Because women are smarter. I notice that graph compares Computer Science ($50K-$150K/year), to Medical School ($150K--$1M), Law School ($120K--$1M), and Physical Sciences (???).
Women see the writing on the wall on High School: Med/Law School offer a clear career path to the upper middle class, while CS offers a muddy path at a middle class life.
They also see "rich" old Doctors and Lawyers. They have never seen a "rich" old programmer, because they don't exist. Programmers are washed out by 50, while Doctors are in their prime at 50.
Data: I am an 80's kid. All the smart girls knew to go to med/law school. All the nerdy guys like me wasted time learning 6502 assembly. We are all doing OK, but the women make 2 to 3 times as much as the men.
Law is a middle class profession for most lawyers. Very few lawyers make anywhere near $1M per year. I guess that the number of US attorneys consistently making $1M yearly is in the hundreds or low thousands.
Median salary for lawyers is $113,530. That's a pay most lawyers don't achieve until they are in their late 30s or 40s.
Top 10 percentile is at $187,200.
Most lawyers spend 4 years in college and then 3 years in law school to land a $60,000 dollar job in their late 20s. Then they spend another 5-10 years paying off the student loans. Many programmers make that kind of money in their early 20s without any formal education.
Also, it's too early to say at what age programmers are "done". There were few developers in the 1970's and 1980's and they are now nearing retirement. Let's wait and see how it goes with the bigger generation of developers that are now in their 20s and 30s. My guess is that many of them will continue until retirement.
Programming also seems like a pretty clear path to management (if that's your goal), which is one of the best upper-middle class professions there is. And once you've proven the ability to manage a team it is much easier to translate that into non-technical management, which opens you up to a plethora of different positions, particularly if you have advanced education (e.g. MBA or similar).
Management requires an entirely different skillset than programming, and one that many programmers are not well-suited for.
Management is not about selecting objectively good tools, and it's not about making hard choices or settling disputes. It's about keeping everyone that works for your employer happy, which is, frankly, 95% about the superficial.
A fair number of developers transition to management, but I would not call the path "pretty clear". It is much less clear than for project managers, program managers, etc.
THIS. I love programming, and spent my childhood hacking away on Apple IIs/Amigas/etc., but if I had my teens/twenties to do over again, I would pursue a career in Medicine (couldn't have stomached a career in Law, methinks) while continuing to program as a 'hobby.'
Grass is always greener. If you were a medical professional you'd probably be having the exact same thoughts, wishing you had taken up law or computers, anything to escape from all the blood, broken bones and sick and dying people, day in day out, with no end in sight.
I really question where you are getting your numbers they don't really make sense to me. Second, I will point out that the market for lawyers is completely oversaturated, so if you go to law school unless you went to a top ten law school you may end up working at Starbucks (slight exageration). As far as medicine their is very clear demand but the costs to get their are very high. You have an extra $100K, for 4 years of med school and 3 of residency where you act like a Doctor but get paid shit. You don't start making money until you are 30, while in CS you can be making big buck at 21. Physical Sciences get paid even worse.
You cannot make a argument that women are just taking the more optimal career path and leaving men to do what is left over.
I think the argument is that "big bucks" in CS is relative and the ceiling is much higher in medicine specifically (and to a certain extent law but you're 100% correct about the oversaturation).
Outside of San Francisco and (maybe) NYC, "big bucks" for a programmer with no managerial responsibilities is probably somewhere in the $120-180k range. In my very low cost of living area, it's in the $100-120k range. You just cannot get a job for more than $9-10k/mo in the area doing development. Team leads/tech leads are similarly priced, and it's not until you're managing multiple teams that you're in the area of $150k.
And yes a new doctor will be 5-6 years older and make less than a new programmer. But "big bucks" for a physician is measured in the hundreds of thousands. Anesthesiology tops $430k a year in median salary.[2] It's absolutely a harder, more demanding job, and it starts out much less forgiving. But the ladder extends much, much further and depending on specialty it's hard not to end up solidly upper class regardless of geographic area or cost of living.
The 2012 median annual wage for "Computer programmers" is $72k[0]
The 2012 median annual wage for a lawyer is $114k, with an arguably much more difficult job market[1], but is incredibly close to the top 10% of computer programmers (which is $118k).
The 2012 median annual wage for a physicians is above the maximum reported value of $187,200[2]
It's about the entire cost. If the average wage for a programmer is 72k, but they can make that for 10 years while the future-doctor is living off student loans, that's worth something; at the end of the 10 year training period for the physician, they've made -200k while the programmer has made +720k. If the physician comes out of school and makes the median wage of 187k, at year 20 the programmer will have grossed 1.4 million while the physician has grossed 1.8 million, but the physician also has had to pay down 200k student debt at a rough estimate of a 6% total interest rate (total: 266k), making his 10-year career take home only about 220k more than the programmer.
It's definitely true that doctors make more money over the long run, but if by year 20 (~age 40), the difference is only about 2 years' extra salary, a lot of people would say it's not worth the stress.
Plus if you are smart enough to make good investment decisions while you are young, as a programmer you are pretty much set to retire by the time doctors start making money.
LOL, only if by "investment decisions" you mean "luck into a 1 out of 1000 unicorn startup". I don't know a single programmer retired in their 30s who did it with salary and retail investing.
1. If you are a programmer who can make an above-average salary immediate upon graduating; and
2. If you are able to save an above average amount of that salary; and
3. If you are exceptionally good at traditional investment decisions (stock picking) such that you can consistently beat the market; and
4. You actually decide to use the money from #2 for #3
Then it's possible to retire after a sub-20 year career. In the same sense that it's possible to win the lottery multiple times. Each of the first three points are by definition exceedingly rare as single traits of any one person, let alone all three together.
I've never seen someone with any background in or knowledge of retail investment suggest that anyone start with less than $5,000. That seems to be about the minimum, especially if you're picking stocks where you're almost guaranteed to under-perform the market in the long term.
Even if its not that. It still doesn't mean - "Blows entire salary to smithereens'. Basic knowledge of savings and investments will put you ahead of bulk of the crowd out there.
As an Indian, I don't know much about the US market. But you guys still have index funds, Roth IRA, IRA and real estate to invest in.
In India even cab drivers who made bad real estate decisions have typically reaped X00% returns. People who made intelligent decisions are already retired. Many programmers in early 90's and even 2000's I know are already make big money in rents. And of course that doesn't mean every body did that.
When it comes to savings and investment there really is a binary crowd that I've seen. The first crowd says its just not possible and doesn't even try, the other crowd tries and some how makes it to be known as those "1 in 1000".
You cannot start taking penalty-free distributions from an IRA until you're 59.5 years old. So that's definitely not the way to retire in your 30s.
I've found people who boldly claim you can invest your way to early retirement always speak in vague generalities, and never have specific advice to offer. "Just be smart" and "pick the right funds" but if you press them on exactly what to do with, for example, $1000 in investable income a month in order to retire in 20 years with $5000 a month in income, they tend to come up short on details.
Dealing with mainframes is probably kinda secure job. Dealing with personal computers seems very sensitive to economic fluctuations.
Maybe women just kept doing what they have always done. And men conquered this new front where employment is less certain. Just like with gold rushes in the past. So the news is no news.
While it may have improved I feel like it's still quite low. Outside of the valley and a few other key cities we're still largely considered anti-social dweebs who can't talk to women, have regressive sexist ideologies, are pedantic assholes, etc.
The image of the computer scientist/programmer/data scientist is changing pretty rapidly within the younger generation. STEM degrees garner a lot of respect, especially CS degrees, because everyone has suddenly become obsessed with "intelligence" as an indicator of future success and wealth, to the detriment of professionalism and altruism.
Programming is now cool and desirable - you can see the shifts everywhere in pop culture. Being a nerd or a geek is a badge of pride for many.
Perhaps it is cool - but it is still not a popular major to study. Very, very few of my kids' friends in high school picked a STEM major, even fewer CS. Top 10 high school in Massachusetts (which is No. 1 in the US)
Honest question, what exactly do you mean by your statement? Is it that, when you meet a stranger and tell them your profession, they judge you that way?
Definitely. I've heard several women friends of mine say they usually avoid dating men in IT. I've also personally gone on a date with a woman who said she was pleasantly surprised I could actually hold a conversation with her. I've heard terms like "engineer autism" to refer to the quirky social awkwardness that is associated with men in IT.
What kind of reaction do you think you'd get if your assessment had the opposite outcome? I'm all for brutal honesty, but it should be a two-way street.
'Women' and 'men' are fairly large groups by which to organize people. I don't have a source, but I would wager a guess that there were other men who chose medicine and law(particularly since these graphs never grow above 50%) even though you chose a as. And why did women only start to see the writing on the wall after 1984? (Per the graph).
Compensation figures really have to be adjusted for hours worked, stress levels, work environment, schooling required (and associated opportunity cost of lost income), etc.
On top of that I'd also like to see innate cognitive ability factored in.
My guess is that once all the relevant variables are accounted for there's not much difference between the different professions.
It will boil down to what one likes to do. Because that's going to be what you stick with and develop excellence in over time. Medicine, law, and programming are all pretty radically different field, so whether or not you enjoy the work is really going to matter. Pick one you like and you'll do fine.
Note: The top end in annual comp for doctors and lawyers may be $1M but you really can't compare that to the top end in annual comp for CS because many developers at the top end are compensated in equity - which isn't paid out as income on an annual basis.
that is a good explanation, however it does not explain why women did choose programming as a career path before 1984 - were women less clever/was a high salary less important just before 1984 or was programming a more promising career path? I don't know.
i heard another explanation - that the home computer brought about a shift in how pop culture did perceive programmers, from now on it was a thing for male geeks. Was that because home computers did not have a particularly friendly user interface at that time ? I don't know.
Before that it was like any other white collar office job, after that popular culture became to associate it with you know who. It might be that this image did have some influence on career choices.
Again, these are all guesses because nobody can anything definitive on the subject.
"Uncle" Bob Martin gave an interesting talk in London last night about the need for a professional body for software.
Doctors have the American Medical Association (or BMA here in the UK). Lawyers have the American Bar Association (I think the Law Society is the UK equivalent). They can regulate their profession, ensuring standards, controlling membership through certification, and raising the value/cost of the members.
Perhaps he's right, and we'd benefit from the same in software?
The AMA and the ABA end up performing the function of unions in attempting to guarantee a rough wage floor by artificially constraining supply. One of the ways they do this is by working to ensure that the barriers to entry in the field are artificially high.
I believe that licensing and authoritative standards bodies are inevitable in software engineering, but I think it will radically change the face of the programming job market, removing many of its most attractive qualities. It will be a very dark day, and the end of the era of the self-taught programmer, when something like the American Software Engineering Association gets to set the rules.
I saw him give the same talk in Chicago, and the impression that I got was that the body he was advocating for had nothing to do with salaries. The AMA and the Bar might increase salaries by creating scarcity in their professions, but they aren't salary negotiating organizations like a union.
We don't need a union, but a professional body representing us would do wonders. Merely sorting out the H1B visa mess (not necessarily eliminating) would help salaries.
My wife is an architect (residential) and her clients cannot tell her to take a shortcut which violates the Building Code.
I'd love to be able to say "no" to some stupid, short-sighted requests I get from clients. Without a professional organization behind me - I can't, because I will be deemed "difficult" and lose the business.
Even if your wife thinks it's good idea to violate the building Code in some isolated case, she still can't legally do it.
You're just looking for someone to back you up because you think your client is short-sighted. You'd have equal leverage to your wife's if your software was processing data in a regulated industry and a client asked you to do something against regulations.
1) Medicine and Law are professions, programming is not. You could arguably compare to CS professors, but that's still apples and oranges.
2) It doesn't make any sense to compare (peak, median, whatever) yearly salaries when you have wildly different career paths (e.g. 0 years of school vs. 10+) , debt, etc. What you want is lifetime earnings.
3) Lawyers in general don't make anything like what you think they do. Doctors distribution is also lower than your range suggests.
You are right that some of these professions offer, for a smallish number of people, a clear path to a solid upper middle class salary (and few options outside of that).
Regardless of the reality (which everything I've seen concurs with what you've said), there are a ton of people making decisions for school that are influenced by media, parents, etc. that keep telling them that the safest career path is doctors and lawyers. That's starting to change nowadays, but only just.
I still regularly hear people talk about how cushy and rich all lawyer jobs supposedly are.
It's quite a different story now. You're looking at a ~14 year incubation period before you're making those types of numbers as a physician (bachelors, med school, residency, fellowship), plus having to take on significant debt. An overwhelmingly large number of physicians also report a low quality of life and urge others not to enter the profession.
I'm not sure how it is for lawyers, but I would imagine there is also a significant up front investment before you start making real money (if you ever do). Contrast this with CS where you can make 6 figures right out of college with significantly less pain during the training process.
> I'm not sure how it is for lawyers, but I would imagine there is also a significant up front investment before you start making real money (if you ever do).
Law school alone (ignoring the cost of passing the bar or anything else) is prohibitively expensive for many people.
For 2015-16, Yale law school is $78,000/yr[0], Harvard is $85,000[1] (including an optional $2400 health plan), Columbia is $65,588[2], and Stanford is $54,183[3]. So you're looking at $165-255,000 in fees, expenses and tuition over three years.
The majority of my friends who are attorneys and have taken the bar also spent several months (up to 6-8 but that does not seem to be the norm) doing nothing but studying for it full time. Everyone took out additional loans to cover expenses, or lived with their parents for free. So it's not uncommon to have $150k in just law school student loans when all is said and done.
So the median is still higher for attorneys than for developers, but most attorneys would have student loan obligations in the 1.2-2x median salary range, so often several times more than they're making right out of school.
It was bad enough making $45k as a junior developer with $20k in student loans, I can't imagine making $60k as a junior associate in a similar area with $175k in student loans.
And to add anecdote to anecdata: the girl who was my senior year lab partner in EE spent a few years as an engineer, decided she'd had enough, and is now a physician in Hawaii.
Last time I talked to her, she was quite happy with her choice.
You don't even need to go all the way up to medicine. According to US News and Report "Best Jobs"[1][2], median salaries for developers in San Francisco ($114,400), ostensibly ground zero for the "shortage", are only a whisker higher than they are for dental hygienists ($112,970) and are considerably lower than for registered nurses ($127,670).
[1] go to US News and World Report "Best Jobs" and drill down by salary and region. Alternatively, you can go to the BLS site - which is what the US News numbers are based on.
[2] I'd also like to acknowledge that these numbers "seem" low to me. It's based on BLS data by region, but dev salaries seem higher than this in SF.
I've posted this on HN a few times, and I've realized that I need to qualify this with a few statements.
I have no problem with nurses earning higher salaries than software developers. It's a difficult and vitally important job and nurses deserve their high salaries and high scores on surveys of professional respect.
Yes, programmers have more upside, but check the BLS directly for higher percentile salaries. It isn't until you get to the 90%ile for devs and nurses (in SF) that the devs earn more, and even then, it's only by a whisker. There are also lots of downsides - age related employment issues can get pretty bad for software developers. I do think that nurses have better job stability, experience few age-related employment issues in middle age, and may actually have better job flexibility (they can't wander off and get a cup of coffee whenever they feel like it like most devs can, but many nursing and medical specialties have remarkable options to scale back on work for a period of time, such as having a kid, without severely compromising the long term career path).
Another complicating factor - anyone who reads a book on PHP can call him or herself a "software developer" (though BLS stats base this on people who use the title or something similar on a tax return, I believe). Nursing, on the other hand, requires a degree and formal licensure. So it's not quite apples-to-apples. Then again, we separate out physicians from nurses, whereas we include very high salary devs in that number, so again, it's complicated and difficult to make these comparisons.
Also, these are numbers for San Francisco - nurses do not out earn developers everywhere. However, the higher concentration of devs in SF/Silicon Valley could skew the numbers as well.
I'll stop here, and simply acknowledge that interpreting this data is certainly more complex than simply listing some medians. My real problem is that most analyses of why group X isn't going into profession Y almost never consider the possibility that this may in fact be a highly rational response to market signals. This isn't the only factor, and the social issues NPR mentions are highly relevant. However, we really do need to explore the extent to which a preference for law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentisty, or even dental hygiene over software development may be highly rational.
> median salaries for developers in San Francisco ($114,400), ostensibly ground zero for the "shortage", are only a whisker higher than they are for dental hygienists ($112,970) and are considerably lower than for registered nurses ($127,670).
What are you trying to prove? Nurses are a frequently-identified national shortage. So, unless you are trying to, by comparison, establish that there is also a shortage in dental hygienists (which I have no problem believing), I'm not sure what you are trying to establish.
The NPR report notes that while women continued to enter medicine and law in large numbers, enrollment in computer science abruptly declined, then seeks to explain this through a heavy emphasis on cultural factors. I believe that we should be placing greater consideration on economic factors, and consider that entering computer science may not be economically rational when you consider the other options women now have (though I also do agree that cultural factors play a substantial role as well). I argue out that even nursing and dental hygiene may have better, more predictable economic outcomes than computer science.
Another advantage that dental hygienists and nurses have in terms of employment stability is that their jobs can't be shipped out of the country, unlike those of software developers.
Women see the writing on the wall on High School: Med/Law School offer a clear career path to the upper middle class, while CS offers a muddy path at a middle class life.
They also see "rich" old Doctors and Lawyers. They have never seen a "rich" old programmer, because they don't exist. Programmers are washed out by 50, while Doctors are in their prime at 50.
Data: I am an 80's kid. All the smart girls knew to go to med/law school. All the nerdy guys like me wasted time learning 6502 assembly. We are all doing OK, but the women make 2 to 3 times as much as the men.