Why Women Have an Advantage in Technology

(Blog Post) Audrey MacLean describes herself as an accidental technologist, an accidental entrepreneur, and an accidental investor. But at the age of eight, she made at least one plan: She would earn a college scholarship. Ms. MacLean, 59, executed that plan and went on to help start Network Equipment Technologies, which went public in 1987. Later, she was a founder and chief executive of Adaptive. She has given seed financing to numerous successful start-ups ... Full Story »

Posted by Kristin Gorski - via NewsRack (U.S.), Ish Harshawat (t), Wil Kristin (t), David K. Miller (t), mckarthy diahn (t), Thanh Tran (t), Alfredo Ramos Jr (t), urmi das (t)
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kristin Gorski - Jun 24, 2011 - 6:30 AM PDT
Content Type: Blog Post
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kristin Gorski - Jun 24, 2011 - 7:20 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Kristin Gorski
3.8
by Kristin Gorski - Jun. 24, 2011

Brief, yet strong, interview. The reporter allows the interviewee to make important points and express them fully. Links out to mentioned companies and resources.

We need to get girls interested in computing by first grade. By fifth grade, it’s game over. Computing has an image crisis. A boy geek subculture has grown up around ... More »

See Full Review » (19 answers)
Danny Franks
3.1
by Danny Franks - Apr. 10, 2012

While the profile of Ms. Maclean is a poignant and moving one, the article doesn't live up to what it advertises. Besides the fact that there is a rise of Stanford class female technology involvement, not much science is provided to show what women may have a technological edge. If the science was there, this would have been very relevant and timely for many women who aspire to be in the tech world.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Jigar Purohit
4.0
by Jigar Purohit - Jun. 29, 2011

yes women get advantage in any filled

See Full Review » (2 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.7

Good
from 4 reviews (45% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Facts
2.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
3.2
Insight
4.0
Style
4.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
4.0
Context
3.5
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
4.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!