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

Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

poseidon01.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#171

Post by SuoDuanDao »

hello_1234 wrote: post #132
osipov wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post reveals the hackernews bias against discrimination in all forms, regardless of whether it is targeted at minorities or white males. Meritocracy baby!

I totally agree. But shouldn't we trust the data more than one person's anecdote? The original article clearly did not find any discrimination against white male. Rather than discussing that result, we are here commenting about one person's anecdote.

>The original article clearly did not find any discrimination against white male.

How do you interpret women getting 10% more callbacks if not as discrimination against males?

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#172

Post by throwaway2245 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #146
pseudalopex wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean evidence or indisputable proof?

The quality of evidence needs to be very, very high to justify discrimination in my opinion.

And if people responsible for awarding research grants within tech decide not to investigate whether there is discrimination against women, or tech companies decline to give full access to their data.

Then the quality of evidence that you demand can't exist - in that case, should nothing be done about it?

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#173

Post by throwawydedbee »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #37

The only problem with blind selection, is that, sooner or later, the race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/fitness/attractiveness/age (I'm an old fart, so I can tell you a thing or two about ageism in tech) becomes apparent. I have heard story after story from peers (around my age), about passing numerous rounds of phone and test interviews, only to see the interviewer's face fall, as soon as they walk in the door.…

I've been thinking of making sure that my age is clear on my LinkedIn/resume/etc., for just this reason. Even then, it's clear that quite a few interviews I've gone on have been "fake", in the sense of being useful for EEOC stats, but with no bona fide intention to hire. Which is frustrating, because at the end of the day, interviews are themselves unpaid work.

These days, I've "solved" the problem by just taking lower-paying jobs. No one I work with really understands what I do--they just know that when they bring me the harder problems, they generally get solved. It's kind of nice in a way to be king, even if it is in a puddle.

Fair or not, the market always wins. And if the market tells you that you're not wanted, best to go elsewhere.

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#174

Post by KittenInABox »

username90 wrote: post #170
KittenInABox wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a male/female looking resume mean? (Genuinely asking. I can't imagine that a female engineering accomplishment is vs a male engineering accomplishment.)

There are plenty of research done on gendered words. Like highlighting your own personal excellence or skill is more masculine etc. There are also of course that men and women tend to have different hobbies and therefore spends their free time doing different things. So one new grad might have done some leadership roles in a horse club while the other maybe did some chess competitions. https://www.idealrole.com/blog/…

Does this mean if you're a woman and you highlight your own personal excellent in your resume you're statistically likely to be treated worse? Similarly if you're a man and you have a leadership role at a horse club you're statistically likely to be treated worse?

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#175

Post by hrktb »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #37

The only problem with blind selection, is that, sooner or later, the race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/fitness/attractiveness/age (I'm an old fart, so I can tell you a thing or two about ageism in tech) becomes apparent. I have heard story after story from peers (around my age), about passing numerous rounds of phone and test interviews, only to see the interviewer's face fall, as soon as they walk in the door.…

This is one of the worst case scenario, but there's any variation where it works better than the traditional method.

At first contact you could have been packed in the "meh" group, but by virtue of coming out of the recruiting process your peers won't stop at that first reaction and take time to make it work.

Even if you were to be dismissed at the first face to face with a manager, it seems to me it's still better than if it was by some random HR intern that would have had no impact on your day to day work.

Dismissing blind test/interviews because there can still be later discrimination would be throwing the baby with the bath water IMO.

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#176

Post by bradlys »

protomyth wrote: post #25

And once again a race study that doesn't list Native Americans at all. It would be nice if they remembered 2% of the US population, since certain policies ("Actual Name") have discriminated against Native Americans because of the ignorance of silicon valley firms. AIHEC and American Indian College Fund (collegefund.org) could really use the help to get placements for students.

If it makes you feel better, you're not alone - middle eastern is never broken out either. In fact - we're grouped with white people. Some of us are white passing - some of us are very much not. Fun article about it... https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-no...

I can tell ya - after 9/11 - being middle eastern sure didn't feel like being white!

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#177

Post by scruple »

secondcoming wrote: post #59
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #37

The only problem with blind selection, is that, sooner or later, the race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/fitness/attractiveness/age (I'm an old fart, so I can tell you a thing or two about ageism in tech) becomes apparent. I have heard story after story from peers (around my age), about passing numerous rounds of phone and test interviews, only to see the interviewer's face fall, as soon as they walk in the door.…

This is absolutely one of my nightmares. I'm turning 40 soon and I know my opportunities of being paid to write software will become more and more limited.

I'm noticing it now. I'll also be 40 this year. Getting through to the offer stages of the process has become impossible for me today, despite how well the phone screens, zoom calls, take-home tests, and technical interviews have gone. To be fair, I'm not actively seeking employment but I have had about a dozen job opportunities land on my lap this year that I have not outright rejected. I'm in the process of interviewing for yet another company. Like many of the others, I was recommended for the position internally by a former colleague but I assume it will go the same as the others.

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#178

Post by np_tedious »

np_tedious wrote: post #40
lettergram wrote: post #8

I always try to give the recruiter no indication of race or gender. Frankly, if we all did that it would remove the bias. The challenge is, I suspect they ask for race & gender is intentionally requested to add bias . I’ve worked with recruiters and part of the job is indeed targeting “under represented” groups to improve the figures.

I can confirm that at least two FAANG companies explicitly give diversity points to recruiters. That is, hiring a "diverse" candidate is worth ~1.5x as much to them as a non-diverse candidate for the same role. They are cagey about the exact details of who is included at a given time. But I do know it varies by rule.

*by role

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#179

Post by monoideism »

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #123
dimitrios1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that if you choose something that is completely equitable in who is able to participate, then the rest of it sounds like manufacturing dissent by companies or corporations that want a "leg up" on the competition in the D&I category, which is all the rage these days in terms of marketing. Maybe there are other reasons women don't want to enter these fields, but prefer to wholly dominate others, and mayb…

I once went to a members-only hackerspace that was very open and equitable, at least in theory. To join, you had to get a recommendation from another member and support from one more. They held regular open days and were very welcoming but definitely had an established subculture that didn't include much diversity. Joining really meant being the friend of a member or possibly a friend of a friend. If you were an outs…

> Openness to diversity really meant openness to conforming to an existing culture before joining.

Why is this a problem? I've been progressing most of my life, but I came to software development relatively late in life. The culture was dramatically different from that of my prior profession.

Re: Gender and Race Preferences in Hiring at Silicon Valley Tech Firms [pdf]

#180

Post by username90 »

KittenInABox wrote: post #174
username90 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of research done on gendered words. Like highlighting your own personal excellence or skill is more masculine etc. There are also of course that men and women tend to have different hobbies and therefore spends their free time doing different things. So one new grad might have done some leadership roles in a horse club while the other maybe did some chess competitions. https://www.idealrole.com/blog/…

Does this mean if you're a woman and you highlight your own personal excellent in your resume you're statistically likely to be treated worse? Similarly if you're a man and you have a leadership role at a horse club you're statistically likely to be treated worse?

Thought experiment: These biases are mostly shared among people so you got them in yourself. Instead of thinking "What is the ideal software engineer", think "what is the ideal feminine software engineer" and "what is the ideal masculine software engineer". The picture in your head will be very different. If you are a woman you will be compared to the ideal feminine engineer while as a man you get compared to the ideal male one.

The prime example is the term "bossy", women get called this since they are expected to be much more cooperative than men. I think a very big issue right now is that we use men as a standard and say "when women use male strategies they get pushback for being too masculine", instead to gain individual success they should try to be like successful women. In an ideal society this wouldn't be the case, but as is these biases exists and so you have to work with them.

And as a personal anecdote, when I looked for jobs as a new grad when I used more cooperative and less personal excellence I didn't get any callbacks. I got lots of callbacks when I focused on personal excellence though. Its as if companies assumed I was less competent just because I talk about teamwork, because their ideal masculine software engineer wouldn't talk like that. You can see here how it works:

https://hbr.org/2018/10/how-men-get-penalized-for-straying-f...

Edit: The moral of the story is that when we tell men to be more feminine and women to be more masculine we just hurt them. Men and women aren't evaluated by the same metrics. People told me "Companies expects you to be a teamplayer, try to highlight that!", but it was clearly wrong and didn't help me at all.

Post reply on HN