Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 504 posts

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#321

Post by flukus »

ubernostrum wrote: post #232
tomp wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you forgetting that different people, even different groups of people, have different motivations? E.g. in general, men like cars, gym and climbing; women like jewellery, yoga and dancing. These are all voluntary activities (well, you could argue that things like gym and jewellery are socially motivated), yet different sexes in average choose differently. Why wouldn't it be the same with careers?

Are you assuming that there is some genetic or evolutionary reason for men to like cars? That somehow it is hard-coded into the Y chromosome to like cars? Or have you considered the possibility that social conditioning can make a large difference in what hobbies and preferences someone ends up having?

No assumption necessary, we are a sexually dimorphic species.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#322

Post by FT_intern »

wpietri wrote: post #117
FT_intern wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that diversity in software perspectives/technologies/experiences is important. However I don't see how racial or gender diversity plays a role in that.

Ok. I believe you don't see it. Many people don't. How can I help you with that?

You didn't give any examples of it. I completely agree with the 2nd paragraph about technological/software diversity advantages.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#324

Post by FT_intern »

Animats wrote: post #5

The big result there is this: "Poor performances in technical interviewing happen to most people, even people who are generally very strong. However, when we looked at our data, we discovered that after a poor performance, women are 7 times more likely to stop practicing than men." On the hiring side, "For the specific case of an online job posting, on average, 1,000 individuals will see a job post, 200 will begin th…

> Given that level of rejection, the key here is to get women to know the odds and keep trying.

not exactly. The numbers show that women are 7 times more likely to stop practicing, but they do not show why that happens.

Is it because women are more lazy, less motivated or crack more frequently under pressure?

Who knows.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#325

Post by ashark »

pzh wrote: post #69
soham wrote: post #2

[Disclaimer: I run http://Interviewkickstart.com ] Thanks Aline. Excellent article, as always. Not that any interview process is perfect, but another reason why the current process is not going away, is sheer convenience , especially for the fast growing core tech companies that don't have a pipeline problem. When you have hundreds of people applying for any open role, and you're under pressure to deliver products qu…

Actually, I remember reading that Google and Amazon engineers have an average time on the job of about 1 year. It seems most people just want to work there so they can put it on their resume, or maybe once they pass the interview process, they are confronted with the reality that not all jobs there are so glamorous--e.g. people probably imagine they'd be working side by side with Jeff Dean and his likes, but then the…

I have an entirely unsupported hypothesis that much of Google's software/documentation inconsistent quality and seemingly strange product strategy can be explained by their preference for hiring "A" players or better, but only having enough truly interesting work for the smaller number of "A+" players they've got, so that at some point "A" folks get assigned something really boring but necessary and before long they're applying other places with Google on their work history so they can take on much more interesting work at some (possibly smaller) place that gives the boring stuff to "B" or "C" developers--or else they manage to get on or agitate to create some greenfield project, and that keeps them busy at least until the boring stuff on that project begins to overwhelm the interesting work. Result is there's too much churn among any personnel assigned to boring stuff for them to be very good at that kind of thing, as a company.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#326

Post by mjevans »

sjburt wrote: post #224
foolfoolz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the biggest catch 22 for me is when you work with someone for years at a job. at this job you have a strong interview process. you reject the same 80%+ of candidates. then you move somewhere else. you refer your friend. they get rejected. were they a bad employee? did they sneak in the door at the last place? Is there a problem with how we do interviews?

Speaking as someone who has taken on a lot of hiring responsibility: the cost for rejecting a good applicant is 4-5 hours of my teams time while they interview someone else. The cost for accepting a bad applicant is several months of salary, reduced productivity for my team, risk of a discrimination suit if I don't put them on a PIP, etc. So as a hiring manager I am pretty OK with rejecting a lot of good applicants j…

Maybe actual apprenticeships are the answer.

3-6 months to get someone trained up, and a lot of their pay would be in /training/ them (you'd still pay at least a living wage for the area, but you might upfront plan and disclose to relocate them if hired).

The benefit would be both in seeing if they're a good fit, and also enriching that employee as an employee. Both sides would have a much better perspective of if it's a good fit, if they want to restart the process with a different team, or if the employee can find better value in society elsewhere.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#327

Post by mdorazio »

flukus wrote: post #312
shados wrote: post #188

Let. us. fire. people. The current environment in tech is as follow: Someone goes through an interview process. Depending on the result, they get brought in or not. If they are brought in, they accept an offer. Usually it will contain some kind of language about blah blah trial period 3 months blah blah, sometimes in precise terminology, sometimes vaguely. If someone is absolutely useless right off the bat, immediate…

It already happens, it's called contracting. And the results are terrible because no one gives a fuck about quality at a job the might not have in 3 months.

Small caveat - I'd say contract-to-hire is what many places are implementing if they actually want the headcount instead of just a budget expenditure. The problem is that you end up with worse candidates because most people who are really good don't want the uncertainty and stigma of a contract position if they can get a full-time one elsewhere.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#328

Post by flukus »

ashark wrote: post #325
pzh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I remember reading that Google and Amazon engineers have an average time on the job of about 1 year. It seems most people just want to work there so they can put it on their resume, or maybe once they pass the interview process, they are confronted with the reality that not all jobs there are so glamorous--e.g. people probably imagine they'd be working side by side with Jeff Dean and his likes, but then the…

I have an entirely unsupported hypothesis that much of Google's software/documentation inconsistent quality and seemingly strange product strategy can be explained by their preference for hiring "A" players or better, but only having enough truly interesting work for the smaller number of "A+" players they've got, so that at some point "A" folks get assigned something really boring but necessary and before long they'…

My theory is that google isn't filtering out the "less than A's" anywhere near as much as they think they are.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#329

Post by pasquinelli »

taneq wrote: post #181
Animats wrote: post #5

The big result there is this: "Poor performances in technical interviewing happen to most people, even people who are generally very strong. However, when we looked at our data, we discovered that after a poor performance, women are 7 times more likely to stop practicing than men." On the hiring side, "For the specific case of an online job posting, on average, 1,000 individuals will see a job post, 200 will begin th…

At the start of our teens, we lose the intrinsic value that society places on us as children. For many boys, after this, their only worth is in what they can accomplish, for themselves or for others. For many girls, they learn that they are intrinsically valuable as women, as long as they're attractive. It's not an issue of 'explaining' the odds. It's an issue of women knowing that they're worth something in and of t…

this sounds like something you're making up right now. i can make something up that gives the opposite impression: it is implicit in our culture that the cost to women of failure is higher than to men.

or, i could say, anyone is more likely to give up something more quickly if they believe they "aren't the sort of person" who does that thing; if they don't fit the model that has been given to them by the surrounding culture of what that thing is. men are more likely to quit pursuing a career in early childhood education at the first rejection; women are more likely to abandon their ambitions of working in tech.

or, even just riffing off yours, i could say men are taught that their value comes from their accomplishments, and women are taught that their value doesn't come from their accomplishments. or even that ambitions and accomplishment carries a degree of cost. actually, i think we're seeing some of this playing out in the u.s. election.

but i'm just making things up on the spot...

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#330

Post by solipsism »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #276
solipsism wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the throwaway account. I wish HN would fix that problem already. It brings the level of discourse way down.

Throwaway accounts allow people to express views that aren't politically correct. If all your views are politically correct this may seem like a bad thing, but for people with views that aren't politically correct throw away accounts allow participation.

Because without throwaway accounts people can't express views that aren't politically correct? Look through my history, I express such views all the time. I just don't think virtual points are so important that I need to make sure they're always going up.
Post reply on HN