We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by eq_sd_ » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #251

In software development in particular, the "pipeline problem" has only existed since the 1980s in Western nations. Prior to that, I've heard it said that women were over -represented in software development compared to men (which wouldn't have been a bad thing), or at least that there was much less of a gender gap. I have a theory about why this changed in the 1980's in particular. - The 1980's saw the dawn of person…

> Autism and Asperger's occur more frequently among boys than girls.

More males are diagnosed, doesn't necessarily mean it occurs more.

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

#342

Post by baddox » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #301

baddox wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that, if there is in fact a pipeline problem, that probably does not constitute a shift in responsibility away from the hiring company. Saying "you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment" is explicitly attempting to shift responsibility away from the hiring company. I simply disagree. I think a company is still largely responsible for the outcomes of its hiring…

Are you saying: 1) the input is not actually biased 2) the company is responsible for making the output less biased than the input (or produce an unbiased output from a biased input) 3) the company is responsible for making sure that they don’t cause the output to be more biased than the input, (but you are not saying that it is responsible for more than that) 3’) The same as 3, except that the amount of bias in the…

I'm saying that, if one thinks diversity is important [0] at companies, then the outcomes of hiring and retention are largely (overwhelmingly) the responsibility of the hiring company. This is especially for very large hiring companies.

[0] If you don't think diversity is important, then that's another discussion altogether. In this thread I have been operating under the assumption that we agree it is important (and in fact I personally do).

That means that in my view it's just not reasonable or acceptable for a company to say "diversity is really important to us, but we tried some things like diversity training for our hiring managers, and that hasn't worked, so we looked up some statistics and we have concluded that it's a pipeline problem so we can't be expected to do anything about that."

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

#343

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

musicale wrote: post #264

Regarding the enrollment chart, as recently as 2015 CS was the most popular undergraduate major among women at Stanford University: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/10/12/computer-science-no...

One year later:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/graphic-gender-rati...

It would seem declared majors aren't following through to the end of their programs.

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

#344

Post by trophycase » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:08 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #296

DoreenMichele wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept that men and women may have different interests is considered sexist I would posit that men and women have different realities, thus different needs. This shapes interests. It's not wholly unassailable, but needs to be approached differently than goals like "achieve x percentage of women in tech" are typically approached.

How many aspects of the differing realities are due to inherent biological differences, and how many are due to societal environment, though?

Well it's basically always possible to claim that society has some hidden variable, but I'll bite. As a woman, if you want children/family you need to secure at least a certain baseline of living quality and stability before the age of 35 and realistically much earlier. This alone dramatically changes the timeline and priorities of women.

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

#345

Post by sukilot » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #110

gotoeleven wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should look at the memo with all its links to papers to decide if these claims are "largely unsourced." https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... There was a version initially floating around that had all the links removed.

There is absolutely no sourcing for research showing women being inherently or unfixably uninterested in computer science. None. He had a bunch of links to studies about bland stuff like personality differences, using them to make arguments the study authors never indended and (where asked) refused to support. Calling that "sourcing" is essentially trying to treat Damore's fundamentally political document as an origi…

Saying that women can or need to be "fixed" to make them interested in computer science is incredible sexist.

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

#346

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #246

uwuhn wrote: post #222

I'm going to preface this post by saying that I don't have a problem with most of my coworkers (male and female) being Asian. In fact, I prefer it. I'm not Asian, but the majority of my friends, classmates, and coworkers throughout my life have been, and that continues even now during my career in tech. Whenever I see anything related to affirmative action being discussed nowadays, I think that it's only a matter of…

> I think that it's only a matter of time until Asian women are treated the same way as Asian men. Once you've managed to close the gender gap in engineering, you have a new problem to deal with -- a lack of diversity among women engineers in regards to race and socio-economic class. The blanket catch-all term "Asian" is not doing this conversation any favors. You assert a monoculture, but Asia is a huge region with…

[deleted]

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

#347

Post by trophycase » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #193

TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is: because of 2), less women enter the pipeline that leads to a job that's less social and more about things, relative to other occupations, therefore 1). 2) is presented here as a plausible explanation of 1). The connection is very clear, so the validity of that view depends entirely on the validity of point 2) itself. Damore presented a boatload of links to research supporting that point, and plenty o…

> The concept that men and women may have different interests is considered sexist The concept that men and women may have different interests due to biological differences is extremely sexist, yes. For all the sources Damore cited, there's an entire body of academic work (and an entire cultural revolution in the United States spanning upwards of a century) to the contrary on that topic specifically. A large chunk of…

Nobody is saying biology is "limiting" anything. That's the crux. They are choosing something else. Not better and not worse, but something they feel better suits their needs or desires.

CS isn't some magical field that floats on air. In fact, it's mostly a miserable profession with managers who don't understand how it works, cooped up in an office the whole day under artificial white light while sitting on your ass.

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

#348

Post by romwell » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #292

romwell wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman argument. The goal is not to have 50% women, sharp. The goal is to fix the problem that in the US, where there are 5 men for every woman working in top major software corporations, and those are the ones that supposedly try to improve things. It's 2019, and yet a company with all-male board was the norm until this year (arguably still is). We are so, so far from any form of reasonable balance that…

Why is 50% the useful number? Why not 25 or 40 or 60 or 75%? Any number needs a justification, 25% or 75% alike, so why 50%? We have 80% females in the marketing department and it is actually much larger than the IT department. Should we have 50%? Why? Actually we have a pipeline problem there too, not so many males interested in marketing. Is that a problem that needs to be solved?

>We have 80% females in the marketing department and it is actually much larger than the IT department. Is that a problem that needs to be solved?

It depends on whether it has been a consistent trend across the vast majority of marketing departments and companies, like it is wit software.

Just like having one software company with 80% women is not a solution, having one company with 80% women in marketing is not a problem.

50% is a useful number because that's about the proportion of women in the world (did I really have to spell that out?).

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

#349

Post by BigJono » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:14 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #274

uwuhn wrote: post #222

I'm going to preface this post by saying that I don't have a problem with most of my coworkers (male and female) being Asian. In fact, I prefer it. I'm not Asian, but the majority of my friends, classmates, and coworkers throughout my life have been, and that continues even now during my career in tech. Whenever I see anything related to affirmative action being discussed nowadays, I think that it's only a matter of…

> most companies, who are expending great effort on balancing the gender ratio while treating men of color as second-class URMs At least in the US actually admitting to having gender biased hiring would have to violate a half dozen anti-discrimination labor protection laws, no? Universities are doing affirmative action because there is no legislation mandating they not be sexist in their enrollment whereas corporatio…

Sure, but nobody gives a shit unless you're absolutely blatant about it. As long as you don't hold a press conference and do a dance, you'll fly straight under the radar.

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

#350

Post by dijit » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 1:15 AM UTC

meristem wrote: post #30

Underneath all this: although companies need talent, interviews are adversarial and not structured to create a supportive environment so candidates are at their best. Quite often the interview setup is to see how the candidate performs at their worst-- stressed, time pressured, on the spot, performing for fragments of time to a number of people while in what (feels|is) an asymmetrical power relationship.

> Interviews are adversarial and not structured to create a supportive environment so candidates are at their best.

This is a really broad stroke and it may even be true to a high degree. But I've had (and given) plenty of interviews where we engage a topic and just talk about it openly as if we were already colleagues. Maybe that's a Swedish thing?