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

421–430 of 504 posts

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

#421

Post by Xcelerate »

qq66 wrote: post #174
Scea91 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had 4 technical interviews in my life and passed all of them. I didn't practice for them, I just have strong foundations in CS. The most criticism of interviews comes from people who can't get past them.

You don't "just have strong foundations in CS," you also have strong foundations in interviewing, whether you consciously developed those skills or not. The problem is that those interviewing skills aren't really relevant to the job, so they shouldn't be part of the interview. I once had a candidate who completely bombed the interview, one of the worst interviews I've ever done, but he had a great portfolio. I took t…

I've always thought that if I started my own company, I probably wouldn't even interview people. I'd search specifically for the people I'm interested in, bring them in for a meeting just to make sure they aren't crazy, and then hire immediately. If someone sent me an application wanting to be hired, I would give them a work sample to be completed in one week and hire on the basis of their performance on that.

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

#422

Post by exstudent2 »

acdha wrote: post #420
exstudent2 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's inconsistent to treat two anecdotal accounts in completely opposite ways. I can either believe a random person on the internet peddling a rather trendy political opinion or my own extensive industry experience. I'd expect outsiders to treat both our claims with a grain of salt and instead use their own observations.

To anyone other than yourself, you are the “random person on the internet peddling a rather trendy political opinion”, especially since it's easy to find people with just as much industry experience who both disagree with your portrayal and have reasonable explanations for why you might not be aware of their experience.

Hence why I said: "I'd expect outsiders to treat both our claims with a grain of salt and instead use their own observations."

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

#423

Post by weberc2 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #411
weberc2 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google offers 18 weeks of maternity leave, and (according to the article at least) they still aren't doing any better than the industry as a whole. I also wonder how much of this perception is the result of a society that tells some groups that everyone is out to get them. Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/TiADiscussion/comments/5arevk/new_t...

Could you qualify the particular geographic area you're referring to. Google are a multinational, only giving 18 weeks maternity leave would be illegal in the UK, for example ( https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/leave ).

Presumably the U.S., but my source doesn't specify.

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

#424

Post by drkstr »

kls wrote: post #389
clarry wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stories like this make me feel very sorry for all the great people who just don't happen to have a network of great buddies like you.

My advise don't be sorry be proactive, if you meet one, be their friend, be their network, look out for them. That is how the world changes, one person at a time.

Can confirm. My best friend is a sales guy at the place I landed my first real (W2) job. Been 5 years and going strong. I am even the "Sr. Engineer" now, working on first principals and loving it!

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

#425

Post by moduspol »

wpietri wrote: post #136
oldmanjay wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could stop asserting it's true even though you have no evidence. I won't hold my breath.

I don't believe I asked you, but sure, jump on in. Is there a contrary assertion you would like to make and present evidence for? I'm all ears. I should point out I can't stop asserting it's true, because I never started doing that. I said "I feel [...] I want [...] I think [...] For me, the theory [is ...]". Did you really not understand I was expressing my educated opinion?

Historically, most things done well have been by a group of like-minded people banding together to do something in a way that minimizes individuality and differences between them. They focus on a single vision and unite around it to become successful.

You won't find a lot of studies on this because it's not a politically correct topic. Nobody wants to do the study that confirms you're better off just hiring whoever's the most qualified unless your customer base is dramatically different from your development team.

I also feel like it's a false equivalency to suggest racial / gender diversity is in any way comparable to this:

> I like having somebody with ops experience. Somebody else who loves the details of front-end work. Somebody else who has wrestled with deep optimizations.

Those things actually relate to the work being done.

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

#426

Post by moduspol »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #301
euyyn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they mean by "not diverse enough" is in comparison to the pool of candidates. Under the hypothesis that race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation/nationality/age are uncorrelated to performance/ability of the candidates, it implies bias in the selection process. Which isn't only an ethical concern, but also a business one: it means they're not hiring the overall best candidates. Of course, there's also so…

>Under the hypothesis that race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation/nationality/age are uncorrelated to performance/ability of the candidates, it implies bias in the selection process. We are infinitely certain of this, which explains many things.

We are in no way infinitely certain of this. We just like to think so.

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

#427

Post by HemanHeartYou »

belorn wrote: post #401
taneq wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Jumping directly to discrimination in society seems a bit hasted as an explanation for the data, since men entering the teaching profession also show the exact same data. When hitting a roadblock, men a several times more likely to quit the teaching profession than a woman hitting the same roadblock. Surely it not an issue of men knowing that they're worth something in and of themselves, competing against women in th…

gonna need some sources for that data, friendo

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

#428

Post by gspetr »

tomp wrote: post #360
ubernostrum wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There definitely could be an evolutionary reason why men biologically prefer adrenaline, technical subjects and showing off their muscles, whereas women prefer talking, being led and showing off their youth/beauty. After all, despite all the feminist/anti-sexist posturing in our society, no-one bats an eye when someone says that men are more aggressive. But even if there are first-order biological reasons ("encoded i…

What kind of murders are you talking about?

Historically, most people have been killing each other for resources.

Ultimately, food and water are the most important ones, so there had been historic precedents of cannibalism among groups of people in harsh conditions where resources were very scarce.

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

#429

Post by gspetr »

Lio wrote: post #400
ubernostrum wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? There does seem to be some supporting evidence for this theory over social conditioning. Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children[1] [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08... [edit] I'm actually rather…

I think the issue here is that society sets a taboo on certain views, no matter if they make sense or not.

In a sense we have gone back to believing that the Earth is flat when we deny uncomfortable conclusions based on society's (implicit) pressure.

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

#430

Post by MustardTiger »

morgante wrote: post #332
MustardTiger wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes absolutely no sense. By definition, giving up is failure. So the options are "100% chance of failure" vs "less than 100% chance of failure", and you think they are more likely to pick "100% chance of failure" because failure is scary?

Obviously it doesn't make sense rationally (you miss 100% of the shots you don't take and all that), but it's emotionally very powerful. It's much easier to emotionally justify giving up (I'm not really interested in switching jobs/getting in to tech/etc.) than it is to face the prospect of being rejected many times. Humans are not rational agents.

You are describing the wrong group of people. The "emotionally justify giving up" you describe is precisely what we observe with the group of people who are not considered failures for doing so: women. For men, that is failure. That is not easy to justify emotionally, it is the very thing they are trying to avoid in the first place. The emotional toll of giving up is the same as the emotional toll of trying and failing: you are a loser and not a real man, you have no worth or value. This is why they try again, because it gives them another chance to succeed, and demonstrate their value and worth.
Post reply on HN