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

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

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 668 posts

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

#601

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

jeromebaek wrote: post #598
thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #594

I have a 4 year old daughter who I'm trying to get interested in programming. The first step is to teach her reading/writing and math. Every time we start with basic counting, after just 2 minutes, she's constantly telling me "daddy, I don't want to count anymore". I'm not giving up yet. But, we have to accept the fact that certain genders don't like math and don't like programming. Sometimes, I see the same thing pl…

No offense, but you sound like a terrible parent. Keep your unconscious bias in check while you teach your daughter to count. Better yet, don't teach your daughter to count. Get a tutor.

it's not a bias, it's a fact. you may not like it but that doesn't make it any less true.

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

#602

Post by btilly »

danans wrote: post #586
hackinthebochs wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>most programming itself are also nothing like advanced mathematics. This is certainly true. But they do overlap in requiring a heavy amount of abstract reasoning. While "abstract reasoning" is a bit vague, one proxy for this is spatial reasoning which shows strong gender disparities and has implications for science and math ability. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-44385-0_...

> While "abstract reasoning" is a bit vague, It's extremely vague, and therefore shouldn't be used to justify any conclusions about an entire population. > one proxy for this is spatial reasoning which shows strong gender disparities and has implications for science and math ability. Another proxy for it is symbolic reasoning, which is arguably even more closely related to programming (most programming is symbolic ma…

Which is why I wish there was better data available about gender differences in ability and interest for programming.

However coming at it from the opposite end, remove all barriers that you can find, and work to make sure your hiring process hires women and men who perform equivalently on the job. As long as those are true, you are probably doing about as well as you can to get the best workforce you can.

Note "who perform equivalently on the job" is a subtle and important criteria. As an example, men tend to have an advantage on standardized tests. Therefore I am firmly in support of such measures as adjusting SAT scores to be better predictors of class performance, and then removing all signs of gender from applications before passing them to the hiring committee. Not with the goal of achieving any particular mix of men/women, but with the goal of getting the best performing class that you can from the available applicants.

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

#603

Post by danans »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #596
danans wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While "abstract reasoning" is a bit vague, It's extremely vague, and therefore shouldn't be used to justify any conclusions about an entire population. > one proxy for this is spatial reasoning which shows strong gender disparities and has implications for science and math ability. Another proxy for it is symbolic reasoning, which is arguably even more closely related to programming (most programming is symbolic ma…

There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average, and math (and presumably programming) being heavy on utilizing spatial reasoning. It's certainly an open question how much spatial reasoning is relevant, but its not irrelevant and so such data has explanatory power. Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to be a capable software developer, but no one i…

> There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average

If you read my comment again, you'll see that's not what I pointed out as fallacious. What I said was fallacious is arguing from just that factor to explain women being lower represented in tech. You can't argue something this complex from any single factor.

> Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to be a capable software developer, but no one is making such a claim.

The very specific claim by the OP was that women have more difficulty understanding pointers, classes, closures, etc, and therefore are lower represented in tech.

Also, arguing what is needed for the top 1% is irrelevant because we are talking about gender participation rates across the industry.

> And so the gender disparities in spatial reasoning is a relevant data point in this discussion.

And even more relevant is the significant historical cultural signaling that women don't belong in tech. I'd never claim it's an exclusive factor, but to exclude it from the debate, just like excluding any type of relevant logical reasoning capability, spatial or otherwise, is fallacious.

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

#604

Post by hackinthebochs »

btilly wrote: post #545
hackinthebochs wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that those are all concepts created by mathematics, which women have long excelled in - after all, women were the original "computers" before we had machines to automate calculations. Doing rote arithmetic is nothing like doing mathematics. Doing manual calculations is nothing like being a programmer. The activities have zero resemblance. Also, advanced mathematics degrees (i.e. Masters and above) have the sa…

Also, advanced mathematics degrees (i.e. Masters and above) have the same gender parity as computer science. Not so fast. See https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/fraction-p... to verify that the percentage is a bit under 30% for women in mathematics and around 20% for women in computer science. Also note that the ratios graduating with a BSc and a PhD are very different. There are a lot of challenges ar…

Thanks for the correction, I was too lazy to search for a source to verify my recollection of the numbers.

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

#605

Post by claudiawerner »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #601
jeromebaek wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but you sound like a terrible parent. Keep your unconscious bias in check while you teach your daughter to count. Better yet, don't teach your daughter to count. Get a tutor.

it's not a bias, it's a fact. you may not like it but that doesn't make it any less true.

This "fact" seems to be derived from your observation that your daughter doesn't have an appreciation for counting. From that observation, you've concluded that "she mustn't like it because she's a girl". Please tell me you know how lazy this reasoning is. I'm a woman, and I never liked counting or arithmetic. Now I study electronic engineering.

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

#606

Post by supernova87a »

new_here wrote: post #514
supernova87a wrote: post #187

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…

You sound like a shining example of someone who believes that representation in a selected-for-some-attribute population should match the general population. That is a fallacy from the beginning, and I would encourage you to carefully justify to yourself why you believe that to be true.

And this also just illustrates how difficult it is to debate on similar ground with a random person in a well-defined scope on these kinds of issues.

I speak concretely of the things companies are able to achieve within the constraints and resources they're given. You speak of hopes and dreams. But more importantly (and worse), I think you seek to turn your hopes and dreams into unworkable policies that penalize people for not achieving your hopes and dreams.

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

#607

Post by CapricornNoble »

romwell wrote: post #534
CapricornNoble wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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 There's also 99 men for every 1 woman working in coal mining. Why is no one (especially women) advocating we "fix" this gender disparity?

Because we treat mental and physical work differently.

If physical work is overwhelmingly dangerous, and physical work is (currently) overwhelmingly male, then wouldn't it be misandrist to treat it differently from mental work, where an equal labor distribution is lauded?

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

#608

Post by btilly »

danans wrote: post #603
hackinthebochs wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average, and math (and presumably programming) being heavy on utilizing spatial reasoning. It's certainly an open question how much spatial reasoning is relevant, but its not irrelevant and so such data has explanatory power. Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to be a capable software developer, but no one i…

> There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average If you read my comment again, you'll see that's not what I pointed out as fallacious. What I said was fallacious is arguing from just that factor to explain women being lower represented in tech. You can't argue something this complex from any single factor. > Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to…

The very specific claim by the OP was that women have more difficulty understanding pointers, classes, closures, etc, and therefore are lower represented in tech.

You will never see that stated as a claim. It appears as a guess, as a suspicion, and at multiple points I was at pains to point out that I have no evidence for it. It certainly is not a claim.

That said, men are way overrepresented in programming. It doesn't matter whether you look at CS departments of self-taught programmers, they are overwhelmingly (though not all) men. I am arguing that this fact is not in itself proof of discrimination.

Of the claims that I have made, one is that in my anecdotal experience I personally witnessed a lot of people in the early days of the web start in the same role, but the ones who followed a track to "programmer" were overwhelmingly men. When I personally asked women who both had and hadn't taken that path, they told me that discrimination was not a factor in their decisions. Actual responses, "You guys never pushed me away from programming, but I want to make things pretty." "Sure, there have been a few jackasses, but there are jackasses everywhere. Most of you are very welcoming as long as I can do the job."

Again, my personal experiences are anecdote, not data. YMMV and all that. But experiences like these are part of why I don't believe that the skewed ratios are the result of discrimination, no matter how many essays I read claiming otherwise. (Essays whose only real data point seems to be the fact that there is a gender ratio.)

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

#609

Post by ghjyui »

Am I the only one who sees the elephant in the room? 15-30 is the prime time when women make relationships and men make money. Software engineering needs full time commitmentent and no personal life is a part of the deal. Someone who learns programming only in college will be mediocre at best and FANG doesn't want to hire mediocricy. so women have a choice: go into programming and forget about personal life, because the money they earn by 35 won't help them, or choose personal life and have no time for programming.

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

#610

Post by camgunz »

supernova87a wrote: post #187

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…

TFA says "then drop the CS degree requirement". It goes into a lot of detail about bootcamps, etc.

Its entire premise is "there aren't enough women with CS degrees, there is a pipeline problem, here are some things to get around it".

Post reply on HN