Hacker News Reader

What about men who have financial need?

To a first approximation no one cares.

Does Hacker School and its sponsor's "need based" help truly discriminate against the very group—poor, non-degreed men—that society treats so callously?

Sure, why not? They will receive nothing but praise for making it easier for women to do Hacker School.

Put on your cynic's Thinking Hat for a moment. The fundamental question of politics is "Who? Whom?" Who's doing and who's being done to. Feminism is an "in" political movement. It has power and positive pr. Why would any of the companies sponsoring these grants choose to spend their pr dollars less effectively by letting undifferentiated men apply? Some day there will be bursaries for other groups polite society is in favour of helping. If the group is in fact over represented in CS/programming already, say Indians, the justification will be changed and no will say anything.

TL;DR All politics is coalition politics. Feminism has positive pr, the closest male equivalent, men's rights are seen as a bunch of bitter, shrill, misogynistic losers. Why waste your PR dollars?

This is a good comment. It's easy to forget that the proportion of people "above the glass ceiling" is tiny, regardless of gender. Girls outperform boys consistently through school and, as you've said, admissions to university have a significant gender skew. With the decline of many of the more traditional blue collar male-dominated industries, our system is quietly failing a high proportion of boys.

It's hard to discuss this stuff without verging dangerously close to the rather toxic "mens rights" movement, but I think there needs to be more recognition that the male dominated glass floored executive club is not just a "boys club", but an "old boys club". It's not particularly welcoming to women, but it's also not particularly welcoming to men from the wrong class or background. Our organisations may have a male dominated executive, but the middle layer is rapidly becoming skewed the opposite way.

When we talk about "equal opportunities" only in the context of gender, I think we miss the less obvious inequalities in our industry. Walk into an office of software engineers and it's immediately obvious that there's a significant gender imbalance. What isn't obvious without asking questions is that there's also a significant imbalance in socioeconomic background.

I should add that I'm not aiming to detract from efforts to see greater gender equality in our industry. My first comments apply more to broader society than tech, and I'm definitely an advocate for equal opportunities regardless of gender. This challenge is, however, much less black and white than it's sometimes portrayed in the media.

> there's also a significant imbalance in socioeconomic background

and age, and (probably) also lifestyle.

If you're a man, you're on your own because you obviously have privilege. Strong empowered wymyn need these grants because patriarchy. /s

Women complain about the glass ceiling but they also have the glass cellar which keeps them from going to the bottom. More men may be at the top but they also over-represent the bottom of society and no one talks about that.

What Google's doing here is a social engineering experiment. They don't just want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome. Because biological differences of the sexes don't real and every kid deserves a medal for participation. And people wonder why businesses are moving their manufacturing away from America.

And people wonder why businesses are moving their manufacturing away from America

They aren't. Manufacturing in the US has been growing steadily since the 70s.

Given that this is for an institution called `Hacker School`, and I have a feeling that your stats aren't P(x | studying CS), I don't really see how this is particularly relevant. The grant isn't give as part of a `help women in financial need` project, it's given as part of a `help increase the proportion of people in the tech industry who are women`.

If you want to increase the proportion of people in the tech industry who are women, do out reach, eliminate glass ceilings in management, and sponsor research into industry causes of gender bias.

Doing gender discriminations to "counter" gender discriminations is neither a good or effective way. It's lazy, and only causes more harm.

As I understand this is an outreach program, isn't it?

No. An outreach is used to fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream in order to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services.

A grant system is intended to convince people to join a program which they are aware of, but for economical reasons would not choose.

One could argue that by creating "buzz", it has a secondary effect that causes outreach. Secondary effects however are not reliable, and using actually outreach to create outreach is to me a much better way than hoping that buzz create outreach.

What do you think this is if not outreach? Any sort of outreach will be targeted. I can only imagine you would be in those threads complaining about "gender discrimination" because Company X created women-focused programming classes or the like.

There's plenty of research into "industry causes of gender bias." This is one of the solutions. You're basically claiming that because this doesn't completely solve the gender divide, it's lazy and worthless. Well, sorry, but that's not how the world works. This is one of many small steps into getting more women interested in programming, which then eliminates the glass ceilings and discrimination.

How you and the others in this thread don't see this is just baffling.

Are you defining preferential treatment as outreach? Thats not only a very odd definition, but also creates the idea that glass ceilings is some form of outreach for male leaders.

The definition of "Outreach", is an method that are used to fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means, to the purpose of reaching groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education). This doesn't do that. Mozilla mentor program for example is one that does. Compare and see the difference.

women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive. Any research of this has proven this point. When the Sweden government body tried it, it was found to be ineffective, counter-productive (created more separation between sexes), and declared illegal in the last years. Sadly, given the current gender politics, little money has been spent to answer why it failed, as it is easier to simply ignore the fact that it failed.

So to reiterate, This is not one of the solutions, its a illusion of an solution that do harm rather than good. It is worthless, because it do not work and causes harm. It is lazy, because other groups has shown (like Mozilla) how to do it right. In the real world, thats how progress work. You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.

What is baffling is how people keep disregarding any sense of scientific method. Just because a previous theory is thought to be working, one should not be ignorant to new information.

> Outreach is used fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means

Check.

> to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education).

Check.

It does both things. It fills the gap of an affordable, welcoming resource for women who have an interest in programming, and it reaches women who would otherwise not be aware of a resource that is friendly toward them. You just don't like that it's reaching out to a specific group that you happen to not belong to.

> women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive.

Hacker School isn't excluding men. It's merely saying they will help women with expenses while attending the school. It's not giving women an express lane through the application process.

> You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.

Do you have any source to prove this is a step backwards? Because one of the largest and most resourceful tech companies in the world happens to disagree with you, so you're going to need a little more to back yourself up than, "Nuh uh!"

And please don't throw around "scientific method" as though it applies here. You're not bringing in any new information. You're just stating your own opinion and then acting as though it's fact.

A appeal to authority fallacy will get you nowhere. I will counter your appeal to Google with my appeal to Mozilla. Mozilla believes in a mentor program and non-exclusive aid, which is exactly the right way to approach imbalance. It also helps that it has been proven to work in eliminating gender bias.

If you want sources, do you own research. like I said, Sweden education system tried and failed and that fact is not hard to find for yourself. Others has published articles such as http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.... which paints the discussion as an debate with two sides. I do however like to point out that the only side that actually do research on the efficiency of preferential treatment programs are those who are against them. I have yet to see any study that show preferential treatments to be beneficially.

Can you provide any source what so ever that preferential treatments has ever worked to eliminate gender bias? Ever? Surely such sources should be all over the web?

> It also helps that it has been proven to work in eliminating gender bias.

Another unsubstantiated claim. It's like you don't understand how claims work. Saying whatever you believe as though it's fact doesn't make it so.

> like I said, Sweden education system tried and failed and that fact is not hard to find for yourself.

First: It's not my job to prove your argument for you. Second: According to you, Sweden apparently tried gender-exclusive classes. Hacker School isn't excluding men from its program. It's just providing a way for women to pay for expenses. Those are two very different things.

> Others has published articles such as

That article actually proves you wrong...

>> These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold. In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, the student population at University of California, Berkeley, was 80 percent white compared to 45 percent today.

So, they are beneficial, and they do work.

> It also helps that it has been proven to work in eliminating gender bias. > Another unsubstantiated claim.

Sorry, I thought you could your own searches. If you can't be bothered to do your own research, and can provide any sources of your own, why should anyone care what you got to say?

any, for the incurrable lazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6NvCH7A8Vs and https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeLove/Mentors

> Sweden apparently tried gender-exclusive classes

No, they did not. They added a simple rule that said: If a person enrolling in a class would become a minority in that class, then that person deserve some preferential treatment. The end resulted was that over 80% of the time this rule triggered, it was a white male, trying to enter a white female dominated class room.

> That article actually proves you wrong...

Apprently a lack of reading skills...

The article ends on:

>> Few people question the need to eliminate racial and sexist barriers that exclude minorities' and women from full participation in society. Preferential treatment programs may be one means toward this goal. But these programs also raise ethical issues that direct us to consider their potential benefits and harms, the justice of compensating groups for past harms and present disadvantages, and the fairest way to distribute the burdens of compensation.

And it talks about what those temporary measures where designed for:

>> First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination against women and racial minorities.

And last:

>> Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989 compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award of employment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups.

they are not beneficial, and they do not work.

This is spot on!

What they are doing, ironically, is the least engineering thing to do. Fixing one of the side effects, which may cause worse side effects, instead of analyzing and fixing the problem.

Uh no it's relevant. I've applied to hacker school in the winter '14 batch; I hope to crack it, fingers crossed! But I don't know how I will live/sustain in New York if I do crack the interviews. I am currently in DC, not been in a job for more than a year.

I immigrated to US recently (August '13) burned all my savings to do so. Prior to moving here I was doing a product start-up that failed. Have had too much on the plate so I'm now stuck between a hard rock and a cliff.

While applying to Hacker School I was seriously meaning to tick the checkbox for financial aid (but it was disabled because one has to confirm "I am a woman" first). I do believe that women programmers need encouragement and an inclusive environment, but sometimes men need it too.

All great points and i personally share your point of view. This isn't the kind of initiatives that will improve anyhow the situation of women in tech, it's just cheap marketing for Google and Hacker School. They are connecting "need-based situations" and gender, which is quite counter-productive as IMHO what women really need now is just fair opportunities.

To Hacker School: either you open funds to men (and here i'm talking personally as i applied, don't have savings and don't really know -if accepted- how i will make it - but ehi i'm smart and positive) or you are loosing, at least for me, a HUGE amount of credibility.