is hard to tell with certainty, but plausible.)
OTOH, “junior dev” is the entry level of software development, beyond which people are expected to progress with a few years experience. RN is the full working level in nursing; the median across registered nurses includes a much wider experience band than that across junior devs, so they aren't really comparable: at the experience level of a median RN, a junior dev wouldn't be a junior dev any more.
> I'm also trying to figure out what your point in the third paragraph is, exactly.
You claimed that looking at Chicago rather than national numbers would shown that the latter suffer gross distortion in tech wages due to tech hubs like SF. In fact, the relation between the nursing sub-group you chose to focus on and software devs in Chicago is very similar to the national relationship (both are a little under the national level in Chicago, and software developers a few percentage points moreso than NPs, but not enough to make a significant difference in the relationship.)
> Again, that's the whole point - if you look only at national medians or averages, you're completely ignoring the effects of regional outliers
But I'm not looking at only the national numbers, I just compared them to the numbers for your chosen non-tech-hub locale and found that the gross distortion you claimed in the national numbers, compared to non-tech-hub locale, doesn't exist.
> If you can't do that, look at non-tech cities and countries for an indicator of what unskewed salary comparisons look like between professions.
But I just did that with you selecting both the non-tech-hub city and the non-tech profession, and the national vs. local comparison wasn't materially different. (I suspect that the reason is that locality has only modest effect on the median and a lot bigger effect on the total number of positions and the shape of the high tail; if we were looking at means rather than medians there'd probably be more distortion.)
However, I have pretty big issues with BLS data in general, so it's pretty clear we're not going to come to an agreement here based on that data set. If you're going to treat BLS data as gospel and other sources as garbage then we can save time and stop here.
Software development is a great career. But it's just a career. It's not a prize. It's not some kind of gift handed out to a privileged elite. We need to stop treating it that way.
Your expectations are pretty high if realizing this led you to be disappointed. Not expectations of your SO in particular, but in general about people.
I think this is inherent to most people - they generally don't enjoy the job they do, but they do it still to pay the bills and secure for yourself some form of retirement and safety net in your later years.
EDIT> But also, I generally don't do any job whose subject matter I don't enjoy. I'm different in this way, from most people. The concept of doing something that I don't like is very foreign to me, with all the positives and also negatives that entails.
I have no idea what bringing up ChemE has to do with anything: undergrad ChemE has little to do with chemistry and a lot to do with continuum mechanics and steam tables. It's common for engineering students to do their natural sciences classwork (it isn't called "earth sciences", that is something else) together along with major students.