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

If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 496 posts

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#461

Post by jasonx1e »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #416
jasonx1e wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is matching society, however: CollegeBoard testing statistics reveal that in high school girls take AP Computer Science much less frequently than boys - at proportions fairly close to 1:3. Given that anyone is free to take an AP exam provided they can spend $100, the only plausible explanation is that fewer girls choose to pursue computer science as a major. Alternatively, you could suggest that there is nationwid…

> Given that anyone is free to take an AP exam provided they can spend $100, it seems to be down to individual choice. In which world is it "individual choice" for a 14-18 year old to pay $100 per exam to take an exam?

What I mean by that is there exist no gender barriers to take an AP exam - that fewer women are studying CS in college or working a technical role is not a result of a biased system, but of an individual decision that comes down to fewer girls DECIDING to learn computer science.

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#462

Post by jasonx1e »

wpietri wrote: post #443
jasonx1e wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this isn't true; there are many cases where inequality of outcome is not a cause of inequality of opportunity - unless you're telling me the system actively encourages men to die on the job - so much so that 93% of all occupational deaths are male.[0] CollegeBoard testing statistics demonstrate that in high school, 2-3 times as many boys take the AP Calculus BC, AP Physics, AP Computer Science exam than girls.…

Oh, gosh! Of course it's an anonymous dude showing up to try to preserve the argument that women are biologically inferior. With an account that's doesn't appear to care about much besides arguing against diversity. What a surprise. We aren't of course seeing 50/50 outcomes in tech. As I said elsewhere in this thread, we are steadily approaching them in law and medicine. This is despite that fact that goofs like you…

Anonymous? My user can easily be googled...

>> to try to preserve the argument that women are biologically inferior

You clearly didn't read, because I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED, not that they are biologically inferior. Get rid of that chip on your shoulder.

This is why conservatives aren't willing to discuss these issues. Because the moment I call you out on using bullshit arguments you call me a sexist despite not having once made a single comment on the abilities of females.

I used evidence proving that even at the high school level (where there are practically 0 bars for entry), girls constitute a significantly smaller part of the classroom than boys in CS/Physics/Calc 2, and then gave an example of a university system that legally was not allowed to consider gender as part of admissions having similar gender representation - because as it turns out most universities practice gender based affirmative action in STEM, and thus girls are overrepresented at schools like MIT and Stanford.

It turns out that the 3:1, 4:1 ratios of the AP exams and Berkeley EECS department happen to be consistent with the hiring makeup of tech companies.

>> we are steadily approaching them in law and medicine.

The same stats I listed earlier show near equal representation in AP tests for AP History (World, European, and US), Government, Chemistry, and Biology. Some of these even skew towards majority female. So 50/50 representation is to be expected.

Again, at this point in time, equal representation in tech would only be a product of discrimination against males.

Perhaps it won't be the case in the future as there are more outreach efforts now than ever to get girls to pursue science.

But I specifically worded my response the way I did for a reason.

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#463

Post by akhilcacharya »

timr wrote: post #254
akhilcacharya wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get from unknown undergrad to top PhD? I was considering grad school, but I'm concerned my profile isn't good enough.

General advice: get good grades, do well on the GRE, and do research as an undergrad.

I have decent grades (3.9 rounded down) and have a coauthored paper (not sure what tier the conference was...). Somehow I doubt that's enough.

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#464

Post by kafkaesq »

eradicatethots wrote: post #418
kafkaesq wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find myself wondering at your definition of "2nd tier school". Any school lower on the perceived status hierarchy than the school they went to, most likely.

All this talk of tiered schools is gross

Yup. And yet, it's the very lifeblood of social and economic interactions, for a great many people in the U.S.

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#465

Post by kafkaesq »

throwawayjava wrote: post #332
kafkaesq wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For ex parent's observation is probably spot on if you're comparing MIT/CMU/Stanford/Berkeley to an arbitrarily chosen regional state campus. I'll readily concur that students from top-tier schools are on average better than students from Podunk schools. But (based on a wide sampling of data points) I don't see anything like a 1:100 ratio of "better", by any metric.

> But I don't see anything like a 1:100 ratio of "better", by any metric... So again, while it's not like school "tier" doesn't matter - this 1:100 ratio is just silly. I think you misunderstood my point. Parent's observation may be accurate because of a combination of quality disparity and disparities in raw numbers . The elite CS programs are relatively large compared to many Podunk States. So it's not just that th…

Or whatever.

Exactly - it's the "whatever" part I'm having trouble working with.

I'm seeing the basic point about population samples you're making. But even so, both logically and numbers-wise, the original commenter's argument was just extremely handwavy. Which is, how to put this nicely... strange, coming from someone dissing an entire class of people (Podunk U graduates) as not just lacking rigor... but 99% likely to be, in their words, "completely incompetent".

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#466

Post by wpietri »

peoplewindow wrote: post #457
wpietri wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loss of privilege feels like a loss. If you have no historical perspective and are currently favored by discrimination, programs attempting to undo historical discrimination seem like they're biased against you. They aren't. As an example, consider the common practice of scholarships that are awarded based on both merit and economic need. A rich dude could be mad that he is being discriminated against. After all, the…

Modern men are not "privileged". This is corruption-of-blood level stuff. Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women and have no reason to accept being discriminated against as a result. Trying to blame bad things done by historical figures for bad actions taken today is the result of much wrongness in the world. Please don't try to justify it. Oh, and your analogy to…

I am a man. I am definitely privileged because of it. Many men make similar observations: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-t...

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#467

Post by dogruck »

s73ver_ wrote: post #460
Scea91 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking OP to define 'best' is a red herring and it would steer the discussion away from the topic. Deflection is the correct response.

No, it isn't. Their entire argument was predicated on "these companies need to hire the best." So they need to define what "best" means in this context. Cause so far, for the likes of Google, it's "Went to an expensive school, and can do whiteboard problems."

That's an unfair characterization of Google's hiring process.

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#468

Post by lutorm »

jasonx1e wrote: post #462
wpietri wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, gosh! Of course it's an anonymous dude showing up to try to preserve the argument that women are biologically inferior. With an account that's doesn't appear to care about much besides arguing against diversity. What a surprise. We aren't of course seeing 50/50 outcomes in tech. As I said elsewhere in this thread, we are steadily approaching them in law and medicine. This is despite that fact that goofs like you…

Anonymous? My user can easily be googled... >> to try to preserve the argument that women are biologically inferior You clearly didn't read, because I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED, not that they are biologically inferior. Get rid of that chip on your shoulder. This is why conservatives aren't willing to discuss these issues. Because the moment I call you out on using bullshit arguments you call me…

I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED

But interest is an outcome, influenced for example by the presence or absence of role models or the impression of certain fields as not welcoming to women.

If I remember the state of things correctly, the gender imbalance of interest in science is not present at early ages but develops around junior high ages when kids start picking up on which jobs or fields are "appropriate" for males vs females.

I don't think anyone is saying the gender imbalance is purely a result of hiring discrimination (although it likely plays a role), but there are clearly other biases in force that directly arise from the gender imbalance. How do you propose getting rid of those biases except by trying to "prime the pump"?

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#469

Post by dragonwriter »

peoplewindow wrote: post #457
wpietri wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loss of privilege feels like a loss. If you have no historical perspective and are currently favored by discrimination, programs attempting to undo historical discrimination seem like they're biased against you. They aren't. As an example, consider the common practice of scholarships that are awarded based on both merit and economic need. A rich dude could be mad that he is being discriminated against. After all, the…

Modern men are not "privileged". This is corruption-of-blood level stuff. Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women and have no reason to accept being discriminated against as a result. Trying to blame bad things done by historical figures for bad actions taken today is the result of much wrongness in the world. Please don't try to justify it. Oh, and your analogy to…

> Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women

Yes, they have, because discrimination against women is still widely practiced. It's true that the scope and extent of discrimination in law has been almost entirely eliminated (one of the last major elements to fall being the military combat exclusion policy, lifting of which was fully implemented less than two years ago; given the significance of combat assignments in military career progression and the practical impacts of military careers on both elected and certain other high-level government positions, there are a lot of men in the military and government office today that are, now, benefitting from the effects of that direct, legally-mandated discrimination.)

Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools

#470

Post by jasonx1e »

lutorm wrote: post #468
jasonx1e wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous? My user can easily be googled... >> to try to preserve the argument that women are biologically inferior You clearly didn't read, because I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED, not that they are biologically inferior. Get rid of that chip on your shoulder. This is why conservatives aren't willing to discuss these issues. Because the moment I call you out on using bullshit arguments you call me…

I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED But interest is an outcome , influenced for example by the presence or absence of role models or the impression of certain fields as not welcoming to women. If I remember the state of things correctly, the gender imbalance of interest in science is not present at early ages but develops around junior high ages when kids start picking up on which jobs or fields are "a…

>> influenced for example by the presence or absence of role models or the impression of certain fields as not welcoming to women.

Sure it can play a part in the outcome, but that in no way limits anyone from still pursuing the field, and hence there is still equality of opportunity. The latter is what (hopefully) any rational human being wants.

I'm not against more outreach efforts or helping encourage more girls to pursue STEM. I personally volunteer at a science museum and have in the past been a TA for high school STEM MOOCs.

What I am against is accusing the existing system for discriminating against females (unless you provide direct evidence that gender is the sole cause of the outcome inequality, which I will be happy to agree if the evidence is convincing) and then continuously lowering the bar for entry for females (thus achieving diversity but undermining meritocracy) - which is what I see happening right now.

Post reply on HN