Top colleges boast about reaching gender parity in 'intro to computer science' courses. But very few of those women go on to graduate with a CS degree. Here's why.

The first programmers started out as "Computers." This was the name given by the Army to a group of over 80 women working at the University of Pennsylvania during World War II calculating ballistics trajectories - complex differential equations - by hand. When the Army agreed to fund an experimental project, the first all-electronic digital computer, six ''Computers'' were selected in 1945 to be its first programmers. They were Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli, Jean Jennings Bartik, Frances Snyder Holberton, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Frances Bilas Spence and Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum. The ENIAC was the first all-electronic digital computer, a machine of approximately 18,000 vacuum tubes and forty black 8-foot panels. Because the ENIAC project was classified, the programmers were denied access to the machine they were supposed to tame into usefulness until they received their security clearances. As the first programmers, they had no programming manuals or courses, only the logical diagrams to help them figure out how to make the ENIAC work.

Unfortunately, when it comes to increasing diverse participation in tech, good intentions are never enough. Frequently, in our work with tech companies, we encounter many folks who are frustrated and wonder why things, to date, have changed so little. We have found that one of the first steps to easing this frustration and improving effectiveness of change efforts is to help folks distinguish between research-based approaches versus well-meaning but misguided approaches that are not based on research. I thought it might be useful to share a few quick points to help change-leaders separate the research-based wheat from the misguided chaff when it comes to creating inclusive cultures. In short, research-based approaches are not about fixing people, are not only about the ''pipeline,'' and are not ''women's issues'' or issues for underrepresented groups to resolve in isolation.

In 2017, the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive. For the incurious, the taboo around this argument makes it exciting. But unlike people, not all ideas are created equally, and they should not be treated with the same amount of seriousness - especially when those ideas ignore both a broad scientific debate that's gone on for years and clear evidence that women in tech are excluded more than in other industries. The idea that women or people of color lack the innate qualities that white men possess to succeed in high-status, elite professions is decades old. And the shape of the argument always looks the same, saying that current social conditions are somehow biologically natural, and that attempts to remedy inequalities are suspect. It is a tired stance in an endless debate, and it says far more about our feelings than it does about science.

The memo written by a Google employee that went viral earlier this month hit a raw nerve. The tech industry is already beset by accusations of widespread sexism and discrimination, and suddenly here was someone arguing that genetic differences rather than bias alone might explain why there are more men than women in tech jobs.

There are a lot of controversial statements in the leaked diversity memo written by Google engineer James Damore - most notably, his theory that the gender gap in tech could be attributed to biological differences between men and women. 'The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,'' writes Damore, who has since been fired by Google for perpetuating gender stereotypes. He argues that women, on average, have ''openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas,'' and ''have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men.'' He also argues that women are more prone to neuroticism than men, and less assertive and competitive ''across human cultures.'' In his view, biology, not discrimination or sexism, is to blame for the dearth of women at Google and in the tech industry at large.

To paraphrase Uber SVP Frances Frei: As more and more people speak out about harassment in tech, the industry has a chance to capitalize on that openness. Whether it has the willpower to follow through remains an open question. On the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher, diversity advocate Erica Baker and ProDay CEO Sarah Kunst explained how we got to this point of culture crisis and why the responses of Silicon Valley leaders have often felt lacking.

Link to the article discussing the differences about male and female brain. Forget all those glowing brain scans, here's the real science behind the differences between men and women.

Fashion for lovers of all things in science and tech.

Meet the founders, execs, engineers, and VCs shaking up the world's most powerful industry. This article originally appears in the August 2017 issue of ELLE. In the fourth annual Women in Tech power list, Elle celebrates the founders, execs, engineers, and VCs shaking up the world's most powerful industry-and challenging what you do with everything from your microbiome to your extra bedroom.