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

Google kills diversity hiring targets

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 300 posts

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#121

Post by paxys »

morkalork wrote: post #116
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal was to ensure that there was a more balanced result of education across the country. California can afford to spend way more per child than Kentucky can, so without some sort of federal level balancing, California's children are just going to be more likely to prosper than Kentucky's. This doubly applies to funds for disabled or underdeveloped children who needs extra support from the school system to be suc…

Canada handles this balancing problem with equalization payments between provinces. Which is well, sorta socialist, so it causes a great deal of consternation amongst certain people.

> Canada handles this balancing problem with equalization payments between provinces

So then there is a federal "department" involved in education...

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#122

Post by spacemadness »

xnx wrote: post #93
goalieca wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.

Good question. If the US is truly facing a "Sputnik moment" with regards to China nd AI, the US should bring back something like the "National Defense Education Act" (1958) which was aimed at bolstering American competitiveness in science and technology.

Well I suppose we should start hiring in science and technology then and not just stamp around saying how important it is to the future. All we have are layoffs right now. The signal the industry sends to would-be majors is to stay away.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#123

Post by sneedle »

EA-3167 wrote: post #106
thaumasiotes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 For most diversity purposes, Asians and Indians both count as white, if not "even more white". Government programs, other than schools, are the main exception.

So... what are the categories then? Black and Everyone Else?! That seems pretty silly on almost every level.

[flagged]

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#124

Post by hondo77 »

jncfhnb wrote: post #64

I worked on some DEI programs. The problem was mixed. Most companies (at least the ones with DEI programs) thought they had big DEI issues because minorities had worse outcomes. But if you looked hard, that wasn’t usually the case. It was merely that minorities were more represented at lower levels and lower levels had higher attrition and what not. On the whole, it tended to look like hiring, retention, and even pro…

> ...the biggest thing these programs did successfully was just diversifying the entry points so that you could even begin to start conversations with people from other backgrounds.

This. This was my experience with DEIA programs in the government. It was always about diverse recruitment, not hiring. People believe what they want to, though.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#125

Post by nxm »

paxys wrote: post #43
xnx wrote: post #26

Would be great to be more resources put in at the very start of the pipeline (e.g. early childhood education). It's very hard to "solve" "diversity" at the time of hiring when candidates have already had decades of disadvantage.

Well we are shutting down the Department of Education...

Which spending and headcount for has increased since its inception, with no actual improvement in education (per Cato Institute). God forbid some accountability and no more wasting of tax dollars.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#127

Post by aurareturn »

kombine wrote: post #39
aurareturn wrote: post #14

If you zoom out far enough, all these companies are making business decisions - not emotional ones. They have to kiss Trump's ring and bend the knee for Elon in order to not get destroyed. When they had DEI, it was created for business reason too - to be seen as socially just so you should buy their products. Now Google thinks it's better for business if they fall in line with what Trump wants.

Unironically, the comments such as yours are downvoted. I had an idealised view about our industry, but it has now shattered during the course of the last year.

College grads have an idealized view of tech industry. But it's all about money at the end of the day and tech is turning into something similar to other industries like oil or pharma.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#128

Post by goalieca »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #82
goalieca wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.

The goal was to ensure that there was a more balanced result of education across the country. California can afford to spend way more per child than Kentucky can, so without some sort of federal level balancing, California's children are just going to be more likely to prosper than Kentucky's. This doubly applies to funds for disabled or underdeveloped children who needs extra support from the school system to be suc…

Well, for what it’s worth, Kentucky has a stronger economy than Canada and we manage to find money to spend on education. The key part is to spend your money well, not spend more.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#129

Post by goalieca »

nerdjon wrote: post #84
goalieca wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.

But if the name of the game is efficient spending why are we replicating much of the same work in 50 states instead of just once federally? That would make far more sense if this was only about money.

The question is how much administration does the education system really need? Many of the admin tasks are local in nature so I’m doubtful that moving it across the country will get good results.
Post reply on HN