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

Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 520 posts

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#121

Post by csande17 »

igor47 wrote: post #81
TrueGeek wrote: post #66

Better article with more information: https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/07/08/girls-... > In an email Monday, founder and CEO Adriana Gascoigne said “Girls in Tech will be closing its doors due to a lack of funding in 2023 and 2024.”

Huh. You'd think all the organizations that attribute their challenges in hiring non-male engineers to a "pipeline problem" would've spent a small fraction of their recruiting budgets helping to fund Girls in Tech...

For what it's worth, Girls Who Code -- an organization more directly focused on improving the "pipeline" through training programs aimed at K-12 and college students -- seems to be thriving, with over $20M in donations from a variety of tech organizations in 2023: https://girlswhocode.com/2023report/

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#122

Post by Workaccount2 »

netdevnet wrote: post #93
busterarm wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People really do forget what it was like just before the peak of the dotcom bubble. There were companies that offered perks like a fully paid lease on a brand new Porsche 911. This wasn't just for the software engineers either. If you could breathe on a keyboard, you could land a high-paying job. Demand was that high. That era of tech minted way, way, way more millionaires on average.

Surely, we can all agree that this is not sustainable. Companies basically throwing money at people that might not have the skills you need is a massive waste of money from the companies point of view.

The SWE buzz/boom of the last teens into the early 20's was largely fueled by VC's with access to tons of capital at all time low prices. The game was build a company with a shiny exterior and a radiance of hype and hope it got bought out. It didn't matter that you were burning millions on exorbitant salaries and endless perks. It was the cost of shine and radiance. And it drove up the cost of tech labor across the whole sector.

In a really condensed and simplified version: Big money was placing $50-100MM bets everywhere because the house was lending for basically free, and you only need a few hits to come out on top.

But now that money is expensive again, they game has been crashing down.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#123

Post by strikelaserclaw »

igor47 wrote: post #81
TrueGeek wrote: post #66

Better article with more information: https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/07/08/girls-... > In an email Monday, founder and CEO Adriana Gascoigne said “Girls in Tech will be closing its doors due to a lack of funding in 2023 and 2024.”

Huh. You'd think all the organizations that attribute their challenges in hiring non-male engineers to a "pipeline problem" would've spent a small fraction of their recruiting budgets helping to fund Girls in Tech...

once interests rate went up all DEI initiatives dried up - these companies don't really have integrity or beliefs beyond doing what is politically correct at the current time.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#124

Post by DopplerSmell »

igor47 wrote: post #81
TrueGeek wrote: post #66

Better article with more information: https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/07/08/girls-... > In an email Monday, founder and CEO Adriana Gascoigne said “Girls in Tech will be closing its doors due to a lack of funding in 2023 and 2024.”

Huh. You'd think all the organizations that attribute their challenges in hiring non-male engineers to a "pipeline problem" would've spent a small fraction of their recruiting budgets helping to fund Girls in Tech...

Nobody inside the org cares about gender ratios, but they do have to react to people outside of the org who care a whole lot.

It's easier to explain reality than to try and change it.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#125

Post by strikelaserclaw »

netdevnet wrote: post #88
Hasu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.

> so that prices for labor will go down. I don't think that's the reason (it is a side effect though). What makes you think that?

because most of these companies are (run by?) sociopaths - as soon as low interest rates dried up DEI initiatives got slashed even though these companies are still making record profits.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#126

Post by falcolas »

igor47 wrote: post #81
TrueGeek wrote: post #66

Better article with more information: https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/07/08/girls-... > In an email Monday, founder and CEO Adriana Gascoigne said “Girls in Tech will be closing its doors due to a lack of funding in 2023 and 2024.”

Huh. You'd think all the organizations that attribute their challenges in hiring non-male engineers to a "pipeline problem" would've spent a small fraction of their recruiting budgets helping to fund Girls in Tech...

That would require an monetary investment into DEI, which has become a negative investor signal for many large companies.

It's a shame, because I've met several developers who benefited from Girls in Tech's work.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#127

Post by busterarm »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #117
dang wrote: post #23

[stub for offtopicness]

Very interesting. At my company (tech) I've noticed that for the past 2-3 years grads are almost 50% women. Now, I have absolutely nothing against this outcome . But I do wonder - instead of optimizing for a specific distribution of employee features shouldn't we be optimizing for hiring the best? And you could say "they are the best, 50% of the best are women". That's a possible explanation! However.... 5+ years ago…

At least in the US, men dropped out of college during COVID in record numbers. Many have not returned.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#128

Post by digging »

bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #110
igor47 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. You'd think all the organizations that attribute their challenges in hiring non-male engineers to a "pipeline problem" would've spent a small fraction of their recruiting budgets helping to fund Girls in Tech...

If the problem is solved, the funding disappears.

That would be a complete success, since the funding disappeared anyway

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#129

Post by toastercat »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #117
dang wrote: post #23

[stub for offtopicness]

Very interesting. At my company (tech) I've noticed that for the past 2-3 years grads are almost 50% women. Now, I have absolutely nothing against this outcome . But I do wonder - instead of optimizing for a specific distribution of employee features shouldn't we be optimizing for hiring the best? And you could say "they are the best, 50% of the best are women". That's a possible explanation! However.... 5+ years ago…

[flagged]

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#130

Post by itsoktocry »

next_xibalba wrote: post #76
grobbyy wrote: post #51

At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis): - Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration. - Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across) - Affirma…

I have seen data presented multiple times showing the relation between a country’s wealth and/or economic freedom and women’s participation in stem fields. It’s a negative correlation. I often wonder if we should just be focused on maximizing individual freedom and let the chips fall where they may. This will result in some professions with extreme sex imbalance, and we should accept that outcome.

>This will result in some professions with extreme sex imbalance, and we should accept that outcome.

We do accept it, for the most part. I don't see many Men-as-Teachers or Men-in-Nursing advocacy groups.

Post reply on HN