The United States has considerable unmet computing needs, requiring more students of all backgrounds to pursue majors in computer science. Yet, students face barriers to success, including institutional barriers related to the sequencing of computing courses, lack of academic support, and the overall structure computing major. The Center for Inclusive Computing at Northeastern University is focused on reducing these barriers. According to Dean of Inclusive Computing Carla Brodley, through the Center for Inclusive Computing, the university has identified 10 research-based interventions that help colleges and universities to remove the barriers that prevent students from “discovering and thriving in computing programs.” She stated, “Those interventions can be categorized in three buckets: 1) changes to the intro sequence (e.g., common assessment); 2) changes to student support (e.g. training TAs); and 3) changes to the major.” The interventions include:
- Restructuring introductory computing courses to address differing levels of prior experience.
- Using a common assessment (shared assignments and exams) across sections of introductory commuting
- Providing context and applicability for the computing curriculum; students must see the connections to real-world issues and connections to their other courses.
- Offering introductory computing courses as a possible general education requirement to promote discovery among students overall.
- Centralizing the process for hiring, training, and assessing teaching assistants.
- Aligning co-curricular supports with improvements and changes in curricula.
- Presenting easy-to-understand and comprehensive degree maps on the website, making them easily accessible to students.
- Re-evaluating course pre-requisite courses as to whether they are necessary.
- Removing GPA-based enrollment caps as these caps can limit who can participate in the major.
- Creating interdisciplinary computer majors — collaborating with the humanities, business, and social sciences.
These recommendations are explained in detail on the Center for Inclusive Computing website. In addition, they are supported by links to research demonstrating their effectiveness and case study videos.
According to Brodley, “The data indicates that when schools remove barriers, the demographics start to change quickly as students from populations historically marginalized in tech feel welcome, thrive and are retained. While efforts to boost retention are working, we believe that it’s not enough to move the needle materially. To do that, more needs to be done to attract students.” She added, “This is why we have recently launched a special initiative on interdisciplinary computing majors, which we think is potentially the most powerful lever for shifting the demographics in the discipline.”
Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in education are facing considerable backlash. According to Brodley, The Center for Inclusive Computing is “navigating this resistance by focusing on the question of prior experience (i.e., who has access to CS education in high school) rather than on gender or race. This focus correlates economics (wealthier ZIP codes -> better higher schools -> better CS classes, clubs, etc.) and also, to a lesser but still large degree, to race. It also correlates currently to gender because CS, even if offered, is typically an elective and often not taken by girls.” Brodley also noted that in 2024 — despite a great need for more computer science majors — only 57% of U.S. high schools offer a CS class.
The approach that Northeastern uses to be more inclusive is “scalable” and adaptable. Brodley shared, “It’s adaptable because we focus on the high leverage points that apply to most computing programs – CS1 (how are students introduced to the discipline), having different major pathways (B.A./B.S., interdisciplinary, etc.) The approach is scalable because: a) we spent the past 18 months or so codifying the interventions – through research, case studies and cost analysis; b) we have identified variations to align with key institutional characteristics (e.g., budget model, if CS is inside engineering, whether the degree is ABET accredited, etc); and c) because we are focused on fixing the system itself.”
Given the lack of women and students of color in computing, I asked Brodley how Northeastern’s Center for Inclusive Computing is retaining these groups and ensuring their success. She noted that teaching assistants and academic advisors are very important to retention and overall success of students — but they must be trained on how to teach and to understand learning styles. Providing this type of training to their TAs and advisors has been transformative for retention and student success.
Brodley also emphasized how important degree mapping is — making the plan of study and way to a degree obvious and easy for students. She offered an example, “Many [universities] will give lip service to allowing students to start at pre-calc but then not illustrate how a student can start there and graduate on time.” In effect, the more barriers an institution can reduce, the more likely women and students of color will be retained and successful.
The U.S.’s computing future depends on fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for all students, especially those historically underrepresented in the field. As Brodley and Northeastern University’s Center for Inclusive Computing demonstrate, reducing barriers is not just a matter of equity but also a matter of urgency for innovation and progress. By addressing structural challenges, offering adaptable interventions, and emphasizing interdisciplinary approaches, colleges and universities can reshape the landscape of computing education.
Of importance, this kind of work is not only about who thrives in computing programs but also about redefining who sees themselves as creators of technology. The question is no longer whether these changes are necessary but how quickly they can be implemented to meet our pressing demands as a nation.