Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went and did the phone screens and in person. Took 2 weeks to reject me. I don't really mind a rejection, I thought the interview was pretty meh on my part. Decided to try again a while later. They had me start at the phone screen stage again, then wanted me to do a second. Almost did it, called it off because I decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. I've been rejected by other places but google just really anno…
If they have enough candidates it makes sense to not care much about false negatives, only about false positives. Anyway, the way a company treats applicants strongly correlates to the way they treat staff, so a bad interview process is a red flag. It can be tough, but it must be respectful.
If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
471–480 of 496 posts
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#472Earlier 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…
Feel free to link it up with your real-world identity; I just find more generic profiles with the same user id.
> women are less INTERESTED
Yes, this is an example of your lack of historical grounding. That is the same sort of sexist nonsense that we've been seeing for generations. The argument goes: women aren't technically inferior, it's just that they're naturally not interested in bothering their pretty little heads with high-status jobs like law, medicine, and engineering. Their biology just drives them toward naturally nurturing jobs, like homemaker, paralegal, nurse, and secretary. Sure those jobs happen to be all low status, lower paying, and lacking in ability to advance to positions of authority. But it's just a coincidence that women's biological lack of interest happens to keep them subsidiary to men, just like they always have been.
It's just "women are inferior" dressed up in a dinner jacket so it fits in with polite company.
> where there are practically 0 bars for entry
This is just shockingly ignorant. Please actually read about the topic. Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this. Plenty of research refutes it. In America, gender socialization starts early and runs deep.
> So 50/50 representation is to be expected
Sure, now. 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, it wouldn't have been. And somebody just like you would have been posting impassioned screeds about how women just don't want to be doctors and lawyers. How the data clearly shows that they aren't interested. How any advancement past the current status quo would have been only due to shocking discrimination against men.
As subsequent events prove, those dudes were making a self-serving, willfully ignorant argument. They were wrong. At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism.
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#473Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Family courts While I would have thought that these would weigh in favor of women, in my experience I have actually seen the opposite. There are many family judges and lawyers that are incredibly sexist and will screw over women in favor of men. And in fact, that is mostly what I have seen in my county. > ...try and create equality of outcome for women, thereby simultaneously eliminating equality of opportunity for…
I wonder where you live. I have heard many reported family courts cases over the years and they have always been resolved in favour of the woman, sometimes grossly so. For instance, I have one friend whose wife went literally mad (post-partum psychosis). Total psycho breakdown level mad when she was off her meds, which happened a lot. Fortunately the courts awarded him custody of the kids. Unfortunately they are stil…
That proves that it isn't always zero-sum. They've opened up more spots by creating an additional event for women.
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never gave my high school transcripts to my Google recruiter. I worked there for four years as an SRE (2010-2014), without having graduated college. I'll admit I was an outlier - Most people around me had fantastic college resumes (And I was very lucky to have them to learn from to shore up places where I had weaknesses). There may also have been a different hiring track and bar for SREs. I didn't find it a problem…
...our best recruiter was forced out because she spent too much time hanging out with engineers outside after-hours... What might be the rationale for that? At every company I've worked at, the best results came when people worked across divisions between boundaries. I once asked a VC what grassroots indicators they looked at inside of companies, and they said a collaborative environment without a lot of silos. I'd n…
It's a sad story, but what can you do?
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#476Earlier 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…
> Anonymous? My user can easily be googled... Feel free to link it up with your real-world identity; I just find more generic profiles with the same user id. > women are less INTERESTED Yes, this is an example of your lack of historical grounding. That is the same sort of sexist nonsense that we've been seeing for generations. The argument goes: women aren't technically inferior , it's just that they're naturally not…
No, it's not even close to the same.
That an individual is less likely to choose a career doesn't mean that individual inherently is bad at it.
You keep trying to imply that I think less of women. I don't. I'm happy to acknowledge there are plenty of women who are much better than me at tech and plenty that have helped me out. Just because there happen to be less doesn't mean they are inherently worse.
And you could do well leaving out ad hominems. I have been respectful throughout this discussion, while you accuse me of sexism every other line. Most people aren't as impatient as I am when called a sexist as many times as you have. Do you see why conservatives avoid these discussions now?
Odds are I've done more to bridge the gap than you have - I have been a TA for a high school AP Physics MOOC and I am a volunteer at the Lawrence Hall of Science. Do you spend your weekends tutoring young girls and getting them to pursue science?
>> This is just shockingly ignorant.
As someone who had at least 15 girls in my AP Computer Science class in high school, no, it's not. In fact, you can google the requirements needed for taking an AP exam: find a high school willing to let you take it (usually the high school you attend), and pay the $100 fee. That's it.
>> Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this.
Sure there are plenty of successful women in tech. No one's making the claim that all women aren't interested, and it's never even been mentioned that women are worse at tech.
They just happen in smaller numbers compared to men.
>> Plenty of research refutes it.
93% of occupational deaths are men, as I have mentioned 2 posts ago.
Why can't more women be truck drivers, police detectives, nuclear reactor facilitators, logistics workers, mechanics, or electricians? These jobs all happen to be high 5 figures and many are 6 figures.
It turns out, it has nothing to do with tech being sexist, and all to do with women on average being less likely to chase riskier careers in favor of more stable careers at the expense of a lower salary.[1]
>> At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism.
All this theorizing, and you still don't explain to me why we see the distribution of the AP testing that we do, why at gender-blind universities the rate of females is lower than those that practice affirmative action bar-lowering, and why you think discriminating against qualified men is an appropriate solution.
Until you provide feasible arguments to each of these, no amount of implicitly calling me a sexist is going to change my mind.
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
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;…
I think if that's the best example you can find, it says a lot about my point. There are dozens of ways men are discriminated against in law. As you yourself admit, discrimination against women in law has been eliminated. This is not progress!
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I hate to use the T-word but this sort of non-argument you've just presented is exactly why Trump won. It's just racist, sexist self-loathing based on nothing whatsoever. If there was something, that guy would have listed a variety of specific grievances, as would every feminist article in every newspaper (of which there are huge quantity every single day).
You know what the last specific complaint in a feminist opinion piece I read was? An article a few days ago that was upset because the only female shoes in emoji are high heels.
Don't tell people white male privilege exists when you can't back it up.
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder where you live. I have heard many reported family courts cases over the years and they have always been resolved in favour of the woman, sometimes grossly so. For instance, I have one friend whose wife went literally mad (post-partum psychosis). Total psycho breakdown level mad when she was off her meds, which happened a lot. Fortunately the courts awarded him custody of the kids. Unfortunately they are stil…
> Note that there's a female only version of Code Jam That proves that it isn't always zero-sum. They've opened up more spots by creating an additional event for women.
I wasn't talking about the competition. Success in the female only codejam led to tickets to Google I/O. It's a conference and a very popular one at that - the sort of conference where the organisers routinely give attendees free phones. Do you really think in previous years there were hundreds of seats sitting empty, hundreds of tickets that could have been sold sitting around unsold?
I can tell you what happened. Conference seats that were previously gender neutral got reserved for women, by the creation of another mechanism that was also reserved for women. Zero sum games.
Re: If you care about diversity, don't just hire from the same five schools
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
That article doesn't list one concrete example of how being a straight white male actually made life easier for him. I can and have listed several major, specific ways in which it's the opposite. I hate to use the T-word but this sort of non-argument you've just presented is exactly why Trump won. It's just racist, sexist self-loathing based on nothing whatsoever. If there was something, that guy would have listed a…
No. Trump won through the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, rampant GOP gerrymandering, a terrifyingly complicit and supine media, an institutionally racist and sexist country backlashing to Obama, and an electoral system that vastly overpowers the majority white (and racist) Southern states.