In any case, I'm old (yeah ... I said it) now and definitely agree that we need more diversity in our tech work-places. We have an additional problem as our applicant pool is extremely homogeneous. How do we fix that?
In any case, I'm old (yeah ... I said it) now and definitely agree that we need more diversity in our tech work-places. We have an additional problem as our applicant pool is extremely homogeneous. How do we fix that?
I agree that if the initial starting proportion was 10% (again assuming your number is correct) then gender stripping should make no difference - just pointing out that unless you know the starting proportion then the OP's statement is perfectly valid.
[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/24/perceptions-of-required...
Let's assume a simplified model of reality that has exactly two biased filters - an "upstream" bias that causes the pool of qualified candidates to contain only (as an assumed example) 10% women, and a "downstream" bias that causes qualified women candidates to disproportionally not get chosen or get worse offers, that results in a majority of companies hiring only (again, assumed example) 5% women.
If your company gets publicly known for hiring fairly, avoiding the second filter, then it may actually result in an effect that would "cancel out the effects of something high upstream" - simply because qualified women candidates may preferentially choose to apply at your organization, and your pool of candidates may contain significantly more qualified women developers than the national average, and thus also the people you hire would contain more qualified women developers than the national average.
A company with a reputation "if you're of group X, you'll hate it here" can have a perfectly fair hiring process, but still won't get much of group X simply because they will avoid that organization. An organization like Ku klux klan doesn't really need to do racial discrimination when hiring as most black people simply won't apply.
A fair hiring process would result in a proportion of women employees that generally matches the proportion of qualified women applicants, but the proportion of women among qualified applicants may vary significantly between different companies.
Imagine that the female population of developers is 10%, that they exhibit in every way a performance distribution equal to males in job and interviewing performance, but that every company except yours is half as likely to hire a female candidate as the straight odds would suggest.
The candidate pool as experienced by all companies would consist of more than 10% females (as they would need to apply to twice as many places on average) and the average quality of the female candidate may well be higher than the average male candidate because of the adverse selection at play. (Qualified female candidates are being preferentially passed up in favor of inferior male candidates, leaving the residual female candidate pool more talent-rich than the male pool.)
The article you linked to is quite good, but it ignores the very real decline over the past few decades[1] in women participation in software relative to other professions.
[1]: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-wom...
How can this be? Is it:
* Working conditions are hostile to women, but this doesn't actually affect anything in terms of income, number of women in the industry and so on?
* More cynical variation: any woman who makes it to graduation in a STEM field has already taken a lot of hostility; those who hostility can affect are driven out earlier?
* Women and men actually experience equal amounts of hostility, and simply interpret it differently?
* Women are better at their jobs (or somehow have it easier) in a way that doesn't show up in numerical SAT scores, and this effect is exactly equal and opposite to that of a hostile work environment?
* Something else I haven't thought of?
[1] though by no means all, I remember lorettahe's post here a year or so ago
"By being the only Y in the work place, people expect me to represent the whole Y group just because I am Y."
"Because I am Y, everyone assume {common fear about group Y} about me".
"People think something is wrong with me because I applied to a X dominated work place and not one of the Y dominated ones."
It seems to me that the hostile working environment is the result of human nature when confronted with a minority. When the number of women in the industry increases, then the hostile working conditions will likely go away as quickly it initial started.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
There is also a danger in looking at statistics about human behavior that only take a snapshot in time, because the data itself changes all the time. For example, it is very possible that ever since women participation started to decline, there have been few role models for women, less desire to participate, and therefore less desire to excel in math.
It is as impossible to study social dynamics from a statistical snapshot as it is to study planetary motion from a still photograph of the sky.
I don't understand what you're claiming. The differences in numeric GRE scores absolutely do explain the post-graduation sex differences. Are you claiming that low numeric GRE scores and low workplace success might have some common cause? Sure, but that cause would necessarily be pre-graduation, meaning that's the place to tackle it, and efforts to e.g. make workplaces less hostile aren't going to make any difference.
Two, and this is the more important point, I absolutely claim that low numeric GRE scores and low workplace success might have some common cause, as I explained in my description of the feedback. That cause is not pre-graduation -- its effect is. Low participation in the industry causes fewer women to be drawn to the field, to be less interested in math etc.
I just want to point out what it is that I don't claim: I don't say that there is no significant innate difference in math abilities between men and women. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. But its existence -- if it exists -- cannot nearly account for the huge gender gap we see in SV, doubly so because participation rates have been dropping since the eighties.
If it's just that kind of feedback loop, how would the fall have started? Mathematics was once almost exclusively a men's game and early computer science fell in with that; the kids of the '80s would have had more female role models in the computer industry (and certainly as you say more in biology or physics) than those of the '70s or '60s, so why would they have been less interested in numerate fields?
I'm not saying that the feedback loop you describe can't amplify things, but I think the underlying cause has to lie outside it.
I've been thinking more about your decline-since-the-80s point. The narrative I've heard most often is that '90s compsci classes contained women with lower GRE-type scores than men (either through explicit positive discrimination/affirmative action, or because there were plenty of applicants who passed the admission criteria and a roughly-even split were accepted), who went on to do less well in industry (in line with their GRE-type scores), and the crash of the early '00s prompted an adjustment to more natural levels. But that leaves a lot of unexplained questions.
Maybe Yvain's page is right about academia, but those results don't extend to SV where there is more outright discrimination? Maybe it's about men being more able or willing than women to move to SV? Maybe SV's standards are stricter than the GRE cutoff and the difference at the end of the bell curve is even starker?
I still feel like we must be missing something. The simplistic explanation of "it's all innate ability" doesn't fit, but neither does "it's all discrimination/hostility", nor even "it's a 50/50 split between the two". Something remains to be explained here.
That's a good question. So these guys[1] have one theory. Another is that changes in SV ethos have made companies less hospitable to women. It's probably a combination of many different effects.
> I still feel like we must be missing something.
Probably lots of things. What troubles me is the pervasive lack of curiosity and lack of empathy. You see people here on HN drool over sci-fi notions of cryonics or believe all sorts of scientific "findings" of dubious nature about nutrition, but dismiss all attempts to really understand this issue. You also see people here express such decisive opinions about pretty much anything, but when a woman tells of a negative experience at a SV company, the responses turn into, "wait, we have to wait and hear the other side first".
If we realize this is important -- and I have more to say about this point -- and investigate this in depth, then I think we will have benefitted already. In the meantime, we should take it to heart that employees in our industry feel distressed by the working environment we create.
Now, why is it so important? Many people confuse sexism and racism with mere discrimination between sexes/races, or unequal representation in various professions. But that women are underrepresented in the waste-disposal industry does not make anyone lose sleep. The reason is that sexism and racism are all about power[2] (the academic shorthand for racism/sexism is "discrimination + power". It is a very serious problem when groups of the population are absent or underrepresented in seats of power, and when that happens, it requires investigation (the assumption being that no group would freely yield power -- over itself -- to others). Because the tech industry, and Silicon Valley in particular, pack so much power these days, and since we share this power and can influence its future, we should be very concerned to learn that we're distributing this power unfairly.
[1]: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-wom...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
And there are specific worries. I've worked at a place that appeared to make a point of hiring equal numbers of men and women - and implemented this by hiring a number of women who simply weren't capable of performing their jobs (whether this was a question of talent or training I don't know). It was bad for me, as in programming incompetent colleagues are not just dead weight but actively harmful. It was bad for those women, who had a frustrating time at a job where they knew they weren't contributing. And it was even worse for the highly-skilled women on the team, as others who hadn't worked closely with them would - understandably, and probably unconsciously - make the calculation that they were probably in the incompetent group, and act accordingly. So naturally, avoiding that particular failure mode is a matter that's close to my heart, and I get defensive when I hear people saying things that I think might lead to that.
The latter will only be achieved if the level of hostility women feel in the workplace is reduced, and to do that, employers (and engineers in general) will need to undergo some training. Part of that training (though certainly not all of it) would be learning to recognize sexism. Recognizing sexism is very hard if you're not trained for it; there are two reasons for that: one, people confuse sexism with misogyny and assume that since they're not misogynist, they can't be sexist (while actually most forms of sexism are inadvertent/structural/cultural), and two, because sexism is cultural, we just don't think of things that seem so natural to us, and can't perceive the harm they cause. Because sexism and racism are discrimination + power, the best way to recognize them is not to look for discrimination (which is hard to see, and we don't want to find it because it feels we're being judged or doing something wrong) but for power. Once you know what power is, it is relatively easy to see. Once you learn to see power, you see who has more of it and who has less of it. Once you see that, it's much easier to see whether through action or inaction your organization keeps the current unfair power distribution.
Second, it's also very possible that there is a local, fast, feedback loop. I think women would be more attracted to companies that already employ a higher number of women, and are known for a hospitable working environment, so it's likely those companies will receive a higher share of women applicants.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Reducing_male_bias_in_hir...
Everyone (including women) is biased against hiring women in tech. Even if it is tiny, why wouldn't you take steps to reduce your own bias? Even if "the pipeline is the problem", why wouldn't you take all possible steps to reduce the bias at your stage of the pipeline?
Your intuition is right when/if this gets implemented everywhere.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b...
I've worked with a few women in technical roles that decided to take more masculine versions of their names (Jackie -> Jack, Ashley -> Ash, Jessica to Jesse). For two of them it started out as a way of getting hassled less online, and the other did it as an experiment to see which resume got more interviews (surprise, the masculine name got more than double the callbacks.)
But then I never listened to teachers or any public employment agencies and their leaflets since I had HR people in family who knew more contemporary habits (eg. that handwritten long-form CVs mean pretty much immediate rejection, while they were sold in class as the best thing ever)
The photo requirement is still rather annoying though.
Go with the basics and it should be ok. Especially in more modern companies (IT, etc)
What industry? What city? How many companies = "Most"?
List them
I know that HN and the world in general is on a kick about equality of everything, but when your interviewee wears 100 gallons of perfume to the interview that is a problem I have to address even before they start working.
I absolutely think that the work can have objective measures, but back in reality much of work is not based around how good the candidate fits the job description exactly as described in the requirements.
However, it seems like at some point these basics are societal norms, and I am going to ridiculous lengths to specify what I want for a position.
Personal hygiene is pretty much the criteria for ANY job.
Step one: improve economic forces on lower-income families, the working poor, migrant and other ethnic immigrant communities, and the most at risk of poverty, incarceration, preventable disease and unplanned pregnancy.
Step two: provide education for all those groups.
Step three: balance a new middle class through job creation combined with a return to increased domestic jobs which don't require a college degree (since nobody can afford it now), primarily industrial and manufacturing.
Step four: as a new middle class emerges, the roadblocks to a good education, freedom from incarceration, increased communication skills, and improved local ethnic-minority economies produces tech workers who have the same intellectual and cultural advantages of caucasian-american males and females. suddenly more people who are 'like us' start applying, and their skin color, family history, cultural/religious differences and accents don't seem like such a barrier anymore.
Alternate plan:
Step one: get involved in community outreach for young disadvantaged people.
Step two: invest in tech classes at community centers.
Step three: convert blighted neighborhoods into training centers, call centers, minimalist office spaces, etc.
Step four: work with local governments to increase availability of cheap public transportation.
Step five: hire local young people who are now trained in tech work to do the jobs you'd normally farm out to similarly-skilled foreign workers.
What you have described are simple solutions, not easy ones.
Have a culture where men and women alike consider themselves functional and important parts of your business.
Let this culture speak through your actions (specifically: offer benefits that are attractive to the kind of person you want to attract), and let both the culture and you actions shine through in your public appearance (general website, HR-specific website, job ads).
Also: pre-recruiting activities (community involvement, generally getting in touch with people) can help your visibility especially with people who are not well-connected members of the majority group. Get involved, and, as mentioned, let your culture shine through.
As they further mention, some of the recruiting practices that are popular tend to be systematically biased towards a single, relatively homogeneous group of people. See this as an opportunity to perform arbitrage on that market by talking to suitable candidates that some of the other players are ignoring.
(I was born in 62.)
We were there, dude.
And yes, the applicant pool is homogeneous in the extreme.
* http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-wom...
* http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/software-engineer/it-gender...
* http://www.lpfi.org/sites/default/files/tilted_playing_field...
* http://qz.com/143967/the-tech-industrys-woman-problem-statis...
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man...