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

We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 668 posts

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#61

Post by commandlinefan »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #31
stormbrew wrote: post #16

I don't think the point of criticizing "it's a pipeline problem" is that there isn't a pipeline problem, but that it's an easy out to avoid taking action at whatever stage of the 'pipeline' you happen to be working at. If, as an manager at a FAANG, you say "it's a pipeline problem" you're probably saying that there aren't enough candidates because not enough women graduate from ST programs. If you're a program develo…

And the point of criticizing the criticism of "it's a pipeline problem" is that, wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. Working near the end of the pipe, you'll quickly hit diminishing returns. If the input at your segment is biased 4:1, then you can't improve past it. Sure, if your output is 8:1 then it's bad, but you won't g…

> you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment

People have been fired from Google for suggesting exactly that.

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#62

Post by sokoloff »

Is the right thing to assume we should target 50-50 gender representation as a first-principle outcome target in all fields? If so, it’s a negative sign that the marquee companies analyzed hired at about the gender split of universities they targeted.

Is it equally plausible that we should be looking bottoms-up from the perspective of a fresh college graduate entering the field and asking the question, “am I likely to get a systemically fair shake when interviewing?” From the data presented, it seems likely that the answer is “yes”.

By all means we should work on the pipeline. I’m supportive to the idea that, by default, we should expect 50-50 representation, but when we find pockets where that does not hold, we must be open to understanding possible reasons. Army/Marines, oil/gas work, and airline pilots are other readily identifiable fields without a 50-50 representation. Is this good, bad, or indifferent?

If women who enter those fields achieve success at the same rate as the overall population, is the hiring and evaluation system (basically after their decision to enter the field) “fair”? If not, why not?

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#63

Post by Pharaoh2 »

majos wrote: post #21
xyzzyz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am all in favour of reducing the industry’s reliance on fancy name schools for hiring. Soon after the industry seriously stops doing this, the fancy name schools will quickly get female-dominated, and whatever the industry starts using as a signal of candidate quality that hadn't been male-dominated before, will start to be. When proposing new policies, always solve for equilibrium, don't ignore second order effe…

> Soon after the industry seriously stops doing this, the fancy name schools will quickly get female-dominated Why would this happen? Is your thinking that men will respond to the lower incentive of a fancy school degree by pursuing other options, but women won't? If so, why?

Presumably because the gap exists in the current system, and the current system is optimized for the current scoring function. Changing the scoring function will cause the system to rebalance into a new steady state.

Although, there is no clear reason why the new steady state would not be female dominant or evenly split, but if I were to take a bet, I would bet that the new scoring function will still hold existing bias because the problem starts much earlier.

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#64

Post by ergfdgs »

sbilstein wrote: post #37
ergfdgs wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a fellow Latin American, I find "LatinX" offensive. English already has a gender neutral adjective to refer to us, Latin, and therefore Latin American. LatinX means you've internalized the colonialization of white "liberals" [0] who would refer to us as Latinos or Latinas while speaking English to show off their poor Spanish and therefore pretend to be sophisticated and woke. [0] I don't consider liberal bad or go…

I too hate the term LatinX but it's become the preferred term around so many I know that I'd rather just conform than argue about it. Just cause I used it doesn't mean I endorse it.

You're Latin American! Impose the right terminology!

This is cultural colonialism from the, typically WASP, urban elite. Who possibly finds Spanish's gendered pronouns annoying? How many are them are native Spanish speakers? And yet they feel slighted and therefore try to impose their (typically poor) Spanish on us!

They ignore that, technically, Spanish has three genders (the neutral which is almost, but not completely, withered away; see "esto/este/esta"). So, even in Spanish, "Latin" would be a far more correct gender neutral form.

They ignore that objects can have multiple genders according to the synonyms used to refer to them.

They ignore that linguistic "gender" has little to do with gender, the term appears to have been coined by Aristotle to refer to sets of nouns, which largely follow gender when applied to people.

Why are on Earth are we accepting of unpronounceable adjectives and nouns (the -nX soup of constants being especially unpronounceable for us native Spanish speakers!)

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#65

Post by rofo1 »

tasogare wrote: post #52

Collective madness is largely reached at this point: the writer is complaining about a totally self-made issue. If I was trying to recruit men for nurse jobs, or people of color in Korea I would ran in a similar pipeline problem. The real issue is that "diversity" had became a metrics to reach for its own sake by companies instead of simply recruiting people that fit the job. Moreover, you can’t complain about so-cal…

> The real issue is that "diversity" had became a metrics to reach for its own sake by companies instead of simply recruiting people that fit the job.

Completely insane. I can't understand who came up with and spread it around with a straight face.

"hey we better hire predetermined % of otherwise we are bigots"

Truly remarkable how insane it is.

I haven't seen a single case where the people that ought to be employed are white Christian men.

Why is that so? Does nobody ask this question? Can it be coincidence that nobody, ever, ever raised an issue that not enough white Christian men were employed?

A lot of illogical and improbable things, and IMHO it's just not a coincidence. But I don't have good understanding on why it happens, though.

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#66

Post by allovernow »

sachi_inchi wrote: post #14
whb07 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm ready for the downvotes, but its worth it. I don't think it is generally good to look for divisions and more ways to separate from the whole. I don't know if that is because you're out somewhere in super woke SF or similar but you've already used terms like "LatinX" and "person of color" like someone who is already woke but maybe stop for a sec? Why don't you see yourself as a person who likes CS/tech and like…

Basic Principles of Respectful Discussion: 1) Assume good faith until you have reason to assume otherwise. Try your best to NOT make assumptions about people's experiences or situations. 2) If someone, particularly a marginalized person, brings up an experience they have had but you have not had, your first impulse should be to hear them out, NOT to invalidate them. 3) Likewise, just because you personally may not ha…

>If someone, particularly a marginalized person, brings up an experience they have had but you have not had, your first impulse should be to hear them out, NOT to invalidate them.

The fact that the recounter of a first hand experience is a monirity does not mean that their perspective is automatically valid. And it isn't some mortal sin to question or invalidate the conclusions they draw from experience. It drowns out unpopular (but not necessarily untrue) perspectives and stymies productive conversation.

No one deserves special privileges for having a particular skin color or sexuality. This is exactly the kind of unnecessary segregation that the gp is talking about. It's the first steps along the path that leads to some of us being more equal than others and these pedestals we place minorities on are doing far more harm than good.

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#67

Post by eq_sd_ »

rofo1 wrote: post #33

I don't understand why people deliberately hire people of certain group. Be it women, or black, or whatever. Why? Why can't you just hire the right person for the job? To me, this is just as bad as actively discriminating against certain groups of people. Why must everyone be absolutely and uniformly represented? It just doesn't make sense, that's not how reality works. It will never be so, and all you end up doing i…

> I don't understand why people deliberately hire people of certain group.

Because humans are biased.

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#68

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

xyzzyz wrote: post #18
kevintb wrote: post #4

Key point: > there really aren’t enough women to meet demand… if we keep hiring the way we’re hiring. Namely, if we keep over-indexing on CS degrees from top schools, and even if we remove unconscious bias from the process entirely, we will not get to gender parity. And yes, there is a way to surface strong candidates without relying on proxies like college degree. I am all in favour of reducing the industry’s relian…

> I am all in favour of reducing the industry’s reliance on fancy name schools for hiring. Soon after the industry seriously stops doing this, the fancy name schools will quickly get female-dominated, and whatever the industry starts using as a signal of candidate quality that hadn't been male-dominated before, will start to be. When proposing new policies, always solve for equilibrium, don't ignore second order effe…

> When proposing new policies, always solve for equilibrium, don't ignore second order effects, and never assume the world is steady state system.

I've thought along similar lines, but it was never clear to me if such a policy really performs "better" in real-world, politicized policy issues.

Do you know of any supporting examples?

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#69

Post by wayoutthere »

stormbrew wrote: post #16

I don't think the point of criticizing "it's a pipeline problem" is that there isn't a pipeline problem, but that it's an easy out to avoid taking action at whatever stage of the 'pipeline' you happen to be working at. If, as an manager at a FAANG, you say "it's a pipeline problem" you're probably saying that there aren't enough candidates because not enough women graduate from ST programs. If you're a program develo…

The author is leaving unstated what we all know to be true: most of these jobs aren't really that hard. You don't really need the people with pedigreed CS backgrounds, but it's easier than actually figuring out how to screen candidates. The "pipeline problem" is the pipeline itself. So you have to go around the pipeline by avoiding the formal education system, which is where the bias is observed.

Re: We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring

#70

Post by trhway »

deogeo wrote: post #6
whb07 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm ready for the downvotes, but its worth it. I don't think it is generally good to look for divisions and more ways to separate from the whole. I don't know if that is because you're out somewhere in super woke SF or similar but you've already used terms like "LatinX" and "person of color" like someone who is already woke but maybe stop for a sec? Why don't you see yourself as a person who likes CS/tech and like…

> I also would be willing to be my bottom dollar that Google of all places doesn't feel like a small town in Sweden. You would win that bet - Google is 54.4% white, 39.8% asian, according to https://diversity.google/annual-report/#!#_this-years-data The US is 61.5% white, so whites are underrepresented at Google.

>Google is 54.4% white, 39.8% asian

it correlates well with what population looks like if you look at the percentiles of 750 Math SAT - 3% of whites, 20% of asian and 1% of the rest of race/ethnicity categories (like African American and Hispanic) make it there:

https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/sat-percentile...

Multiplying by their representation in the overall population, 61% white, 6% asian and 33% for the rest , we can see that the representation at Google is a very close correlate : (3 x 61) / (20 x 6) / (1 x 33) = 183 / 120 / 33 vs. (54.4 / 39.8 / the rest about 6%)

Post reply on HN