Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.interviewing.io

571–580 of 668 posts

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

#571
post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certainly people like this. What you generally find about them though is that they are highly motivated and deeply interested in the concepts of computing. They don't grow on trees -- they're quite rare. Oddly enough, I've never met a single one that was female, though that's only anecdotal of course. The only female devs I know have CS degrees. The focus on CS is important. Developers who don't have it are…

I don't think that a computer science degree is bad, just that it's a poor filter. I have one, and while the math background is critical for many things, honestly the skills learned there are pretty limited in terms of what I've do. If you have a background in any science, or even a good analysis ability in a liberal arts field, you can be trained pretty quickly to be a functional developer. I'm surprised this doesn'…

Lots of people can be "trained" to be functional developers. That doesn't make them good software engineers.

A CS degree is supposed to educate you in how to think, not train you to write software. Being able to properly decompose a problem and use the right data structures and algorithms to solve it is more than just training. You need education in the fundamentals to do that effectively.

I don't believe that it is impossible for someone without a CS degree to be a developer -- far from it -- but in my experience most of the really good ones have CS or CE or EE degrees. YMMV of course.

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

#572
post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a few direct responses, but they all felt patronizing. Apologies for the length, but I'm hoping to avoid that by showing my math, as it were: About 7 years ago, I started to wonder about a cluster of concepts that I've yet to successfully explain to anyone without getting a confused look... Roughly, it's a curiosity about what (if anything) is in the joints and gaps and shadows around the more salient feature…

The Wikipedia article picks one of many pieces of research to quote. Your criticism are fair as a criticism of that specific research paper. But after you've looked at a dozen of them, continuing to say that it is just an artifact of terrible methodology (even though most actually are terrible) becomes much harder to support. But that said, here is a classic test showing strong gender differences accidentally discove…

Thank you for taking the time to read this; it took me long enough to write that I was afraid it would be for naught.

I think you are reading me more narrowly than I want to be read, but I don't fault you there. I am not good at communicating this concept yet.

I picked the first study because I start at the beginning, and look for loose threads.

I didn't pick on this study because I think its methodology is terrible. I just picked on the first few loose threads I found, and pulled.

I pulled on the threads to (try to) model and promote how I go about searching for things that aren't facially obvious, and to demonstrate how applying this process (showing my math) leads me inexorably to one conclusion: it is very hard to think and communicate about things like this in a sound, lucid manner.

I'm not here to poke holes in individual studies or "prove" anything, but to encourage you to look for loose threads in the epistemic fabric, here.

In closing, and to be more specific: listing a bunch of issues with the study doesn't make it wrong. Proving the study wrong is not the point. The issues highlight some of the epistemic hubris in the study, and hopefully to expose how that sort of hubris can compound as we summarize work like this and weave it into higher-level narratives. It may help to see this as laundering unearned/unexamined assumptions at lower levels.

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

#573

With such politically charged issues, it's always a problem of people wanting to believe something is possible (and mandatory to pursue) banging their heads against what is true and actually possible. If the percentage of female computer science graduates (as a strong proxy for the available candidate population) is 18% (Google for the facts and stats), how is every company to hit an idealistic goal of 50% representa…

How is this the top rated comment? It swats down the post based on points that the post has already addressed: > Why do we place the blame and assign malice of intent to those who have little control over the constraints? The post suggests searching and hiring outside of the traditional pipeline, which is something that is within control. The comment is then topped off with a strawman argument: > If we put actual per…

How is this the top rated comment?

Because it spells out a view that the majority agrees with.

The post suggests searching and hiring outside of the traditional pipeline

It suggests the only way to hire more women is to discriminate against the best credentialed candidates.

It doesn't mean that the pursuit of gender parity is delusional

Lots of us believe it's actually, truly delusional.

How long have women been encouraged to go into engineering? Decades. My entire life. The numbers studying it don't shift. Diversity initiatives have long ago passed the King Canute stage and turned into full blown reality denial based on a big pile of nasty conspiracy theories about men. Aline Lerner is one of the better "women in tech" out there but even she goes there:

hostile university culture in male-dominated CS programs, biased hiring practices, and ultimately non-inclusive work environments that force women and people of color to leave tech

Ugh. Women would prefer teaching children to software? It must be that men are hostile, biased and "force" women to leave!

What about the fact that most childcare workers are women? Is it due to rampant bias, hostility and discrimination by women that "force" men to leave? Where are the hundreds of millions spent on fixing that? At least with teaching there's some slightly plausible argument about why gender diversity might be useful, whereas in engineering there is none.

These beliefs are insulting, demeaning, condescending and ultimately false. The vast, vast majority of men I've encountered in the tech world bend over backwards to give women anything they want if they even so much as express an interest in tech. Sometimes they push them to the front even if they don't. The idea that women's lack of interest in tech is all the nasty male's fault is absurd and is the inverse of the reality: namely, women routinely campaign hard to exclude men from opportunities. All in the name of "equality".

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

#574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is how you gonna find a different hiring pattern to force 50%? Internal training, ok, but are you going to only provide internal training to women? Is this even legal? Basecamp training, ok, but are you going to only provide basecamp training to women? Is this even legal? Special talents (dropouts etc.), ok, but are you going to only hire special talents who are women? Is this even legal? Non-traditional…

Always interesting that on Hacker News, people are always so ready to throw in the towel and call something impossible and list the 83 reasons why. Unless it is about starting a business and making money via ads.... Then they're willing to devote thousand of hours of their life thinking creatively about how to solve problems to "change the world".

Lots of people have started businesses and made money via ads, in ways that increased wealth for everyone. Of course people think about how to do that.

In contrast nobody has changed the gender ratio in tech without discriminating against men: a zero sum game that definitely does not increase wealth for everyone.

As for your dismissal of people's 83 reasons, why not show us how it's done and address them?

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

#575
post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. You absolutely can. You can do so by not overindexing on traditional pipelines that have large amount of discrimination in them, such as top CS schools. IE, if you are more willing to interview people from less discriminatory sources, such as bootcamps, then you can get around other, wo…

By that logic shouldn't we also try to fix the overrepresentation of women in e.g. teaching and nursing by recruiting male teachers and nurses without degrees?

Possibly. And these industries do indeed already do this.

I am not sure why people aren't aware of this, and think this question is some sort of gotcha. These industries are indeed trying to get more male representation.

But, since engineers make a whole bunch of money, it makes much more sense to be worried about representation in this industry, because of all the power and money that it confers to people who have these jobs.

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

#576
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would you expect women to be more like to choose the approach of not graduating than men, though? Women have the same options to attend university as men. It seems more likely to me that the proportions of applicants without a degree are similar to the ones with degrees.

Options don't exist in a vacuum. I had the option of signing up to the military, but my upbringing, preferences, and economic/social status made it almost certain I wouldn't. I had free will to make the choice but the outcome was almost foregone. I think women in tech is a very similar situation. The article states that women graduate from bootcamps at a rate twice that of traditional CS courses. I'd say this is beca…

I'd like to have more data on the women graduating from bootcamps. Maybe it is a desperate move of aging single moms who find they can't make a living with their degree in English Literature? While most men who are interested took traditional degrees to begin with, so they have less need for bootcamps.

Sorry for the harsh formulation, but the point is, we really don't actually know what is going on. It is not legitimate to just assume women are being pushed away from traditional career paths in IT.

As for Military, I think the idea to become a Software Developer is by now a very common one, you don't have to come from a specific demographic to have heard of that option. Women come from the same backgrounds as men, the odds to have a baby girl or a baby boy are the same at all levels of society.

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

#577
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the pipeline in other degrees any better? And more importantly, why is it even a suggestions to look for other degrees when searching for candiate just to fill out diversity quota ? Just to be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with looking for candidates from those areas, companies should, and already did source candidates from more than CS degrees. But the company should do that because those candida…

Wall Street hires people from all kinds of degrees all the time (though not for the purpose of diversity). I’ve worked with fund managers who majored in Japanese history, astrophysics, a lawyer who clerked for SCOTUS, and even a former professional card counter who dropped out of college. I thought the tech industry had pioneered the idea that a degree shouldn’t be the yard stick that all potential hires are judged a…

Not many people get degrees in fund management, but aren't actively managed funds being increasingly seen as just dart throwing anyway?

If fund managers are on average no more lucky than just following the market then it'd stand to reason it doesn't matter what their degrees are in because they had no real skill to begin with.

My own experience of finance has been that jobs are handed out in ways and for reasons that would seem extremely lax to someone from the tech world.

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

#578
post #490
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…

> It's fortunate that the best jobs are the most fair, but even if a place sucks, a first SWE job is still a first SWE job. I think part of this is just the free market at work. Some companies will pass on great talent to meet diversity goals and those that are focused on hiring the best people will end up giving themselves a better chance at succeeding

it depends greatly on your definition of "best people". What I observed during my career is that no matter how much emphasis we put on things like schools, the best predictor of success is the quality and the composition of the organization. I've seen best people from other companies perform horribly, and people you wouldn't bet on with a sane mind go and do admirable things. Over time I learned to just let go of most of what my instinct tell me about perceived performance in tech work because frankly most of what we know and believe is bullshit.

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

#579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But why would you expect women to be more like to choose the approach of not graduating than men, though? Well, probably because the environment in all parts of the tech pipeline, is often times toxic the entire way through, and women don't want to deal with that. So part of solving the pipeline problem means trying to solve it in many different parts of the pipeline, and recognizing that even if a previous part fa…

It's certainly not "toxic all the way through". That's such an insulting assumption. I bet you for example that at engineering university women are more likely to get help than men.

Have you tried speaking to any women to get their opinion on the matter?

Because basically every women in tech has many many many stories of their bad experiences, all the way through the pipeline.

If you want to talk about universities, the problem with them is often the culture. Women are second guessed, every step of the way, and are often told that they don't belong there, and they have their abilities questions much more often than men.

This very common toxic culture of universities, often drives women out of the industry, because they feel like they don't belong, and aren't as good as their peers, even though they might actually be getting better grades than their peers.

If you speak to almost any woman in tech, they will be able to tell you this, and they will be able to give you many examples of the horrible experiences that they had to go through, every step of the way, through the pipeline.

It might not be all women that have these experiences. But it is most of them. Polling and data collection supports this conclusion.

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

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large chunk of the feminist movement was and is women and men actively working to prove that biology is not a limiting factor in what women can choose to do with themselves That's got nothing at all to do with what was being suggested. Saying women have different "interests" -- or priorities , which is a better word in my opinion -- isn't suggesting they are incapable nor suggesting society should constrain their r…

I'm sorry that happened to you, because whoever did that to you utterly missed the point. It's about choice, and if you chose to be a homemaker, it's exactly as valid a choice as someone who chooses to pursue a career that leaves no time to raise a family if they don't want to raise a family. What we should avoid is choices being constrained by assumptions about what you want because of your biology (such as the assu…

For various reasons, I've thought very long and hard about what I think of as "human sexual morality." A great deal of our historical cultural norms, such as expectations of monogamy, virginity prior to marriage and shotgun weddings, boil down to the fact that sex is a profound human drive and very often has unintended consequences. This includes both pregnancy and disease.

You talk about women and their lives as if what they want is or should be the driving factor in their lives. I don't think that's accurate at all.

A serious career woman I was close to for many years had serious fertility problems. After many years of intervention, she managed to have one child in her mid to late thirties. She had read enormous research and concluded that infertility was a driving factor in the lives of many career women.

Careers and children are both serious commitments. Studies show that every dollar invested in our small children for things like preschool saves multiple dollars down the line on things like prison.

I enjoyed being home with my sons. They both have special needs and I have a serious congenital defect that wasn't identified until my mid thirties. Getting a diagnosis was extremely empowering and allowed me to be able to more effectively pursue school, work and even a divorce at long last.

But to a large degree being a homemaker was not something I chose. To a large degree, it was a circumstance foisted upon me by circumstance beyond my control.

I'm not a feminist. I see feminists as people who feel women are entitled to a career as if a spiffy title with a big salary is a prize in a Cracker Jax box that unfairly is handed out to men arbitrarily based on the dark heart of society being a sexist pig. This attitude is fundamentally disrespectful of both what it costs men to have a real career and what it takes to adequately raise healthy kids.

Society is not going to solve these problems as long as it continues to chase this insane delusion that children are a casual choice no harder to get or avoid than picking your lunch from a menu.

Our current mental models throw everyone under the bus, men, women and children alike. Many women soak up a lot of the damage to lessen it for their children which is the morally and practically correct choice given the shitty state of the world. But we shouldn't be designing a world like that. It's evil to design a world where that's basically the norm and not some bizarre stastistical outlier.

I wish most self-proclaimed feminists would go die in a fucking fire. They are generally worse than most self-proclaimed Christians who all too often are just assholes giving Christianity a bad name.

I would like to see the birth of a post feminist world where we deal realistically with the thorny issue of human sexual morality, including the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy and this can have huge consequences for the lives of the parents. I hate labels but I tend to think of it as a humanist model, which to me means a model that is humane and cares equally about men, women and children.

The feminist narrative mostly cares about women having serious careers and it mostly cares about empowering a subset of very privileged women to live their lives like very privileged men. The reality is that when you have a very privileged woman who has a serious career and also children, it's usually some less privileged woman raising her children under a title like nanny.

Our current feminist narrative pretends that it wants equality for all. It actually doesn't.

It actually wants equality between a small subset of very privileged upper class women and very privileged upper class men and it expects that so-called equality to come largely at the expense of lower class women working as maids and nannies to make it possible for a few upper class two-career couples to "have it all."

Career paths must be reimagined if we are ever to escape this bullshit. Our current career paths are posited on an implicit assumption that the worker is a heterosexual man with a wife and kids to support and her labor is freeing him up to put all his time and energy into the job while she worries about making sure he eats healthy and arranges to make that possible for him. That pattern served humanity well when most families had multiple children and it improved quality of life for men, women and children.

The world has changed and our mental models are failing to adequately catch up. We aren't going to invent better ones while chasing bullshit delusions based on ridiculous ideals that cannot actually be achieved and are actively undermining the claimed goal of creating a better world.

Post reply on HN