

I only got that job because I’m a girl - glaak
http://www.technologywoman.com/2012/09/27/i-only-got-that-job-because-im-a-girl/

======
btilly
It is easy to rail against employers for showing the complained about bias
against minorities and women. And doing so is clearly against the law.

However playing Devil's advocate it is justifiable by the fact that hiring
decisions are naturally risk adverse. The difference between a perfect hire
and a merely good one is typically not that big. The difference between a hire
that works out and one that does not is _huge_. It does not take many wrong
hires to destroy a working team.

If you've ever been burned by a hire where a person did not work out for
reason X, then you're going to naturally think 2 and 3 times before making a
similar hire. I personally have seen a couple of situations where a black
person had credentials only because of affirmative action and did not deserve
those credentials. I've also have seen multiple cases where a woman gets
hired, gets pregnant, and then you lose that employee in a painful way.

Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in
this situation?

(Turning it around, if everyone else is discriminating to an unfair degree
against a specific group of people, a company that merely discriminates less
will enjoy a competitive advantage. A while ago I ran across a fascinating
study of how much better South Korean companies that were willing to hire
women into management do than ones who are not. I've seen no data either way
on whether the USA is past this tipping point for women in various
professional careers.)

~~~
glaak
Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't
associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people?

Also, read the studies. Black people and women actually have a _harder_ time
getting a job. So by your logic, of people getting jobs that they may not be
the most qualified for, you'd be better off hiring women or black people. They
have to be _more_ qualified into to be seen as equals.

~~~
btilly
_Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't
associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people?_

The specific situation that is burned in my mind was a black girl who was in a
math PhD program at the same time that I was. The department wound up bending
their rules to the breaking point to give her a Masters on her way out because
nobody wanted to risk the discrimination lawsuit that she was threatening. Her
actual math knowledge was not even to the level that I would expect from a BSc
in math.

I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere
near being similarly egregious. And I had experiences with that department
which demonstrated in spades that white people were not given anywhere near as
much leniency.

As for your final point, I thought I pretty much said that. I've not seen the
specific studies that you're referring to.

~~~
hannahmitt
Do you count the leniency in assuming white people have more legitimate
credentials?

And how often are people hiring purely by the program of study? Can you
affirmative action your way into top honors or great job experience? For the
latter, it appears it's the opposite.

~~~
btilly
_Can you affirmative action your way into top honors or great job experience?_

In the specific case that I'm thinking of, thanks to affirmative action she
had academic honors until, but not including grad school. (She did get a
masters though.)

I've encountered some black people in the work place who I suspect were
continuing to coast on affirmative action and willingness to accuse others of
discrimination. They are a clear minority of the blacks that I've worked with.
Furthermore I've never seen any of that minority manage to get good referrals
from anyone I'd be interested in working with.

That said, there are some dysfunctional organizations out there where managers
can find it easier to promote their problem employees to be someone else's
problem than they do to fire them. Someone whose success was entirely
dependent on affirmative action might do well in such an organization. My last
experience with such an organization was fairly brief and was about 15 years
ago. (I reached the point where I had to decide between finding a better job
or filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against the man I was reporting to. Yes,
that happens to men as well. I chose finding a better job.)

 _Update:_ I should clarify that my opinions about the relative competency of
people in that program came from knowing them for several years, and from
being in classes together.

------
eightbitman
You got the job because you're a girl. You kept it because you're competent.
It's annoying how women refuse to acknowledge their gender opens certain doors
for them. I want to work as a bartender, which means more than half of the
places I apply will never even look at my resume because I'm not a girl.

I'm all for giving disadvantaged people a chance over advantaged ones, but
it's offensive when you pretend "Oh no, the odds are totally even!" No.
They're not. You're lying to protect your ego.

~~~
glaak
Um. Read the studies. No, the odds aren't even. In technology, they're stacked
against women. (And against black people in general.)

(I would very much believe, however, that in bartending, it's stacked against
men.)

~~~
jules
Since you're familiar with the studies, please cite them. As it stands your
comment is just "RTFM!!" without even saying which manual.

~~~
glaak
The studies cited on the original article which this comment thread it
attached to. Read the graphs there. Equally qualified women were rated as less
competent.

[http://www.technologywoman.com/2012/09/27/i-only-got-that-
jo...](http://www.technologywoman.com/2012/09/27/i-only-got-that-job-because-
im-a-girl/)

------
smokey_the_bear
I also interned at Microsoft in college, and I'm sure the only reason I got
the internship was because I'm a girl. MS hired only five interns from my
school that year, and all were female, which is pretty remarkable given my
school's sub 5% female representation. I also had an offer from IBM's Extreme
Blue that summer, which I don't think had much to do with being female.

I also think being female made it a little easier to get my resume noticed,
coming from a large state school. It probably helped me get my Google
interview, but I don't think it actually helped me get the job much.

There have also been some negative things about being a woman in technology.
Everyone has their advantages and disadvantages in life.

~~~
glaak
It is unusual that all 5 people hired were female. But, remember that
coincidences happen. There are plenty of schools in which all 15 people hired
are male. Unless there is some reason why your school specifically would be
set apart, I don't think this is anything more than a strange coincidence.

It's possible that something in the middle is going on -- a recruiter asked a
professor for recommendations and he/she happened to recommend mostly women.

~~~
btilly
If the presented figures are true, the probability of that happening entirely
independently by chance are about 0.3 in a million.

It is reasonable to conclude that those decisions were not independent. But
you're absolutely right that the correlation may come from the school rather
than from Microsoft.

------
bravura
Cue up a lot of people who are going to use rhetoric to take make a
"reasonable", "non-dogmatic" issue about this topic, while only barely
acknowledging sub-conscious prejudice for or against.

I don't have a solution here, I'm sorry. But whenever I read a comment that
sounds too cool, even-headed, and rhetorical, I know I'm going to be hit with
some contrived hypotheticals and not much supporting data.

I don't know how to address the issue of prejudice. I just dislike it when
people engage in discussion and pat themselves on the back for having taken a
"reasonable" position. Not that I think arguments should be unreasonable, I
simply see in practice that most "reasonable" arguments don't actually
illuminate and are simply exercises in rhetoric.

~~~
moistgorilla
I acknowledge that there is a huge sub-conscious prejudice. I don't like how
society doesn't focus on all of the types of prejudices that exist. Like I
posted before, there is the halo effect, prejudice against women, fat people,
old people, people of a different race, people with disabilities, etc.

I refuse to believe that this person (although she is qualified) managed to be
hired completely free from any bias and only on her skill.

edit: I don't want anyone to believe I am trying to undersell the prejudice
women have to experience daily. It's absolutely horrible that it still
happens. I just posted the rest of this because I'm a nihilist and have
trouble seeing good things with humanity....

~~~
bravura
I agree that there probably was bias in her hiring. Positive? Negative? What
is clear is that there is bias when it comes to the gamut of groups that you
mentioned.

In certain circumstances, this bias manifests as favorable, and sometimes it
is unfavorable. (A particularly company might go out of their way, or be
negatively prejudiced, respectively.)

Also, some particular people are able to use bias to their advantage overall
in their lives. Whereas other people are harmed by bias, overall, because they
don't work around it.

It's a really tricky issue.

------
Zimahl
To level the argument, let's just say that everyone has the same skill for a
position. You can probably assume that there are a lot of equally qualified
'A' players who have applied at Google, Valve, Facebook, etc. So what sets all
of them apart? Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things:
personality and looks.

While I can't comment on the personality of the author, from the picture in
the article it seems as though she is attractive. Is that enough to set her
apart? Would she have seen the same possibilities if she wasn't so attractive?
Would she have seen the same possibilities if she didn't have the novelty (not
sure what to call it) of being an attractive, capable woman in a male-
dominated field?

~~~
breadbox
In my experience (and studies seem to bear this out), most people will
automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is
anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). So I don't think your
"commonsense" argument actually holds in the real world.

~~~
moistgorilla
"most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in
X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). "

Could you provide a source on that please? Because from the wording of your
statement it seems that what you are claiming is completely anecdotal. I
remember studying in one of my psychology courses that attractive people are
instantly assumed to be smarter and more successful than unattractive people.
It even has a name although I can't think of it right now. If I could I would
provide a source.

edit: Here is a source, not really great but it's something.
[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-
success/201108/why...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-
success/201108/why-we-pay-more-attention-beautiful-people)

edit2: The word I was looking for was halo effect.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect>
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereot...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereotype)

~~~
glaak
As I recall being told by one of my professors as an MBA student, attractive
people -- both men and women -- are generally assumed to be more competent.
This effect is stronger for women than men. _However_ , attractive women in
"masculine" fields, like engineering, technology, or construction, are
generally seen as being less competent.

~~~
moistgorilla
If you already objectively know that the person is qualified the fact that
they are attractive is only a plus. I think the study you a mentioning is done
with people that do not know the qualifications of the person they are
viewing.

~~~
glaak
True, it is done with people whose qualifications are unknown. However, I
would find it very hard to believe that the bias against attractive women in a
"masculine" field would be removed as soon as you knew the qualifications.
Diminished a bit? Sure. But removed? Unlikely. Your initial assumptions will
give you a lens through which you view someone's accomplishments.

------
bencxr
I'm not saying the poster got the job because she was a girl (or not), but the
bottom line (imo) is that you have to play the hand you're dealt.

Some people are born rich, into high society etc and some are not. I don't see
people unhappy that others are saying they "got the job because their dad was
powerful".

Whether or not there was a real advantage doesn't matter. If there was a real
advantage, well thank you, I'd take that advantage. If not, prove it. Either
way, you still don't deserve to feel upset over it.

~~~
glaak
First of all, when people are trying to diminutize your accomplishments --
saying that you don't deserve them -- it does matter. It affects not only your
morale, but also your ability to achieve things in the future.

Second, the point of the article is not the being a woman is an advantage but
rather, that there's good evidence that it's a disadvantage. When you have a
group that is already unrepresented in the sciences who face additional
disadvantages, that IS a problem.

Yes, of course you play the hand you're dealt. What other choice do you have?
That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for equality for everyone.

------
dlss
Unfortunate, given the title of the article, that the site went down...

~~~
w1ntermute
It's back now. Here's a mirror in case it goes down again:
<http://i.imgur.com/hR9Mc.png>

------
alid
This is such an important issue, and it affects bottom line! - a recent Forbes
article highlighted that companies with more women at senior levels earn
upwards of 33% more on important financial metrics.

Global research group Catalyst recently interviewed 325 American chief
executives and 10,000 female executives around the obstacles to womens'
progression into senior leadership roles. 52% of women cited male
stereotyping, but only 25% of the male chief executives identified it as a
problem - so there's definitely unconscious stereotyping at play.

~~~
btilly
I did not see that article, but would be interested to. Do you have a link?

The only research that I am aware of along those lines was specific to South
Korea.

~~~
alid
Hey man, here's the link:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2012/01/26/the-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2012/01/26/the-
path-to-more-women-in-senior-leadership-a-users-guide/3/)

"Companies with more women at senior levels earn upwards of 33% more on
important financial metrics. Failure to resolve the obstacles that keep women
from these roles means executives are leaving money on the table."

~~~
btilly
They unfortunately do not source that stat.

The South Korean study that I'm aware of is described at
<http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6498.html> and found that a 10% increase in women
managers was associated with a 1% return on assets. There is every reason to
believe that this effect is stronger in South Korea than in the USA, and there
is no way to get near the quoted 33% more with that measured effect.

~~~
alid
Try this one then - an in-depth, fact-based, study by McKinsey & Company:
[http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/swiss/news_publications/pd...](http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/swiss/news_publications/pdf/women_matter_english.pdf)
"Statistically significant studies show that companies with a higher
proportion of women on their management committees are also the companies that
have the best performance."

~~~
btilly
Interesting. The key things that stand out to me from that are the following:

1\. They are analyzing the impact of having women in top management. The
Korean study looked at women in middle management, where they presumably have
less of an impact on overall corporate direction.

2\. The Korean study was looking at companies in a single relatively uniform
economy. The McKinsey data set looks at companies across a variety of
different countries with different economies and cultures. There are very
strong correlations between which country a company is in, and whether it had
women in the boardroom.

3\. The McKinsey study identified a number of specific reasonable reasons why
awareness of a female perspective could be beneficial for companies. If you're
in a consumer line of business, those reasons are worth paying attention to.

Do you know whether McKinsey tried to crunch the numbers to estimate how much
of the difference in economic performance can reasonably be attributed to
having women in the board room versus the company being in a country whose
economy did well? (Yes, I'm aware that there might well be a correlation
between gender equality and the country's economic performance. Getting
conclusions out of real world data sets will always be ugly and messy.)

------
glaak
Mirror here: <http://i.imgur.com/hR9Mc.png>

------
gary4gar
And the site went down....any mirrors?

