Project 2

Link to artifact:
https://lucasunruh.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/women-in-stem-profile/

Women and minorities face large obstacles entering in to every STEM field. Computer Science, though, as the newest of the STEM fields, receives the most attention from the media for its inability to draw these groups in to their ranks. Despite the tech-field's self-proclaimed "meritocracy," women and minorities are not given an equal chance at high-paying tech jobs. This isn't necessarily the fault in every case of the companies that are hiring, however. In many instances, societal norms play a large role in pushing people away from Tech. People think that they are not welcome because the Tech industry is portrayed in a very negative light (at least towards women and minorities) in society. This, I think, becomes a self-fueling cycle. The media portrays the Tech industry as unwelcoming to women and minorities, fewer apply to these jobs or study the field in college, so fewer are accepted into the industry. This, however, is not the only obstacle that women and minorities face getting into the STEM. The fields are white-male dominated (some STEM fields more than others). Because the demographics have been this way for so long, it has made some of the members of the field feel entitled to their positions and comfortable with the status-quo. They feel threatened by changes and push back against anything that would upset their comfortable bubbles.

Role models play an important role, to many people, inspiring people to reach for long-term goals. Although I, myself, have never had a STEM role-model, I know many women who look up to the many women luminaries in the field today and use their examples to guide them going forward. After reading about Anita Borg, I have a new-found respect for her work in the field of computer science. She was inspiring not so much because she was a brilliant programmer, but because of her non-stop work promoting the field to other women. I want to become someone like her. Someone that, when they see a problem, they immediately can throw themselves at it in an attempt to fix it - no matter if there will be blow-back or if society does not necessarily recognize the issue.

Challenger Disaster

The Challenger disaster was caused by nothing other than gross negligence by the upper-management at NASA. The information we now have about the defective O-rings was just as well known by management the day of the launch. Yet, despite the knowledge of this risk, NASA management let the launch go through. It is true that they faced pressure from the government, from the public, and from many other sources to make sure the launch happened. But, when your mistakes may endanger human life, no amount of cautiousness is enough. Nothing, in that situation, could be classified as an "acceptable flight risk." The probability for failure may have been small, but the cost of failure, even in with the smallest probability, was entirely too high.

One of the things that angers me most about this whole incident was the punishment that Roger Boisjoly faced after the incident. Boisjoly was one of the primary whistleblowers in the case. He brought the O-ring issue to light and even, the night before launch, attempted to persuade management to abort the flight. But they didn't listen to his advice. Boisjoly was entirely ethical in sharing this issue with the public. And, the reason is, that his information revealed a system that did not prioritize human life. He revealed the gross negligence present in NASA that not only lead to the deaths of 7 astronauts, but also the traumatization of millions of children and a major set-back for the space program for years to come.

Technically speaking, depending on the language of his employment contract, the company was "justified" in retaliating against him. This is, of course, strictly in the legal sense of the word. If he agreed not to reveal any unauthorized information to the public, and then did, he is responsible for any backlash he faces. However, ethically speaking, there is not way in which the company is justified in punishing Boisjoly. Boisjoly, through his actions, potentially saved many more future lives and, while he may have made the company look bad, he also brought the opportunity to make real lasting change within the company's structure.

Whistleblowing is very important in society. It uncovers many of the troubling secrets that industry tries to bury. But, for many people, it is just not worth it. The potential for blowback is just too great a risk to assume for the benefits of revealing whatever information they have. That is exactly why we should value whistleblowers. They have the courage to put their own future at risk to potentially save the lives of many others. That being said, I do not think all whistleblowers are worthy of praise. I think that, primarily, whistleblowers should only reveal information that can actually help people. These secrets should be such that, by not revealing them, people are in danger. In cases like that of Chelsea Manning, who leaked sensitive information to WikiLeaks, the benefit is less clear. Of course, it uncovered a large NSA operation. But, it also put many undercover operatives at risk by putting  their personal information out into public domain.

Diversity in the Tech Industry

The lack of diversity in the tech-industry is one of the biggest issues we must face if we, as a society, want to advance into the technological age. The status-quo is actively preventing technological advancement in our country; when at least 50% of the population feels uncomfortable joining the industry, and many other segments of the population, too, feel isolated working in a white-washed environment, there is no opportunity for the infusion of new ideas and talent into the workplace.

Women and minorities face numerous obstacles when entering the tech-industry. Even if they are hired which, according to some of the articles we read, is not nearly at the same rate as white males, women and minorities are not comfortable in the current prevailing tech environment, which propagates a sort brogramming culture. Surrounded by this, they are pushed to the fringe of the office, going to work each day feeling like outsiders. Although some are able to deal with these difficulties, many leave, shown by the disproportionately high retention statistics for women and minorities in large tech companies. It is good that many companies are making a concerted effort to hire more women and minorities, but that is not enough. I believe that, for true change to take place, there must be a societal effort to change these social norms.

As we read, many of the current stereotypical norms associated with computer programmers were developed from the behavioral studies of many tech companies in the early years of the industry. But, the problem was that these studies really only focused on one demographic, white males. So, as can be expected, the portrait of the computer programmer was really just the portrait of the privileged white guy. Reinforced over the next few decades, this portrait is now the norm. Across the country, women and minorities hesitate to even attempt to take up computer science, and other engineering disciplines for that matter, as their focus. We need to change this stereotype. This can only come through early-childhood education about technology. Teach kids that anyone can code, and that it isn't just something you're born with. If we actually can get kids interested early, then the future of the industry is guaranteed. Imagine how much better off we would be now if, over the last 30 years, the talent pool had been expanded by 50%.

On Burnout

From both the readings and from my experience, it seems that burnout has a few, related, causes. For the most part, however, I think it comes from mental exhaustion. It seems like every few days I hear, either through someone I know or through the news, a mention of burnout, especially in the tech industry. And, each time I hear about it, it comes along with a mention of the severe hours put in by those experiencing the burnout. These people are simply exhausting their mental faculties. I know that, personally, when I start working, I go into a state of extreme focus. I tend to mentally prioritize the task on hand, pushing every external stimulus away. These periods of focus can go on for hours, if I do not consciously set timers to stop myself. I cannot imaging forcing myself into this state for 80 - 100 hours a week. We humans did not evolve to spend all of our time thinking about one single objective, or one single problem. We evolved to be able to read and react to our surroundings, to have short, intense, bursts of problem-solving followed by immediate follow through.

I experienced something like burnout near the end of this past summer at my internship. I remember the moment I noticed that I was burnt out. It was during the European soccer championships. I went to my desk like any normal day and turned on the games (we all had televisions in our cubicles for development purposes). The next thing I realized was that it was 2 pm and almost the end of the work day. I had spent almost the entire day staring at the tv screen, not really processing anything. But, I was able to recover, thankfully. I started adopting a cyclical work cycle. The main idea is to spend short bursts working, followed by short breaks. My cycle was as follows: work for 25 mins, break for 5 mins, after every four work periods, take one longer 30 minute break. This allowed me to actually get up and move around the office , converse with other interns, and not need to stare at my computer all day. It also helped to divide the day nicely (I had 1.5 cycles in the morning and 1.5 after lunch). Additionally, I began taking longer lunches and eating with the other interns. This helped to distract my mind from my work. I also found that, as I got to know the interns better, I wanted to go to work more. I hope that, as I enter the workforce, I can continue to apply these basic strategies to avoid burnout and have a reasonable work-life balance.

Project 1

Manifesto and Portrait Link
Response:

I strongly identify with this manifest, especially the line, "I want to have stronger coffee." Because, really, the quality of the coffee in the dining halls is mediocre, at best. This manifesto presents the, often hidden, optimistic beliefs of every Notre Dame CSE major. We are all aware that we should be applying our skills to benefit society. But, there is a difficult decision we all face, between taking a job that will pay well (and help us to pay off our student debt) and taking a job that will let us contribute and give back to society the most. Despite this, I think that, even those who do not have the chance to immediately give back, we will have a positive impact on society. This manifesto is not a warcry, it is a reflection on the lingering desire of every student to actually apply their skills for good.

I identify, for the most part, with the portrait. I am a skinny, brown-haired, white male from a major metropolitan area (Washington D.C.). I definitely fit squarely into the niche prep contingent of the CSE undergrad population.

I think that, although I am not generally aware of them, stereotypes are very important to how I view the world. I recently took a Harvard Implicit Bias test, and it revealed that I do have a slight latent bias towards and against certain groups. This does not mean that I am racist, it means that stereotypes have biased my unconscious towards reacting differently to different people. Because of this, I am now much more aware of my interactions with others and how stereotypes play a role in my initial impression of others.

Interview Process

My interview process so far has been fairly uneventful. I've worked at the same company twice now, although in different roles. I do not anticipate re-applying to work there full time. The process to apply was fairly easy. The first summer, I didn't even have a technical interview for the role. This was, however, because the internship had me working in the learning resource center. It was not intended as a software-engineering role. However, the summer was partially saved by my ability to volunteer to lead the high-school intern team through their android application development project. For this past summer, the process was slightly more involved. I had one initial interview on the phone with a person in HR followed by a "technical" interview with both of my future managers. I say that the interview was "technical" only because it involved my managers asking me general knowledge questions such as, "what is a race condition?" In a way, I feel like the company had already decided to hire me before the interview even started - they did not even attempt to test my coding ability. This frustrated me. I expected to be required to do some actual coding, but it seemed as if my manager's did not really take the time to form challenging questions.

Currently, I am preparing for an interview with a large tech company. Their process is much more involved and has, overall, been very pleasant. What really has made the experience for me was that it was all initiated through a recruiter on Linkedin. At each step, the company has asked me which dates work the best for me, and accommodated my programming preferences.

Although I have had an (overall) good interview experience, I think that many companies do not do a good job with their overall process. They don't ask interviewees about their strengths and attempt to force antiquated or ineffective interview methods onto them. Because of this, they alienate many qualified candidates for the jobs that they so desperately need to fill.