Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
We ran the numbers, and there really is a pipeline problem in engineering hiring (interviewing.io)
320 points by leeny 2 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 632 comments





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% representation?

A while back, I did rough envelope calculations that if one of the major FAANG companies hit their diversity goal, there would be none left for any of the rest of them. Look at these percentages and you can see unsentimentally that this must be true.

Why do we place the blame and assign malice of intent to those who have little control over the constraints? If we put actual performance metrics and pay on the line for achieving these physically unattainable goals, everyone would be fired.


> A while back, I did rough envelope calculations that if one of the major FAANG companies hit their diversity goal, there would be none left for any of the rest of them.

Not to mention, if the other companies also wish to hit their diversity goals, they will be forced to take on weaker hires, since the (already small) pool of adequate hires has been exhausted. In my opinion, diversity hiring is an anti-pattern. Hiring should instead ignore demographics information rather than use it to try and achieve some optimal representational balance. If demographics information are completely ignored in the hiring process (which is impossible if you do on-site hiring), then no one can accuse you of favoring a particular group of people.


> they will be forced to take on weaker hires

What I have seen in my experience is not a lowering of the bar for more diverse hires, but a lowering of the bar when a company wants to drastically increase its number of engineers. Yet the lowered bar does not increase the percentage of diverse hires, quite the opposite. I've seen lowering the bar for white men, but no other group.

I say this as a white man who doesn't want to work with poor quality engineers who are uncoachable. It infuriates my sense of logic when they cry about not wanting to lower the bar while doing exactly that.


Common practice is to ignore diversity (to the extent possible) in assessing, but not in sourcing.

IIUC, I think the distinction between sourcing and assessing is not relevant here. Assuming the females in the pool of viable candidates have already been exhausted, then sourcing only females is suboptimal, as they are less likely to pass assessment because (by construction) they are not in the set of viable candidates.

It will always make the most sense to source the best people without regard to anything but job skill. If the best people aren't diverse, then chasing diversity requires you to look outside the set of best people, by construction. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.


How can that work for Google or Tesla or any other company that everyone knows about, where anyone who wants to work there is likely to apply?

Lots of people don't apply because they incorrectly believe they are not qualified.

Noted!

If you've not seen it, Thomas Sowell incisively comments on the wish for the impossible in The Quest for Cosmic Justice. There's a full book, but the original speech gives the main point:

https://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html

Definitely worth a look, even if you don't think it applies here.


Oh it absolutely applies - excellent reminder and post!

The whole point of the article is that restricting your hiring pool to only CS graduates is a bad pattern and you should consider other qualities instead so saying only 18% of CS graduates are female misses the point.

Having no CS degree myself and excelling in a top 10 company I agree with this sentiment, especially seeing the epidemic of “over leveling” the small pool of CS graduates occurring. I’d rather work with correctly leveled non-CS graduates than over-leveled CS graduates


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 education, ok, but are you going to only hire non-traditional education candidates who are women? Is this even legal?

The whole idea that there is a social engineering way to make programmers 50% male/female is not based on any facts as we know in a free society. On the contrary, there is evidence that the more gender equal society, the fewer women choose STEM. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

The obsession of 50% is not only anti-science, it is also demeaning to other great contributions women provide to society. Yes, nurses and teachers make less money than programmers, but it does not mean nurses and teachers are less important than programmers. It is because personal caring kind of job is less scalable than STEM jobs, so a team of 10 programmers can provide services to far more people than 10 nurses.

Oh, are you going to disagree that caring for people is more a part of female nature than male nature? Are you going to say this is actually a result of society oppressed women and tricked them to care more about others? Because female psychology is exactly the same as male psychology? So maybe we should expect a gender equal society there are 50% male/female in murders and rapists?


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?


> in ways that increased wealth for everyone

It certainly doesn't increase the wealth of people who are persuaded to buy stuff that really isn't worthwhile for them.


If buying things didn't provide value to people, they wouldn't have bought it.

Just because I cannot extract monetary value by buying another MIDI controller for my hobby doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile purchase. If you derived enjoyment from a purchase, it increased your [non-material] wealth and added value.

The same way, Gmail and FB make money by selling ads, but if they didn't exist without ads, it is easily arguable that people would have missed out on a lot of wealth and benefits that comes with those things. I use Gmail, because I extract value from using it. And I pay for it by letting Google personalize my ads and sell them. For me, that exchange is absolutely worth it. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have been using it.


That sounds like "magic key" cryptodenialist logic. Just because you really want something doesn't make it possible or viable.

They do support initiatives to help but realize it is essentially generational at this point.


I agree, 50% is probably an unreasonable goal, I could maybe even see arguing that any percent based goal is a bad goal. The goal should be “enough so those who are feeling disenfranchised don’t anymore” but that might be too squishy :)

>feeling

Good luck with that. People who profit exploiting "gender gap" like bootcamps, hr firms, speaker agencies, will never be happy.


That’s a laudable goal, and to that end I imagine it would do a world of good to stop the constant exaggeration of how disenfranchised those groups are (NOTE that I’m not saying these groups are fully enfranchised, only that the disenfranchisement is exaggerated). At some point, advertising tech as a bunch of rapey, Nazi frat bros is probably more offputting than whatever discrimination actually exists. Let’s ditch the boogeyman and see what happens.

[flagged]


> Like that the world of computer engineering is currently full of Brogrammers that females know it is best to stay way clear of

I'm a middle-aged white male who's been working with software development for 25+ years. I don't like being around the typical dev shop - the culture isn't usually much of a fit (whether 'bro' or 'sci-fi' or 'gamer' oriented), often a focus on 'free beer!' and similar 'perks' - so much so that I stay way clear of most typical software/dev jobs. I can pass in those environments (and have), and it's still uncomfortable for me - it must be 10x worse for people who are that much more 'other'. :/


I’ve worked at a couple of mid-late stage startups and currently at a FAANG and I’ve observed very few engineers that I would put in the “bro” category. I don’t know how this became the stereotype when nerd is still the dominant character class by far.

Is it just me? Does anyone find that their workplace is even 50% brogrammer?


I've worked in a couple of small-mid size companies, and in those cases, while the engineering team themselves wasn't really 'bro'-ish... the management kept trying to introduce that sort of culture, I think as a way to try to get us to ... work more? better? attract newer/younger/cheaper devs?

I’m a drop out too and have made my way to manager where I find myself training juniors many of which also do not have degrees. Unfortunately it is night and day between the ones who do have degrees and those that don’t. At this point I am now strongly recommending cs degrees to anyone seeking a career in programming because the theories do come up in any serious work, particularly full stack engineers who must have strong understandings of databases, type theory, statistical analysis, etc.

I would LOVE to create a large curriculum in house that aims to teach non degree holding individuals these skill sets because it would have tremendous return on investment. Be we are a small company (<100) with limited resources that can not afford to have a six month on boarding process to Do it properly (and I am not a professor).

It is an unrealistic burden to any small or medium org to do what is required by your comment.


I'm currently teaching a class on databases to 10 junior engineers at a medium size org (~130 engineers). It's a huge amount of work but wonderfully fun and rewarding. The class is an even mix of CS grads and engineers from nontraditional backgrounds (mostly bootcamps). I myself trained in applied math and am a self-taught engineer who had a few good mentors along the way.

Having a CS degree perhaps helps a little for general background, but not every CS major has taken a db class and even then, they won't have learned many useful practical skills, like analyzing and fixing a slow production query. And conversely the folks who have been through bootcamps (that we have hired!) are all very self-directed and highly motivated to learn. So I'm not sure that the difference is quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I do completely agree with you that this is important, and that it's very hard to get companies to devote resources to it. Taking 6-8 hours a week out of a senior engineer's time to prepare and teach an effective class is a big ask; I had a lot of support from management to do this but I think that might be a rare luxury at other companies.

It's just sad that the tech industry doesn't invest more in high-quality structured teaching, when it could so clearly deliver benefits in terms of growing skills for engineers from both CS and non CS backgrounds. Assuming that they'll somehow learn everything they need without structure or direction might work in a few cases, but in general it's a poor long term strategy for both companies and the industry as a whole.


My experience is somewhat the opposite: I have a BSc in Software Engineering and MSc and PhD in Computer Science. I've been in the Software Industry for about 10 years now and have held a Eng Director/VP level positions at some start ups.

I used to be very degree-centric in my recruiting. But some time ago I started hiring from boothcamps, particularly for frontend jobs. The fact I saw is that as part of the development needs of the companies I have been at, there is a good amount of work that can be done by developers of these skill levels. Once my team was able to organize the work, we were able to make jr people productive.

This not only made us capable of hiring jr devs. It actually made more Sr devs happy because they did not have to do that work and made mid levels happy because they own the growth of the jr devs .


> theories do come up in any serious work

Depends on what you classify as serious work, I guess?

From years of reading similar comments and my own experience, I was under the impression most “software developer” jobs only lightly touch on anything complex - most of us aren’t designing databases and complex low-level stuff day-to-day, but we do need to know enough to not do something terribly inefficient and stupid in basic plumbing code.

I think what you really need are smart people, and people who are willing to put in the work to get past the first few years of stumbling and not knowing what anything means. Likewise, young developers need good mentors and patient senior developers to lean on and who they can pick this stuff up from.

Not sure what your company is doing, but if what you say is true, maybe you are one of the rarer groups actually doing the hard stuff.


>I think what you really need are smart people, and people who are willing to put in the work to get past the first few years of stumbling and not knowing what anything means.

I totally agree with you, but that doesn't solve the issue, there are not that many of those people out there struggling to get jobs, because employers already know about this trick. That's why a bunch of quant and other top-tier finance shops are full of math and physics grads who had almost zero knowledge of finance before getting hired for those jobs.


In my experience as somebody without a degree and employed for >15 years now, you don't need a degree to get enough understanding of type theory and statistics, even for things at senior level. It will obviously depend on the specific project, but self-learning is very much a viable option in this industry. Conversely, I've seen many candidates with a CS degree who couldn't handle trivial coding challenges (and I mean trivial, not puzzles).

Yes, but the issue is how likely is an arbitrary person interested in being a programmer but lacking a degree going to be able to self-teach the vast amounts of information needed to be productive as a modern developer? I wager it is very unlikely. Those who do follow the self-taught route are 1) unusually smart and/or self-motivated or 2) got into the field when there were fewer moving parts and so self-teaching had a much smaller learning curve, then they simply matured with the field. After all the field circa 2000 looks vastly different than it does circa 2019.

The value of a degree is less the information it teaches, and more as a filter for people who are unusually smart and/or self-motivated. Those people coming with the requisite CS theory is merely a bonus.


That's what the interviews are for, no? The point of the article is that if you are using degrees as a filter, you're passing on a lot of otherwise qualified candidates.

I agree, but I don't think there is a substantial number of software shops that use relevant degrees as a hard filter, nor is there a significant number of non-degree holders bursting with realized CS talent that the field is somehow blind to.

I took the intended sentiment to be that of finding talent among non-degree holders that won't necessarily present itself in a typical CS interview scenario. Thus we need a way to identify future CS talent that is merely in need of training and mentoring. And so the problem reduces to, in my opinion, to finding people who are smart and unusually self-motivated. But there is just no good way of doing this.


My opinion: applying one-size-fits-all formulaic interviewing to your candidates excludes unconventional talent. Asking personal questions and following through on them unearths the smart and self-motivated talent. As an unconventional CS talent myself, I've had the most success with this approach on both sides of the interview process.

What do I mean by personal questions? My favorite interview so far left all the academic quizzing aside and asked me to talk in-depth about a particular real-world project I worked on. What patterns did I use? How did it interact with the database? How did I model the problem? This was not something that would be easily googled and it let me convey how I think about software on my own terms. Then it was up to the interviewer if my approach to software would be useful to them.


> Yes, but the issue is how likely is an arbitrary person interested in being a programmer but lacking a degree going to be able to self-teach the vast amounts of information needed to be productive as a modern developer?

You don’t need much to be productive. There’s plenty of great guardrails like code reviews, pair programming and shadowing that can make someone surprisingly productive.

The value of a degree is social signaling that you are the “type” of person to be able get that degree, socioeconomically and temperamentally. Plenty of people out there for whom the economics of a degree didn’t make any sense, or they had bigger needs that had to be filled immediately so didn’t have the ability to sacrifice for the long term.


You're absolutely right. A degree is not needed but a structured university program does seem to succeed in putting the majority of its students through that study, while those doing self-study are more likely to miss such concepts for other things considered more "practical"

As a person without a CS education but with 30 years of industry experience, including several of The Bigs, I urge young people to get an education in anything but CS. The number of CS degree holders, even the masters and doctors, who struggle with statistics, linear algebra, or even thermodynamics and basic accounting is pretty dispiriting. Get an education and learn to program computers. Two separate things in my humble opinion.

I'm stunned to hear that. Well, not the part about basic accounting, or maybe thermodynamics, that I believe. But stats and linear algebra? I've worked at or attended several UC schools, and they all require calculus through linear algebra, vector calc, basic differential equations, and probability theory as part of the CS major. I myself was a math major and a grad student in Industrial Engineering, but we were all in the same core math sequence together.

Sometimes you go ahead and walk the fine line of the no true scotsman argument - a degree without this basic math isn't CS. And any "reputable" CS degree - and by "reputable" I don't mean top 10 or even top 50, I just mean a fine university with a proper curriculum - will absolutely have this requirement.


Do you think other degrees, outside of maths or physics maybe, makes you better at the things you listed? It seems unlikely to me, and the fact people struggle with this is more representative of the general population than of the degree itself I would say.

It might depend on how the degree is taught I guess, mine had very little actual programming.


I'll never have personal first-hand experience with another kind of degree program, but my engineering program taught thermodynamics, accounting, technical writing, and ethics. I am looking right now at the Stanford CS undergraduate catalog and there are no requirements for technical writing, ethics, etc in here at all. Even the senior year writing requirement can be satisfied by working for Facebook for six months, which is disturbing and, frankly, explains a lot about why these kids can't write.

Your comment seemed really strange to me, because I remember that even back at Georgia Tech, we had both technical writing and ethics requirement for anyone in the CS program, so I decided to doublecheck the facts you listed about the Stanford CS program.

Where did you get your info from? Because I just checked the Stanford CS curriculum requirements for Bachelors degree, and it clearly has "Computers, Ethics, and Public Policy" requirement, along with a senior project requirement (that would, I assume, includes writing), as well as 3-5 credit units from the list of approved "Technology in Society" courses.[0]

0. https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/schoolofengineering/comp...


The senior project is the one I mentioned that can be fulfilled by CS210, working at “our industry partners” in lieu of actual university coursework. The “tech & society” catalog is a joke. Look at the courses. Archeology? Fine as an elective.

My engineering program required an upper-division course from the philosophy department on the development of rigorously ethical systems of thought.


That assumes that those mediocore "fizzbuzz test failers" tiers would do better in the domain with another degree. The problem may be in their capabilities predegree.

I don’t think I’m assuming that. They’ll just be a more rounded person.

>>> theories do come up in any serious work

Counterpoint: the overwhelming majority of software companies out there do not work on problems and develop products that warrant deep computer science expertise.

I mean, if you're doing cutting edge and/or highly technical stuff, great, go nuts, recruit only those with CS degrees. But most software out there is your run-of-the-mill line of business software, mostly CRUD with a bit of specialized functionality. And the bar for working on that is way lower.


I'd like to see some proof that there's a large pool of competent software engineers without any degrees (or CS degrees) just waiting to be hired.

Additionally, if you meant specifically without CS degrees, I think a lot of companies accept unrelated degrees + experience.


I am one of them. I have no college degree of any kind and bested CS grads in an interview.

> I'd like to see some proof that there's a large pool

> I am one of them

You, yourself, are a large pool? Or you, yourself are one instance of a fairly small pool (like OP suggests).


I am proof a pool exists.

A pool of statistical outliers is not a "big pool" that the parent comment was referring too. There are quite a few brilliant software engineers I got a chance to work with who had no college education whatsoever, but they are very clearly outliers among very few. I strongly doubt there is some big untapped pool of engineers without degrees who are just being completely overlooked simply for not having a degree.

How could we use Newton's flaming laser sword to settle our argument?

One of the most disgusting things I have seen in my career was when my manager up-leveled a male candidate just to offer a salary the candidate might agree to, but he did not do the same for a female candidate who received similar feedback in the interview process. I mainly remember this because it happened around the same time for the same role we were trying to fill. Neither candidate accepted an offer.

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 performance metrics and pay on the line for achieving these physically unattainable goals, everyone would be fired.

50% is clearly a goal that is a long way away but it doesn't mean we cannot work towards it. Yes, it's probably unrealistic to expect anyone to bring 50% representation to a significant sized workforce within an average tenure. It doesn't mean that the pursuit of gender parity is delusional or that meaningful and achievable targets cannot be set.

If anything this top comment is a prime example of the prevailing biased and unwilling attutide to improve representation in the industry, that has been placed on a pedestal.


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.


The article is based on how we have failed to achieve 50/50 parity and why that is bad. You yourself have reiterated it as a good goal to chase. But is it? That is what OP is objecting to.

Do you believe if the world was completely fair we would have 50/50 in every industry or is there (shock and horror) perhaps an uncomfortable biological difference driving our interests.


The alternative sources in the post still aren’t at gender parity, though they do show a higher percentage of women. If you can hire equal amounts of men and women from those sources then you’ll move your metric up, but you won’t get to 50%.

To hit 50% when the hiring pool is less than 50% women would require women to get accepted at a higher rate than men.

thu2111 1 day ago [flagged]

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".


Please don't take HN threads into gender war. Most comments in this thread managed to stay thoughtful and substantive. You crossed the line and you made it worse downthread. Please don't post like that here. It's against the site rules and it evokes worse from others.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Except every single one of the dozen+ female engineers I personally at FAANGM+ has a first-hand account of something vile that a male collegue did. In one case an internship mentor asked someone to come to their house, stating the wife and kids aren't home at night. Maybe you're a great man, and you only know other great men . But you can't dismiss a whole group just because you don't experience what they do. Just because it's not happening to you, doesn't mean it's not happening.

Similar situation is when my non-minority friends are surprised that racism still exists in <area>. "I know racism exits, but that kind of thing cannot happen <here>!" Well, my friend, you wouldn't feel that way if you looked like me.

thu2111 10 hours ago [flagged]

Men hitting on women and women not liking it is a phenomenon as old as humanity itself. The idea that it's "vile" is relatively new. Women can say no. If he doesn't take the hint, there are procedures they can start to correct his behaviour. Or they can report him to his wife and trigger social consequences that way.

Or they can say yes and enjoy a romantic relationship - as for example happened with Bill Gates and Sergey Brin (twice). Clearly, not every woman thinks it's "vile" to be asked out at work. If I recall correctly Melinda Gates even said no the first time. Lucky for her she wasn't meeting Bill in 2019.

Regardless of how these women felt, being asked out by a married guy is simply not as bad as being openly excluded from promotions and job opportunities because of your gender or race: as happens regularly to men these days, usually at the behest of activist female workers.


> My entire life.

Mine, too, and I'm in my 40's now.


I generally agree with you, but such smart and resourceful companies could do something about it. They are not powerless.

Companies used to train internally - watch an older TV show (or even something like Better Call Saul) and see how many characters "worked their way up from the mail room". The death of company loyalty goes both ways but I'm sure it can be mended with some effort. Where I work one of the better programmers I knew was an immigrant from south east Asia who started in the warehouse and had an interest in programming. I don't know whether or not he had a degree, but the point was he worked hard to prove himself, and they took a chance to give him a go.

So I guess my point is, graduate statistics isn't the end of the story.


> Companies used to train internally

Please no. Japan is that way. Japan pays programmers $20k to start, no better than working fast food. Their salaries go up to $60k at the top end at most big Japanese companies and they have the attitude that anyone over 35 is too old to code. I feel the fact they hire grads with zero experience is one of the reasons. Why pay someone $$$ if they can't actually do the job yet? Conversely interns at Google make $70k-$100k yearly equivalent. The two might not be connected but I feel they are and so AFAIK the "pay for experience" is better than "pay with free training" for employees.

It also seems better for the employer. Japan still has a culture of lifetime employment so the employer invests the equivalent of a college education into the employee and gets a lifetime commitment. That would never work in the west. People would take the free education and then leave for greener pastures the first chance they got.


I question whether training internally for any role will ever make a big comeback given current labor markets, but even if it did in the US, the labor market here is nothing like in Japan for a whole bunch of reasons. I think programmer salaries are bad there because have you seen the software that comes out of corporate Japan? There may be smart programmers but its clear companies see software as an afterthought at best, not a competitive area like in the US. In some ways I kind of respect the basic approach of not leveraging data and AI to the max to be disruptive like the current US tech market, but I wouldn’t try to go be a programmer there.

I'm wondering if they don't have a different idea of training internally than you do...

When I was younger, my mother worked as a freight forwarder. After she'd been there for awhile, the company paid to send her for training and certification to work with hazardous materials. If I recall correctly, she signed a contract agreeing to repay the costs of the courses if she left the company before a certain period of time had passed.

Essentially, rather than hiring externally a freight forwarder who is already certified to handle dangerous goods, they identified their strongest existing employee without that certification and paid for them to learn what they needed for a more advanced position, with conditions to assure they recoup their investment. The way I read it, I thought the person you replied to was suggesting identifying existing employees with potential and paying to expand their skillsets for a different role, e.g. with bootcamps or MOOCs, not hiring fresh graduates for low pay.


> she signed a contract agreeing to repay the costs of the courses if she left the company before a certain period of time had passed.

I had a similar clause in my first contract. Since the team I was hired into was a Perl shop and I hadn't done any Perl before starting there, they sent me on a week-long Perl training early on. The contract said that if I quit within the first year, I would have to reimburse them for the cost of the training (going down progressively by 1/12th of the price per month that I'm staying with the company).


I’ve wanted to work at flex port for awhile and always wondered if they offered this...freight has so many things to learn in terms of law, economics, and supply chain....not to mention dealing with things at sea..

How can you say it would never work in the west when it did for many years? It certainly wasn't the workers who stopped it working.

I personally value stability and would prefer to stay in one place if it were more feasible. Training can be at all career stages, not just the beginning.

Japan, yeah, I don't want that. It's a unique beast with a lot of dysfunctions, both anecdotally from friends and all the stories online. I'd say the things you listed are outcomes from lingering cultural problems rather than causes.


There was a piece on PBS Newshour recently about older workers (largely skilled blue collar) staying on longer with verious incentive because employers couldn't find skilled replacements.

What stuck me as ridiculous was some owner who said something about having invested 30 years in these guys. He hadn't invested shit as far as I could see. He has a handfull of employees that had invested in their own skills. If he had invested in his employees he have a new generation ready or almost ready to step up as one retired.


Funny scene I'm translating from French (maybe it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, I don't remember when I read/heard it):

CEO : « We should train our workers. »

CFO : « It will be expensive and what do we do if we train them and they leave ? »

CEO : « What do we do if we don't and they stay ? »

Finally I think the parable is initially french, as it's harder to fire people just for lack of training here.


> Why pay someone $$$ if they can't actually do the job yet?

Senior devs have to come from somewhere.


/puts MBA hat on

yeah, other companies that invested in them but tried not to give them market raises.


This is a good point. EDS during the 80s and 90s used to hire smart people with no college degree and send them to Texas to learn how to code for several months. They built their workforce this way because the demand was higher than the global supply. It would cost a blip on the balance sheet of FAANG co.’s to do the same. Interestingly there was a high number of married people that coupled up during that time. Sounded like a pretty intense but fun experience. Source: I interned there in the late 90s and heard a lot of stories from the then middle aged cohorts that went through it.

"Interestingly there was a high number of married people that coupled up during that time."

I guess you meant to say unmarried, not that they were all cheating on their partners.


ha, yeah my wording was confusing - they married as a result of their time there

Sure, but the scope of what most companies are concerned with is their hiring goals for the next 1-2 years (let's be generous and say 5 years). What you're talking about clearly falls into the pipeline problem and just further supports the premise -- something like a 20 year timescale issue. Which goes to the truth of this article -- this problem is far beyond the power (or responsibility) of any company.

I'm not saying a company should throw up its hands and do nothing. But why are we looking to assign to companies the solving of a 50% problem (if that's the goal), when they can only ever achieve 15% within their reasonable powers?


The article says to not rely on proxies like college degrees, so I was aiming more along those lines. As far as I can tell (I admit I skimmed it) they advocate hiring for skills over pedigree.

There's a pipeline problem if you are only taking a specific output and society is not producing it. As an individual company then you can either broaden what you accept (and I don't think this will lower quality, but it will make hiring harder), or take charge and extend the pipeline in your own backyard through training or probationary periods to trial someone.

FTA: > As you can see, broadening your pipeline isn’t a magic pill, and as long as demand for software engineers continues to grow, it’s still going to be really hard, systemic changes to our society notwithstanding. If we do make these changes, however, the tech industry as a whole can accelerate its path toward gender parity and potentially get there within a decade.

There's probably a feedback loop here where if they can broaden their intake, it will help accelerate societal change. The largest companies will have the most trouble, because they have the most seats to fill, but they also have the resources to try something different to fix this if they really want to.

On your last point, I think having a hard target like 50% can be damaging since it is demoralising to look at the gap and it might all feel like too much to deal with. I'd personally prefer to work towards 'a bit better than last year' with some achievable (non-startup) growth rates.


I believe hnick is not talking about twenty years, but taking a good employee, enrolling them in bootcamp, then training them for a number of months.

Yes that's one way. Many roles in some companies are relatively light on tech and rely a lot more on domain specific knowledge, so those are ideal stepping stones too.

So much this. I work at a FAANG company which has terrible diversity numbers in hardware development. Upper management is frequently asked about this by employees at big q&a sessions. The answer is always to blame the pipeline, as if we do not have billions of dollars that we could direct at solving it ourselves...

Except it isn't their responsibility. Clearly they don't have trouble making profit so why would they spend billions of dollars trying to urge people who may or may not even want the job to try and do it?

I like to think that companies run by humans don't solely consider profit as their only metric for success. If you're not solvent you can't do much as a company but it surely helps to actually give a shit about the people you affect both immediately and from a distance in both circumstance and over time.

Billions are being spent on housing in the bay area by these ultra rich companies even though it is arguably not at all their responsibility.

Except it is, because of course it is.

Who is responsible for fixing the gender imbalance in tech, if not the leaders in tech?

(Of course the housing thing may just be a cynical calculation that it’s cheaper than the toxic public relations of doing nothing. But maybe that should be the case for the gender thing too.)


> fixing the gender imbalance

An imbalance doesn't inherently need to be fixed. If the imbalance is because women are simply less interested- an imbalance is desirable.

Equality in opportunity will not neccessarily lead to equality in outcome. Any argument on this topic that is rooted in outcomes can be immediately dismissed. Attempt to measure the actual source of the problem- which is opportunity.


This is anecdotal, but I have noticed this pattern in several large (multinational) companies at which I have worked.

In a particular well-known American tech company with a large office in Tokyo, our recruiters were in part responsible for the pipeline of new recruits from abroad. I began to notice the recruiters feeding the pipeline with people that were essentially cookie-cutter templates of themselves.

I would say 90% of the interviewees had the same background: 30s-40s white male with a Japanese girlfriend/wife that wanted to move to Tokyo for family reasons. At one point, it just became a cliche.

I have no opinion on whether this was a good or bad thing, but it definitely overfitted for that particular persona and shifted the company's internal culture and diversity.

So while the source of the pipeline is definitely skewed, I would argue that whoever is doing the recruiting and subsequent hiring need also be evaluated regarding their criteria for employee selection.


If you could showcase where women are born with DNA that leads them away from software related jobs, I would be very interested. Otherwise, "interested" is incredibly affected by environment and biases, which can be fixed, and should be.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...

We still have very little understanding of the human brain- but we understand enough to know that women and men are different.

The theory of evolution also provides strong support for this idea. Women and men have had different selection criteria, and therefore have evolved differences.


We do know that more egalitarian countries lead to significantly pronounced differences in choices between male and female. That directly suggest that males and females biologically like different things.

This is known as the Gender-equality paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

They are? Hilarious since it seemingly has no impact at all.

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.

The focus on Computer Science is a female filter. I’ve rarely run into a colleague who claimed their education truly prepared them anyway.

You’d be better off being diverse in major. When I think of the smartest developers or IT people I know, one was a sociologist who learned programming as a labor department statistician, another had an MFA in Piano, and the other was in pharmacy school and dropped out after an injury.


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 generally not educated in how to write good code. Many people do get into the field without the degree, but many of them are very bad at programming. I've had to rewrite O(n!) algorithms written by some of them, and they really didn't even understand why the algorithm was bad even when I broke it down to them.

My CS education absolutely gave me many of the tools I need for a career in software engineering. It didn't give me everything to be sure -- there's a lot of learning that still goes on in the job, but having a solid foundation is crucial to being a good engineer.


Hello! Now you've met a female dev with no CS degree. There may be a reason we're thin on the ground, too. My "training" as a software dev consisted of 10 years of self-employment as a freelance web developer, and when I decided to transition to working for a company, I faced massive hiring discrimination. I couldn't pay someone to interview me! And I did demonstrate that it was discrimination, too. My resume was getting something like a 2% response rate with my name on it, but I put a man's name on it and sent out a bunch, and suddenly I was getting a response to more than 80% of them.

Anecdote is not data, and it's only my individual anecdote, but it's my experience that breaking through into the industry to be incredibly hard. Since then I've made up for lost time and advanced faster than a college grad would expect (junior dev in a shitty agency to enterprise lead dev in about four years), and I attribute that to spending so incredibly long as essentially a junior dev freelancer and just being older.

So it can be done, certainly, but I strongly suspect there are several filters working against self-taught developer women making that transition into the industry, and one of them is definitely gender discrimination. And no, aside from sending out resumes with a man's name on them, I don't know how to fix it.


> one of them is definitely gender discrimination

Definitely? As in, you have actual proof? Or even some evidence? Because if you do, that’s illegal, and ought to be reported to the DOL.


The only evidence I have is response rates, and about 12 companies that responded to a man's-name resume that did not respond to an identical resume with a woman's name. I have consulted with a labor lawyer, who told me that this might be actionable if I can get enough women together to also perform this experiment and gather together in a class-action lawsuit. I don't live in a particularly large city, and I believe it's almost impossible without astroturfing.

> responded to a man's-name resume that did not respond to an identical resume with a woman's name

If you can demonstrate evidence of this, you absolutely should, because that would be a particularly surprising finding considering how many organizations state upfront that they have preferential hiring for women. I’ve hired software developers for decades, and the resumes are dominated by Indian-sounding names: I don’t know about you, but I usually can’t tell whether those names are masculine or feminine. I’m shocked on the rare occasion I come across a resume with an American sounding name like Jim or Mary.


I suspect you'd have had far easier success with a BSCS on your resume. I can't imagine trying to get into this field without having had a degree -- it is a hard industry to get into.

I keep hearing about gender discrimination, and maybe this is a market segment thing, but everywhere I've worked is actively recruiting female devs. Also the places I've worked as a dev typically require a CS degree though for what that's worth. Many of them even require an MSCS -- I've actually been turned down for one job because even though I have an MS it wasn't an MSCS (gov contracts get very specific).


Oh you're almost certainly right, it would have been easier with the degree. I don't have any degree, and programming is a second career for me, so in a world where 26 year old senior developers are a thing, it's just one more thing putting me on my back foot. My biggest regret is not starting down this path 10 or 15 years earlier, honestly.

I am absolutely willing to believe it's a market segment thing. I live in a smaller city full of colleges, so the handful of large companies hiring want all of their jr devs to be right out of college, and that's straight from the recruiter's mouths. I was forced to apply to all the small companies.

And, for what it's worth, my current job and the two before it "required" a degree. From what I can tell, that requirement is to filter people on the low end of years of experience. Old age and treachery counts for a lot more than you may think.


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't happen more given the absurd salaries people are getting paid these days!


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.


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 because there's less friction to join, so anything pushing them away is more easily overcome.


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.


to build on this- among younger age groups- women are more likely to be college graduates than men.

Women willingly choose different education paths because of different interests.


That's not true. Harvey Mudd made changes to their CS program to remove bias and now more than half of its computer science majors are women. There is some very insidious bias in the pipeline that isn't explained away with "but different interests".

https://qz.com/730290/harvey-mudd-college-took-on-gender-bia...


A bit of "wait a minute, something else is going on here" comes with the mention that Physics has a even higher % women, yet there's no mention of curriculum changes for that major. This wouldn't happen to be a very small school with a very low acceptance rate, would it?

It is: less than 900 students and less than 13%. They can have whatever gender ratio they want, more or less, with essentially no effort. I'm not sure they have cleverly solved "insidious bias", more than they are simply selecting for the gender ratio they want as they send out acceptance letters. It would be nice if a much larger school with a much higher acceptance rate adopted identical curriculum, so we could have real data on the idea. But until that happens I would be somewhat cautious about declaring success here.


23% of the women who apply to Harvey Mudd are admitted. 10% of the men who apply to Harvey Mudd are admitted. It sounds like they have one admissions process for women, and a different one for me. That's one way to get 50/50 I suppose.

That wouldn't fly in the workplace. I'm surprised it's acceptable under Title IX.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/1...


There could be plenty of non-malicious natural explanations for this.

What if there are way more males applying to Harvey Mudd, thus, assuming equal ability levels of people in both groups, resulting in a higher women admission rate?

What if the women applying to Harvey Mudd are, on average, more competent than males applying for whatever reason? E.g., women being less confident about applying to schools like MIT, so a bunch of them would apply to Harvey Mudd instead, while all MIT-capable males wouldn't apply to Harvey Mudd.

I am not claiming whether that specific situation they have at Harvey Mudd is acceptable or not under Title IX, but the numbers your bring up should not be problematic on its own under Title IX imo, it is how those numbers were arrived at and other numbers in the context that make all the difference.


Obviously with proper marketing you can target the niche.

There are more than enough women interested in computing to make up 50% of a tiny school's program. There aren't nearly enough women interested in computing to make up 50% of the market.


Basically everyone at Harvey Mudd is in STEM -- the article says this. Their results are not really useful in the discussion, as their female student population is already heavily self-selected in favor of the hard sciences.

Adding on to this, Harvey Mudd puts forth significant effort at outreach and recruitment for their student body. Meaning they're pulling from the existing pool of STEM students to a large degree compared to creating new ones. It's very likely that Harvey Mudd's success cannot be reproduced at scale.

The more likely case is that they have a degree that isn't in CSC.

> 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 failed, you can still do stuff to fix it, later on.


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.

The accusations against tech have been a decades long Kafkatrap essentially for the sin of "not fitting in with their expectations and being successful" as a trial where the conclusion is guilty but they must deliberate over what sins. Look at the oldest accusations which failed to illustrate it best. I believe one howler was that "It would make cultures homogenous."

At a certain point you are clearly dealing with bad actors and the default assumption stops being any attempt to accomidate them and starts being to tell them to fuck off.


Sorry I have difficulties parsing what you wrote. What exactly do you mean? Who are the bad actors?

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.


Most "studies" of that are rather distorted, you have to read very carefully. For example they may summarize that many women have experienced discrimination at some point. That can mean in 4 years of study, somebody once made a sexist joke in passing. It doesn't imply they had real issues. And the issues of men are not even studied for comparison.

That latter thing might be the biggest issue. The basic assumptions seems to be that things always come easy for men and they are always welcome.

And yes I know many women in tech, as I studied with them and worked with them.

I have also seen many articles by women in tech who say they didn't have issues. But somehow they don't count and are quickly forgotten, because they go against the narrative.


> I have also seen many articles by women in tech who say they didn't have issues.

And there are many that do have issues. See, thats the thing about this stuff. Some women not having bad experiences, does not overrule the bad experiences of other women.


Why does it not work the other way round, some women with bad experiences don't overrule the good experiences of other women?

For what it's worth, many of the accounts of "bad experiences" didn't really convince me, either. It is too easy to attribute all of one's issues to sexism. For example the common complaint of being passed over in promotions, or of having one's opinions not being appreciated. That happens to men all the time, too, they just don't get to claim it is because of sexism.

Confirmation bias may play a huge role in those personal accounts, too.

As I said - usually the comparison to actual experiences of men is missing. There are many, many more men who have been passed over for promotion than women who have been passed over, in the tech industry, for example.

Another thing that is missing is an account of the advantages women have, like men being eager to help, extra funding only for women, hiring quotas, and so on.


> some women with bad experiences don't overrule the good experiences of other women?

Because I am not overruling those womens experiences! So if you were to claim that some women have no problems, thats fine. I am sure there are some. But there still exists bad exeriences for many women, and thats still bad and we should try and solve those bad experiences!

See the difference? I am not saying that good experiences don't exist. I am saying that even if some good experiences exist, we should still try and solve the bad experiences, which definitely do exist.

You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to minimize the real life problems that other women definitely do have. (Whereas I am not denying that some women have no problems. Just that even if this is the case, we should still work to solve the bad experiences)


Pretty sure this constitutes illegal discrimination under US law?

What does?

Australia BTW.


Not sure what GP meant, but I'd guess promotions are much more susceptible to discrimination cases than hires, since there's something much more concrete to compare against.

If you hire only one gender with narrowly targetted job advertisements, the"wronged party is a pool of thousands (or more) of engineers that didn't even know the job existed. If you promote only one gender from the mail room, the wronged party is a small cohort of peers that can visibly see exactly who is promoted above them. Those are much more dangerous waters to tread.


> 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% representation?

I really thought it was the accepted fact and a starting point of all the discussions on this subject, that the issue is the pool of candidate.

Myself I recently tried to hire a developer and that’s a reality that there is nearly no female candidates. And I‘m not restricting it to CS degree.

I don’t understand how it’s not obvious that what can be done at the hiring process is completely marginal. There is no politics here.

The politics is how much we try to aim for 50% candidates (education, training...)


The main driver is the H1B: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re...

73.9% of H1B visas are given to Indians, 79.2% of those Indians are males.

The solution is to require at least 50% of all H1B recipients, from all countries, to be female.

High levels of Indian and Chinese migration also produce secondary effects, as families from those communities still carry out sex-selective abortion even into the 2nd and 3rd generations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6133054/


> If the percentage of female computer science graduates (as a strong proxy for the available candidate population)

I don't see why one would assume that gender distribution of CS degree holders is a strong proxy for the gender distribution of available candidates suitable for software development positions. Its true that many big firms (and even a large number of small firms) have a well-known strong bias for CS degree holders (and for CS degree holders from particular elite institutions), but the statistics of the field as a whole, and of CS degree holders, show that that is a bias inconsistent with the real qualifications for the field which cannot avoid exaggerating the gender gap in the field.

> A while back, I did rough envelope calculations that if one of the major FAANG companies hit their diversity goal, there would be none left for any of the rest of them.

That only makes sense if you assume that none of the meeting the target was done by bringing people into the field that otherwise would not be in it, despite the fact that that is typically a focus of such efforts by large firms.


"statistics of the field as a whole, and of CS degree holders, show that that is a bias inconsistent with the real qualifications for the field which cannot avoid exaggerating the gender gap in the field."

You've made a counter-intuitive point and claimed that it's confirmed by statistics and yet haven't included any...


> Why do we place the blame and assign malice of intent to those who have little control over the constraints?

Some people presume that billionaire multinationals could spend some of their cash fixing the pipeline problem by convincing a few thousand women to take up coding.

More precisely: while technical proclivity and skill are obviously not uniformly distributed across the population, some people believe they "should" be more uniformly distributed than they currently are (because those things can correlate with wealth/power), and that whoever has the power to fix a gender imbalance in wealth/power-probability has the responsibility to do so.

Aside: Interesting how people push for these demographics at software companies but not at elementary/middle/high schools. Maybe if we solve that problem (which is literally just a matter of salaries) then there would be more openings in the tech industry for women and other under-represented groups.


> by convincing a few thousand women to take up coding

Because we all know how well people react to being told "Hey, you should learn to code!"


>> If the percentage of female computer science graduates (as a strong proxy for the available candidate population) is 18%

Perhaps employers can expand the search to those with degrees in statistics, mathematics, physics, econometrics?

What I've seen time and time again is that when people dont want to hire, they come up with excuse after excuse. When they really want to hire [a VP's brother-in-low, or whatever], even the flimsiest of cases suddenly get made for the hire.

I'd say, we should look think bigger.


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 candidates were qualified, not because they have to hire to sastify a demographic composition requirements for the company


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 against. And yet every time there’s a discussion about diversity in tech it’s the first excuse brought up. Suddenly a CS degree is a necessity.


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.


>> Perhaps employers can expand the search to those with degrees in statistics, mathematics, physics, econometrics?

Why do you assume there won't be a similar (or worse) gender bias in those fields too? And if you expand the search in some way or loosen the requirements, then you can't do it only for women, that wouldn't be legal. That's why there is a real pipeline problem that needs to be addressed by getting more women into STEM.


Instead of getting economists and statisticians involved, why not just encourage companies to fund the educations of demographics of workers they're trying to recruit?

Not only is there a financial incentive (if you get people new to the field, you can pay them less until they get a new job or sufficient raises, and this is a benefit for both parties due to the lessened educational cost), it also creates loyalty out of almost nothing.

If not university classes or a bootcamp-like setup, apprenticeships would probably work amazingly for the purpose.


a) making for-profit companies responsible for education is an anti-pattern

b) suggesting that those people should be paid less is immoral


There is a similar push for "women in statistics", "women in mathematics", etc.

> Why do we place the blame and assign malice of intent to those who have little control over the constraints?

Because 1) there is a feedback loop that does show that having role models at the end of the pipeline does help the entire pipeline. 2) It is easier than restructuring the entire pipeline than admitting that it is a societal problem rather than big bad Google being sexist (I'm not saying Google isn't sexist).

This is kind of a pattern in problems that don't have smoking guns. We like to pretend that things are first order problems (problem causes an effect, directly) when most problems are pretty high order and complex. First order problems are usually easier to solve because they have a clear smoking gun. You take care of the bad person that fired the gun and the problem is solved. I actually suspect that this is an evolutionary problem, being that most of our early problems could be approximated by first or second order and thus increase our survival rate. I'm also pretty convinced that we've solved most of those now, and thus that line of thinking doesn't work for modern problems.

But for part 1), if you have the flu, tissues help. They don't cure the flu, but they help you from preventing the spread and alleviate the symptoms. So if you take my preposition about first order problems, I don't think it is hard to see why people would get stuck at that stage. Essentially "we did something and it had a positive effect. So let's keep doing that thing!" That's not bad logic. You admit that they do have __a little__ control over the constraints, so it isn't surprising that they have __a little__ impact. The failure is not continuing to look for more potential solutions and stagnating. Just need to do some PCA, find the other factors, and push on those (as well as what we've already found to have positive effects). But this is much easier said than done, and I think that is part of the problem. Difficult problems are tautologically difficult, but we as a society like to pretend there are simple solutions (come on, admit it, you do this too).

So why do we do this? Well, how many people do you know break down complex problems into multiple components? I know very few, and even then they don't consistently do it.

> If we put actual performance metrics and pay on the line for achieving these physically unattainable goals, everyone would be fired.

I'd argue that they would just start cheating. Which I think that there is evidence that this is happening (some being given in this article).


We've abandoned the pursuit of equality for the pursuit of equity.

I do agree that there is indeed a pipeline problem; however there is still much scope for improvement at workplaces. Notably, gender balance is not only skewed at the point of hiring; in fact, the skew gets worse and worse as one goes up through the ranks.

Do you think the numbers would change appreciably if the entire hiring process was boiled down to a multiple-choice exam, with no humans besides the applicant involved, which chose who gets hired based on the first applicant to pass it?

Yes.

The assumption you're making is that everyone who is capable of doing a dev job manages to get one, so if you remove all the hiring biases all those people will continue to get dev jobs and nothing will really change.

That assumption is wrong.

There are thousands of people who can't get dev jobs for reasons other than lacking technical ability. Some hiring managers filter out candidates before the make it to interview for absolutely stupid reasons. Some companies have hiring practices that are plain stupid and select out capable engineers for dumb reasons. If hiring was a multiple choice exam those people would be able to enter the industry and there'd be fewer companies with unfilled positions.

Also, even if you don't think it'd have much of an impact on the numbers across the industry, the numbers at the specific companies that have bad hiring biases obviously would change. That could be useful.


Yes, you would get more men and less women than now as men do better on such tests while women do better on tests with more social cues such as interviews or writing resumes.

I think the assumption you're making here is that companies don't influence the pipeline. Don't influence whether people choose do STEM degrees etc.

I think the idea behind diversity targets is an implicit assumption that they do. In subtle ways like how/where they advertise, and in more obvious ways like funding educational programs etc. It's there that diversity programs/targets need to start, not at the hiring stage.


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".


> If the percentage of female computer science graduates [is] a strong proxy for the available candidate population

I doubt it is. You’re writing off all the self-taught coders. You’re also writing off all the non-coders.

Most companies seem to think they want a 10:1:1 ratio of engineers:designers:product managers, etc.

I think 3:3:3 would be better, and makes your issue go away.

But we have this worship of “engineering” as some sort of magical thing that happens in a vacuum and requires no cross-discipline input.

Meanwhile every tech company I’ve ever worked for is pathologically rewriting the same code over and over, bashing their heads against the same tech debt over and over, and regularly wasting millions of dollars Building The Wrong Thing.

Heck we should probably have 10:1 masseuses and 10:1 psychotherapists on staff. Productivity would strictly increase.


This just means another paradox of fake liberal ideology is showing.

It's not surprising if the strategies such as diversity quotas are not effective. Because they're not meant to be effective. They're meant to virtue signal. Ergo they are meant to only redirect people's anger towards an ineffective end, not to create an actual improvement.

For another example, take a prevailing narrative in fake feminism that continually tells women they are disempowered victims. This doesn't help bring balance, it only helps disenfranchise women.

Of course, if that were true, why would anyone believe any of these narratives such as diversity quotas? Because they provide the fake victim fake payoff: there's something very compelling about not having to be responsible for your problem but instead being able to blame someone else albeit incorrectly. It's very satisfying and an effective means to redirect anger towards a ineffective but satisfying ends. It's very compelling for people and gets them hooked.

Another place these fake payoffs are used to manipulate people is in terrorist recruitment. You can sublimate raw economic issues and individuals dissatisfaction into blaming and hatred towards another state, you can create armies of willing footsoldiers.

I'd suggest there's a further parallel between armies and the "Twitter armies": legions of ideologues willing to crucify anyone who dares disagrees.

So it's not surprising these so-called strategies do little effective. they're not meant to, they're meant to preserve the status quo. And they do that by the simple psychological mechanism of redirecting people's anger towards something ineffective.


> 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% representation?

Oh it can be done, it just requires reducing the number of male employees in one way or another. Everyone wants to believe the utopian ideal of perfectly-balanced ratios of employees can be achieved without someone getting the short end of the stick, but reality says otherwise.


Does anyone have a goal of 50% female developers? Can we see some citations for that? Most companies I've worked at claimed to be trying for 20%, and they were failing abysmally at it.

Yes, my company has a goal of "at least 50% females in IT in all positions and at all levels". I have absolutely no idea how they calculated 50% as a good target for the business and why "at least 50%", but these targets have a lot of emotional loads and zero real world value, so I don't try anymore to understand.

I've heard from a Googler that yes, they want the workforce to match the outside world. With that in mind read https://diversity.google/annual-report/#!#_what-would-it-tak... and "That’s why in 2019 we challenge ourselves and others to think differently so that we widen pathways to tech. Only then will we reflect our consumer base, and truly elevate our ability to build products for everyone."

So Google wants to reflect the consumer base, so I guess we can take that to mean ~50% female devs?


Most corporate statements of diversity goals I have ever seen take the simplistic position (in some form or another) that <x>, <y>, or <z> statistic "should mirror the representation of the general population." It seems to be an accepted truism that this equals unbiased selection and equity.

It is very politically unacceptable to object to this intellectually lazy reasoning.


> So Google wants to reflect the consumer base

Which includes a good portion of extremists of all kinds, illiterates, drug dealers, etc. And of course, half of it is made of people with below average IQ.

You want your company to employ the people that are best at the job, not a cross-section of the population along some randomly chosen axis.


When I hear statements like that, I always wonder if they try to hire 2% pedophiles, too. About 2% of people in the real world are supposed to be pedophiles, so if they want to reflect the real world, they should aim to hire them.

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


arguing in bad faith seems unnecessary when there's so much authentically wrong with their view

It's not about bad faith, it is about showing the absurdity of aiming for representation of people by sexual preferences.

I don't see that as bad faith. Companies have weird diversity goals to do with physical features of their bodies and sexual preferences. Pedophiles are just part of that. They happen to be a marginalized group, but that's the thing about being marginalized, you get pushed to the margins and not advocated for by big companies and popular blogs.

Perhaps if you went back to the days of women's liberation and somebody said "what next, gays?" they'd get dismissed too. That might be right, but it's possible they really saw it as a serious issue before its time.


You're outside the current Overton window, quick, hide!

Even so why do diversity weights exist at all? Should it not be based on performance or results? I understand the notion that people can be biased resulting in biased hirings, but why does that insist we must twist the bias in the opposite direction? Both sides of this fight are equally guilty of not hiring on the right principles which is how well can a person do a job.

The article claimed that 50% is the goal.

And if people aiming for diversity don't have 50% as a goal, somehow I have never seen them name another number that they would consider satisfactory.


any big , resourceful company should

Every company can't hit 50/50, but it is obviously possible for any one company to hit 50/50, without compromising on their hiring bar. (Until everyone adopts that same mentality, at which point it, of course, becomes impossible.)

Also, just because you have a goal to aspire to doesn't mean you can realistically meet it. Suppose if every high achiever in a school wants to be valedictorian, but only one of them will make it. That in itself doesn't mean it's a pointless goal.


> but it is obviously possible for any one company to hit 50/50, without compromising on their hiring bar

How? If I interview a bunch of people for programming positions and pick the 10 best men and 10 best women, which group do you think will be best? Statistically I have considered several times more men than women, so the male group will almost surely be stronger. The only way to avoid this is to intentionally pick bad men, or if I just randomly ignore 83% of their resumes.


No hiring bar in the world is looking for the best 10 people.

It's just looking for people who are better than (some arbitrary skill level).

More men than women could bench press 160 lbs, but if your hiring bar is 'we hire people who can bench 160 lbs', you can trivially find as many people from either gender as you want.


Would your point still stand, if the baseline of being able to bench press 160lb was just a starting requirement, with a possibility that requirements can change at any point and you might need people who can be trained to bench press 260lb instead?

Also, if you are buying a car with the goal of being able to accelerate from 0-60mph in under 4 seconds, and you have to choose between two cars priced exactly the same, but one can do it in 3.9 seconds and another one in 3.1 seconds, why would you pick the 3.9 car over the 3.1 one, even though the 3.9 one meets your requirements of under 4 seconds just as well (assuming all the other relevant characteristics are equivalent or about the same)?


[flagged]


Please don't do this here.

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.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but change always seems impossible until it happens. 10 years ago it seemed completely impossible that Facebook would have 1B users, let alone the ~3B it has now.

The same 10 years ago it seemed impossible to that gay people would be able to marry, and even 4 years ago the idea of a Trump presidency was considered a joke.

Change is and will remain hard. That doesn't mean it isn't desirable nor does it mean that people shouldn't bang their heads against walls to make it happen.


It’s ridiculous you were down voted for this. These people don’t want to change their behavior or admit there’s bias. They would rather remain ignorant and pretend that it’s a problem caused by someone else rather than reflect on what might not be working.

I don't like to complain about it, but since you raised it...

I was shocked by how quickly this was downvoted. It went to -4 in minutes! I didn't even think anything I said there was particularly controversial. I think it's pretty well established that social change is hard.


Ignorning the fact that many engineering orgs can't hit 10% let along 18%; you've already lost if you've restricted your pipeline to "has a CS degree". Statistically your company isn't actually hiring for jobs that need higher level CS theory. It's not assigning malice, but pure negligence. There's a huge population of competent people with amazing ROI for your business and, especially companies with pockets as deep as FAANG, ignoring them because it's perceived as less risky to hire another (cis/het/white) guy is bad optics at best.

Ironically, in my experience, the companies who figured this out a decade ago are the major finance companies. Hire anyone with a pulse, put in the effort to train them, be the only company on the block that isn't active treating these populations like shit, the you get retention rates that are unheard of in tech (especially for such comparativly shitty jobs by metric of pay and interesting things to do). Talent is there, tech companies just choose to ignore it and play into the existing biases ( and out right misogynistic streaks) that already exist.

Maybe 50% is a perfect ideal, but, don't let perfect be the enemy of better. We absolutely should be loudly shaming those at the top that "just can't find talent".

#rantsFromAnAngryTransWoman


> you've already lost if you've restricted your pipeline to "has a CS degree".

But, why, though? Are you saying that women as a group are less capable of completing CS degrees than men?


There's a whole host of systematic reasons why women (as a group) might choose not to pursue a CS degree. As a hiring manager I can choose to complain about the ~pipeline~ (which i conveniently can't change nor appreciably effect in the short term) or I can re-examine my existing assumptions (namely whether a CS degree is necessary for filtering).

I'm, personally, not really a fan of programs that are trying to shuffle people into a specific degree to improve employment representation rather examining what skills are necessary to do the job in the first place. The university as proxy for job training model, I feel, is perverse and doesn't necessarily serve students nor employers.


No, women are not less capable of getting a degree.

Instead, the problem is often that they have such a bad time, in those programs, due to the existence of a toxic culture, that they don't want to put up with that crap, and instead leave to get a job in industry that has a less bad culture (because they have other options).

Unfortunately, toxicity on all stages of the pipeline tends to drive out people who would be good engineers, but instead decide to do something else, because they have alternative options that don't suck so much, for cultural reasons.


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 time until Asian women are treated the same way as Asian men. Once you've managed to close the gender gap in engineering, you have a new problem to deal with -- a lack of diversity among women engineers in regards to race and socio-economic class. A continued pursuit of diversity will require discrimination similar to that exhibited by prestigious American universities.

My coworkers (past and former) and friends who are women SWEs overwhelmingly fall into two buckets: American-born Chinese with parents who are middle-class or higher, and PRC-born Chinese with wealthy parents.

I get the strong impression that gender diversity is viewed as more important than race and class. I'm a male of color who has been in the industry for more than four years now, so I no longer have to worry about breaking in. If I were applying to CS programs or looking for my first job right now, I would feel some resentment. I've convinced and helped three of my friends to do a career switch because there's just so much assistance (financial, educational, and otherwise) available for women. From what I've seen, there is just so much more provided to help women get into the field.

I commend the big tech companies for lumping male URMs and all women together when it comes to prioritization, but this isn't the case for most companies, who are expending great effort on balancing the gender ratio while treating men of color as second-class URMs, or even ignoring their status completely. 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.

What I predict will happen is the gender gap will begin to close, but the aforementioned diversity issues not related to gender will remain. This will be due to a combination of various factors, with the most significant being fatigue with affirmative action practices, and that discussing socio-economic and race is much more sensitive than discussing gender, Saying "stop hiring men" or "only hire women" is easy, even if you are asking people to discriminate against candidates similar to themselves. "Stop hiring Asian women" is not. And if you are willing to make that request, why would anyone listen?


One thing I see few people discuss in terms of Asian and affirmative action, is that the immigration system overwhelmingly selects the wealthy, smart or other desirable qualities for all immigrants. And due to historical reasons like Chinese Exclusion Act, majority Asians in America had to go through those filters, or their parents had to.

Of course those people are going to succeed more than the average Americans who did not have to go through those filters, somehow being subject to harder selection became an unfair advantage?

You know the easiest way to bring down the average achievement of Asians? Invite a bunch of poor, uneducated, unmotivated Asians to become US citizens, soon those new arrivals will drag down the averages, making Asians into whichever socio-economic group you want.


They may bring down the average somewhat, but all the East Asians in the world do have a higher average IQ than all the white people in the world. So random unmotivated Asians (I presume you don't include Indians) are still likely to perform better than random unmotivated Americans.

> East Asians in the world do have a higher average IQ than all the white people in the world

citation needed

> some fact about all white people > basing on it, assesing statement about Americans

Americans are not all white people (in fact, many of them are not white), so you can't make statistical statements based on that.


> 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.

> most companies, who are expending great effort on balancing the gender ratio while treating men of color as second-class URMs

At least in the US actually admitting to having gender biased hiring would have to violate a half dozen anti-discrimination labor protection laws, no? Universities are doing affirmative action because there is no legislation mandating they not be sexist in their enrollment whereas corporations don't have that freedom in hiring.


The reverse is true.

Affirmative Action is requirer by law: "The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women... quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_Unit...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v... established that affirmative action per se is legal in US under the Constitution and the federal law. What's illegal is hard quotas and other arrangements where the decision is made solely on the basis of e.g. race or gender - but it can be one of several deciding factors.

On state level, it depends on the state. Some have laws or constitutional amendments that prohibit affirmative action.


Sure, but nobody gives a shit unless you're absolutely blatant about it. As long as you don't hold a press conference and do a dance, you'll fly straight under the radar.

Could you write a glossary for that post.

SWE = SoftWare Engineer

URM = Under Represented Minority (I think)

PRC = People's Republic of China.


> I think that it's only a matter of time until Asian women are treated the same way as Asian men. Once you've managed to close the gender gap in engineering, you have a new problem to deal with -- a lack of diversity among women engineers in regards to race and socio-economic class.

The blanket catch-all term "Asian" is not doing this conversation any favors. You assert a monoculture, but Asia is a huge region with many cultures, not a monolith. South Korea is unlike India is unlike the Philippines is unlike Vietnam is unlike Iran is unlike China.

Can you narrow this down so we understand what kind of monoculture you're actually talking about?


They're talking about the American social construct of "Asians". Which is just like any other racial classification - it is a meaningful division solely because people make it real by discriminating along those lines.

The terminology used by modern institutions is vague for a reason. Being too specific is excessively and indefensibly discriminatory.

I am not sure I grok your reasoning. How is being specific 'excessively and indefensibly discrimintory'? Honest question, your words are strong.

If we can't say "Asian" then let's also stop saying "black" and "white".

One is quite welcome to say "Asian" in the abstract. It's the part where one says that "Asian" is an socio-ethnic monoculture in practice that is uninformative.

At the very least, name the Asians you're talking about. India and China, for instance, seem to have a lot more representation among US programmers than other Asian nations.


Sure, but the same thing can be said about white people as well. Somehow, there is a disproportionate representation of slavic/eastern european people in top tier tech and fintech jobs, but it seems to fly under most people's radars when it comes to that kind of conerns. So we are back at ground zero with nothing useful coming out of this, now what?

It's accurate so far as the discrimination is concerned. Most of those doing the discrimination don't even know or understand that "Asia" is a big place with a lot of different cultures.

I don't think the point of criticizing "it's a pipeline problem" is that there isn't a pipeline problem, but that it's an easy out to avoid taking action at whatever stage of the 'pipeline' you happen to be working at.

If, as an manager at a FAANG, you say "it's a pipeline problem" you're probably saying that there aren't enough candidates because not enough women graduate from ST programs. If you're a program development person at a university you're probably saying not enough enroll. If you say it as a high school guidance counsellor you probably are saying there's not enough push for girls to do well in science and math classes and apply that to their higher education even if there is.

The point is that whatever stage of the pipeline you're at, if you want things to improve, you have to work with the tools at your disposal. You can't wait for universities to both increase enrollment and increase graduation (two separate problems as well). As this post points out you need to look for other ways to find talent that bypass that problem and recognize that the path to your job for a minority in your field will probably look drastically different to yours. It's just never going to be enough to wave your hand at the problem and blame the stage before you.

The post does get at this for sure, so I'm not really criticizing it for its conclusion, but the first couple of paragraphs build a strawman that I think is very unhelpful to understanding the nature of the problem.


Author here. Yeah, I went back and forth on the intro a bunch and couldn't find a clearer way to not dismiss systemic issues while calling out the fact that we're not being fair to the people on the ground by bundling everything up as bias.

I don't think in general people are bundling everything up as bias; many people are bundling up everything as sexism, but that is a superset of bias.

A silly example: if your job description said "We only hire men" (and this weren't illegal), then even if your entire interview process were unbiased, you're probably going to end up with fewer men.

There is an argument that individually and as a whole, the tech community has been sending a message of "not for women" in various ways. If this is true, then the communities complaining about the pipeline problem could both be unbiased and a significant cause of the pipeline problem.


> many people are bundling up everything as sexism, but that is a superset of bias

I consider sexism to be a subset of bias, so this is an interesting take. I do not think your example shows something as unbiased, because I consider the statement "We only hire men" to be biased.


Looking it up, there are many usages of the word bias that support your definition, so I'll concede that point.

However, I think GP was using the term bias in the way I tend to think of it which is measurement bias; that is evaluating male and female candidates differently from each other, so I was pointing out a way in which the candidates that show up to interview can be biased in a way which is definitely the fault of the company.


And the point of criticizing the criticism of "it's a pipeline problem" is that, wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. Working near the end of the pipe, you'll quickly hit diminishing returns. If the input at your segment is biased 4:1, then you can't improve past it. Sure, if your output is 8:1 then it's bad, but you won't get it better than 4:1. You definitely won't achieve parity, despite what the people screaming "it's not a pipeline problem" the loudest would want from you. For further improvement, you have to work on earlier segments of the pipe.

EDIT:

And another point: moving through the pipeline takes time. So e.g. if you're working on university recruiting and trying to fix the input bias at the high school->university interface, you can't expect to see improvement at the output (university->job) earlier than in 3 to 5 years. But the "it's not a pipeline problem" activists rarely have that kind of patience.

EDIT2:

"you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment", unless you're willing to start doing corrective discrimination - i.e. throwing overrepresented people out from the pipeline.


The STEM gap is lower in countries with more discrimination against women.

> Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617741719

Male over representation in STEM fields is probably due to their other options being poorer compared to women. Men generally have high math scores only while women with high math scores also have high reading scores.

> What they find is that comparative advantage (math ability relative to reading ability) explains math intentions better than actual math or reading ability. Comparative advantage is also a better predictor of math intentions than perceptions of math ability (women do perceive lower math ability relative to true ability than do men but the effect is less important than comparative advantage). In another data set the authors show that math intentions predict math education.

> Thus, accumulating evidence shows that over-representation of males in STEM fields is perhaps better framed as under-representation of males in reading fields and the latter is driven by relatively low reading achievement among males.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/gi...


> The STEM gap is lower in countries with more discrimination against women. > A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.

In plain English, this is just saying that STEM is seen by women in those countries as a way to economic advancement, which is why they embrace it at higher rates.

This is especially the case in a country like India, which I suspect represents a significant sample of their study.

Added to this, despite those countries having higher overall gender discrimination in, they don't share the US's particular cultural tropes (themselves of pretty recent creation) that imply that women are inherently worse at STEM subjects. Indeed, among middle class educated Indian families, expectations of STEM achievement are as high for girls as for boys, evidenced by the large number of Indian women who became doctors even 2 generations ago.

That educated middle class population is who the tech worker population is being drawn from, which is why their gender representation in tech shows more parity. The paper referenced confuses the overall population for the sample population.

Also, it's not that similar discriminatory tropes don't exist in places like India, but instead of gender, they are projected over other classifications, like language or social class. As a result, the representation of certain linguistic groups and social classes is higher among Indian tech workers, regardless of gender.


Some patriarchal cultures can be curiously two-faced on women: there's a boatload of stereotypes that are attached to femininity, and they generally mirror the social conservative stereotypes in US... but if any particular woman can break through those stereotypes by succeeding in something that she is not "supposed to", that gets acknowledged by basically treating her as a man socially. It is still discriminatory as hell (e.g. social life gets complicated), but in terms of career and business success, that can mask some of the cultural misogyny.

> EDIT2:

> "you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment", unless you're willing to start doing corrective discrimination

Hum, no you can't. All you can do is change the local distribution in some place, at the expense of slightly biasing the other way everywhere else.


> you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment

Not in the short-run. But the reason working on the pipeline is valuable is that discrimination includes negative feedback loops. When people who would be entering the pipeline look for role models and success stories and don't find any, they're discouraged from trying. So while there are of course diminishing returns in investing in a dry pipe, if one is interested in changing the status quo, it's valuable to keep the investment a bit above the break-even point to encourage flow upstream (flow that, one must remember, will take half a decade or so to show up as a pipeline increase, depending on how long you measure the pipe to be).


I agree. But as you note, these feedback loop work slowly (after all, they loop back, and people move through the pipes only as fast). The role model example you provide is great, and I absolutely agree that it's worth it to improve the pipe at every stage - I'm only saying that you shouldn't expect (and it shouldn't be expected of you) to get better results, or get them faster, than the pipe allows structurally.

I'm sure I'll be downvoted for merely asking, but I'm genuinely curious: what is the evidence for discrimination? Is it simply the null hypothesis (gap, ergo discrimination) or are there studies or something that actually highlight discrimination, and if the latter, how much of the gap is explained by discrimination?

Last I asked this question, I was referred to the orchestra blind audition study (Goldin et al), but I'm pretty sure that was data from 1950s-80s, from a different industry, and didn't actually demonstrate a significant effect when accounting for large error margins.

Downvote me if you like, but at least explain the reasoning for those of us following along at home. In the worst case it's an opportunity to evangelize your point of view.


> Is it simply the null hypothesis (gap, ergo discrimination)

As far as I've ever seen, this plus occasional anecdotes, no actual data.

> Last I asked this question, I was referred to the orchestra blind audition study (Goldin et al), but I'm pretty sure that was data from 1950s-80s, from a different industry, and didn't actually demonstrate a significant effect when accounting for large error margins.

Forget the large error margins, it didn't have the effect everyone "knows" it had [0]. It even benefited the men instead of the women at certain points.

[0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-...


> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment.

But that's basically just complaining that there's no quick and easy fix to your hiring problem. Well, too bad, maybe it actually is a really hard problem that you're going to have to work really hard at for a long time. If there was some relatively trivial solution like "have all hiring managers do this diversity webinar" then I'm sure the problem would've been solved already.

In other words, to the extent that there may be a pipeline problem, that is your problem.


Exactly. And that's what the pipeline argument tells. Whereas the more vocal pro-diversity movements tend to assume that if you haven't fixed that problem directly and immediately, it must be your moral failing.

> Whereas the more vocal pro-diversity movements tend to assume that if you haven't fixed that problem directly and immediately, it must be your moral failing.

I don't know about that interpretation. I think a better interpretation would be that diversity advocates would say "if you haven't fixed the problem yet, you should continue to work to fix the problem, even if it takes more time and effort than you initially hoped."


I don't understand what you mean.

Are you saying that the people who are receiving a biased mix should introduce an opposite bias to counteract it before sending on to the next step, or not?

Possibly I am misunderstanding what a "pipeline problem" refers to.

Wow, I'm experiencing some deja vu. I feel like I already (like, a year or more ago) sent this comment and got a reply, but I don't remember what the reply was.

... Ok, I think this is the thing that doesn't make sense to me: >> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment.

> But that's basically just complaining that there's no quick and easy fix to your hiring problem.

I don't understand this response. Saying "It is impossible to do x without doing y or z", saying "That's just complaining that it is hard to do x without doing y or z. Tough, that's what you have to do." doesn't make sense.

Responses that could make sense include "It actually is possible to do x without doing y or z, and that is what you have to do." or "You have to do x, even if it means doing y or z, even though doing y or z is hard".

Were one of these forms what you were saying? (Note : it is very possible that I simply misunderstood what you meant. This is the thing that I think I will probably conclude if you respond.)

The options that I can see for hiring people are: Introduce an opposite bias when hiring in order to counter-act a bias in the input Don't do that, simply work to not introduce any additional bias, and accept a biased result in the output Somehow(?) act in a way that works to make it so that the input received is not biased (or options worse than any of these)

If you are counting "the input" as meaning "the set of people who apply" then I suppose you might be able to influence "the input" by changing where you advertise the position, or things like that, but that seems to me like "potential applicant -> applicant" is just another step in the pipeline, and if the inputs there are also biased, then the same trilemma applies.

If one removes all the bias potentially introduced from each step which one can directly control, then one can no longer directly remove introducers of bias.

And I don't think smalltime company TUV's role is to work to change educational outcomes and the like, and therefore if this and its predecessors are the only remaining sources of bias, I don't see how it is their problem.

That's not to say that those are usually the only remaining sources of bias. I wouldn't be surprised if many such companies do introduce bias which they can and should address, but if the claim is that they should produce an unbiased output despite having a biased input which they cannot influence, then the only thing that can follow is that they should introduce a bias in the opposite direction.


My point is that, if there is in fact a pipeline problem, that probably does not constitute a shift in responsibility away from the hiring company. Saying "you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment" is explicitly attempting to shift responsibility away from the hiring company. I simply disagree. I think a company is still largely responsible for the outcomes of its hiring process, even if fixing those outcomes turns out to be an extremely hard problem that cannot be solved overnight with a diversity webinar.

Are you saying:

1) the input is not actually biased

2) the company is responsible for making the output less biased than the input (or produce an unbiased output from a biased input)

3) the company is responsible for making sure that they don’t cause the output to be more biased than the input, (but you are not saying that it is responsible for more than that)

3’) The same as 3, except that the amount of bias in the input, while nonzero, is small and relatively unimportant

4) The company is responsible for preventing the bias in the input

5) I (drdeca) missed an option; none of the above (if so, please specify the option I missed, which can be the case while none of the above are)

My leanings are that either (2) or (3) (or 3’, but that is just a subtype of 3) (or 2’, but again that is just a subtype if 2) is the case.


With my current understanding, I believe I can answer this one. It's #2. Specifically, your parenthetical comment in #2.

Bias exists and is a problem. It is worth spending additional resources to draw additional samples from the underrepresented population in order to offset that bias. With more samples from that population than the previous pipeline stage would provide if you sampled evenly, you can counter some of the bias without adjusting any standards of quality (capability) based on the population being sampled.

If you are a member of the overrepresented population, you will have a smaller chance of being hired with this intervention. But for someone who is hired, their skill level will be independent of what population they belong to. (Women will not be given an easier interview. They will be more likely to be offered an interview in the first place.)

Whether that is "fair" depends entirely on how you define fairness. This procedure stacks the odds against a man. Our current overall system stacks the odds against a woman. Both can legitimately complain about unfairness.

Thus, it's largely irrelevant that the percentages in earlier stages of the pipeline mean that there's no way for the overall balance can reach 50/50 through only later-stage interventions. Where did this magic 50% figure come from? The only point is to improve the percentage from where it is now. The issues that prevent achieving 50% are real, but don't prevent progress anywhere in the pipeline.

I imagine the additional costs of sampling more from a smaller population would rise dramatically the closer you try to push the outcome towards 50%. So companies will have to decide how much they're willing to invest. Fortunately, there is still real value in pushing beyond the status quo even if you don't get to 50%.

(More generally, the magic number is not always 50%. It's the proportion of the URM in the overall population. 50% is roughly the female part of the population in areas advanced enough to have these sorts of jobs available.)


thank you, that seems like a plausible idea to me.

It also seems possible to me that such an intervention might reduce feedback loops which cause the bias in the input anyway. Like, if women who are aware that a smaller proportion of the people employed in a field are women than the proportion of people in the population, maybe they might see that as a factor weighing against picking that field as one to go into? (of course, some might find it a reason to pick that field. I just mean that it seems possible that there is such an effect on average), and so, the #2 intervention might reduce such a feedback loop problem, if such feedback loops do exist.


Right. And those feedback loops do very much exist -- you can find plenty of women sharing their experiences of what it feels like to be the only woman in a room full of men. Over and over again. Being an "only" is rough. I'd imagine that going from 2 to 3 in a group is a much, much smaller change.

It also means that success often requires acting like a man, even when that is neither natural nor optimal for the situation. That's one reason why more than minimal diversity helps -- if there is a benefit to be had from diversity, you may not get it from having an "only" who is pressured to fit in.


I'm saying that, if one thinks diversity is important [0] at companies, then the outcomes of hiring and retention are largely (overwhelmingly) the responsibility of the hiring company. This is especially for very large hiring companies.

[0] If you don't think diversity is important, then that's another discussion altogether. In this thread I have been operating under the assumption that we agree it is important (and in fact I personally do).

That means that in my view it's just not reasonable or acceptable for a company to say "diversity is really important to us, but we tried some things like diversity training for our hiring managers, and that hasn't worked, so we looked up some statistics and we have concluded that it's a pipeline problem so we can't be expected to do anything about that."


I was also working under the assumption that diversity was important, or, at least, that a bias is bad.

I don’t see any conflict between this and the list of options that I listed.

Do you think that my list of options is missing an option, or are you refusing to pick one?

If the latter, why are you refusing to pick one?

Do you think that the list isn’t logically valid?

I am asking simple questions which I am aiming to make as easy to answer as I can, and you seem to be dodging the questions, and are instead responding with an accusation.

It is a simple question, and I left a clear option for in case the question would otherwise accidentally presuppose something false.


> 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, worse pipelines.


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.


> you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment

People have been fired from Google for suggesting exactly that.


I don't know about people getting fired for saying that, but it's probably not a true or reasonable thing to say. Consider that, to the extent that there may be a pipeline problem, one significant cause of it may be the conditions of work in your industry.

I know. Google deeply disappointed me with that one.

This isn't a fair characterization.

Damore's memo (which I assume is what you're talking about) absolutely did not attribute Google's lack of women candidates to a lack of graduates in the pipeline. It went with a straight on (and largely unsourced) "women are biologically different" argument. Wikipedia's page on the controversy is relatively good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

And even that didn't get him fired per se. He got fired once it went viral and embarrassed his employer.


You're misreporting the very link you quoted. Indeed, the Wikipedia description is pretty fair. I'll quote the relevant paragraph directly:

"James Damore was spurred to write the memo when a Google diversity program he attended solicited feedback.[2] The memo was written on a flight to China.[12][13] Calling the culture at Google an "ideological echo chamber", the memo states that while discrimination exists, it is extreme to ascribe all disparities to oppression, and it is authoritarian to try to correct disparities through reverse discrimination. Instead, it argues that male/female disparities can be partly explained by biological differences.[1][14] Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait).[15] Damore's memorandum also suggests ways to adapt the tech workplace to those differences to increase women's representation and comfort, without resorting to discrimination.[1][14]"

In terms of pipeline argument, the memo can be viewed as arguing that the pipeline is biased at every stage, which is "partly explained by biological differences"[0], and that it's wrong to try and solve this by reverse discrimination at the tail end of the pipe (i.e. throwing perfectly good candidates out to improve the ratio). Instead, the memo proposed means to reduce the bias near the end of the pipe without resorting to discrimination.

--

[0] - Note that some of the differences - "stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism" - can be also plausibly explained by social factors (instead of biological), but that's orthogonal to those differences existing and biasing the entire pipeline.


Damore wasn't fired because he argued that the pipeline shortages largely explain gender disparity, he was fired because he made women felt excluded and othered. He wasn't fired because he argued against diversity, he was fired because he threatened inclusivity.

To quote:

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership"

"Abilities" is the operative word there, as in women, on average, aren't as able. Pointing that averages don't imply individual ability doesn't make it better.

See also Sundar's quote:

"to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK ... At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK."


> "Abilities" is the operative word there, as in women, on average, aren't as able

Except that quote doesn't imply that women are less able. You could read it that way if you wanted to be uncharitable of course, but strictly speaking, that sentence simply says that women have different abilities, not lesser abilities. One way that sexism presents itself is an underappreciation of valuable skills, where traits that are typical of the dominant group are recognized as valuable and marked for advancement instead.

This is a standard feminist claim about work place sexism, and so a charitable reading of your quote is basically agreement with the prevailing wisdom.

> Pointing that averages don't imply individual ability doesn't make it better.

Sure it does. If you've made it, then you clearly have the skills required to be where you are.

"6 foot tall basketball players are at a serious disadvantage in the NBA". This is a clear fact. However, height doesn't determine individual ability. This too is a clear fact. Therefore, 6 foot tall players that make it into the NBA should feel reassured that they earned their place.

> he was fired because he made women felt excluded and othered

There was nothing exclusionary about the memo, and "othered" is a meaningless term. He was fired because his memo caused a PR nightmare, and through no fault of his own.

> See also Sundar's quote: "to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK

Also not something that Damore claimed. This whole debacle has been a grand exercise in strawmanning.


The original argument was that it is uncharitable to claim that Damore was "exactly" fired for pointing out pipeline problems has an impact on closing the gender gap. That's not what he claimed, and it's not why he was fired.

> One way that sexism presents itself is an underappreciation of valuable skills, where traits that are typical of the dominant group are recognized as valuable and marked for advancement instead.

I agree, but Damore positioned the differences in gender abilities as a "Possible non bias cause" and not because of systemic sexism (of or relating to "implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership").

> "6 foot tall basketball players are at a serious disadvantage in the NBA". This is a clear fact.

This is a bad example because, unlike height in basketball, there is no evidence that dimorphism in humans (size, psychological, hormonal or otherwise) causes any difference in preference or ability in tech culture or software engineering in general.

> There was nothing exclusionary about the memo

You're welcome to that opinion, but many at Google felt otherwise.

> and "othered" is a meaningless term.

The editors at M-W feel otherwise [1] and a one sentence definition is returned by most dictionaries and at least one search engine[2].

> He was fired because his memo caused a PR nightmare, and through no fault of his own.

Again, you're welcome to this opinion but that doesn't change the original claim that he was fired for merely having an opinion about "pipeline" issues affecting the speed at which the gap can be closed. That claim would be uncharitable.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/other-as-a-ver... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=othered+definition


That Sundar's quote is weird and it does a similar population sleight of hand. The "group of our colleagues" is already a subset of population selected for relevant skill (by virtue of having been hired by Google), so it's out of scope of Damore's memo.

I believe both Sundar's note and Damore's original memo were in the context of people hired by Google.

Damore's thesis was that Google shouldn't expect gender parity because (among other factors) the preferences of women are distributed differently than the preferences of men. So Damore was talking about both groups, but he was fired specifically for suggesting that Google's hiring practices were unfair--the argument being that criticizing Google's hiring practices implies that the women hired under those practices didn't really deserve to be there. This is especially interesting because lots of people make the inverse claim (Google's hiring practices are biased in favor of men) and no one is trying to fire them for implying that male Googlers don't belong (note that recently Google has discouraged activism, but this is because it stirs up unwanted controversy and impedes business, not because it offends a demographic; never mind that being told to behave is not the same as being terminated).

> "to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK"

That quote is plain stupid. I assume my colleagues to be all qualified for the job because they've been hired according to the same standards.

If my company only hires people that is more than 1.80 metres tall, I'm not diminishing the height of my female colleagues if I suggest that the reason there is a gender imbalance is that women are, on average, shorter.


In terms of pipeline argument, the memo can be viewed as arguing that the pipeline is biased at every stage

That's your interpretation, and isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia page nor the original memo.

Both the memo and the Wikipedia page discuss the changes Damore suggested making at Google, not anything about changes in the pipeline.


> That's your interpretation, and isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia page nor the original memo.

Yes, it's my interpretation. I quoted Wikipedia to show directly (the quote is self-evident) that GP is misrepresenting the very article they're linking to, and I then followed with reinterpreting that quote through the lens of the "pipeline argument". As far as I recall the memo (I read it two years ago), Damore didn't explicitly talked about pipeline, and yes, his suggestions were entirely about what Google should and shouldn't do.


In that case I think it's fair to point out that the OP's interpretation of the memo is valid ("Damore's memo (which I assume is what you're talking about) absolutely did not attribute Google's lack of women candidates to a lack of graduates in the pipeline.") and has to call into question your accusation of misquoting ("You're misreporting the very link you quoted.")

The OP's comment seems closer aligned to what Damore's actual argument was (as opposed to your interpretation).


Sorry, how are these two arguments equivalent in your mind:

1. There are few women engineers at Google because there are few candidates in the pipeline.

2. women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism

I don't see that at all. The only way you get there is to assume a common causality. But that assumption (that some people are inherently bad at coding) is offensive if made without good science. You can't start with bad pseudoscience and "prove" that Damore was fired because he pointed out the pipeline problem!


The argument is: because of 2), less women enter the pipeline that leads to a job that's less social and more about things, relative to other occupations, therefore 1).

2) is presented here as a plausible explanation of 1). The connection is very clear, so the validity of that view depends entirely on the validity of point 2) itself. Damore presented a boatload of links to research supporting that point, and plenty of other people did too. See e.g. SSC's take on it here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge....

Now one big aspect of the whole drama is that 2) is being rejected out of hand as offensive wrongthink. The concept that men and women may have different interests is considered sexist, and instead a narrative of systemic oppression is proposed. Another big issue with the memo is that a lot of people couldn't - and a lot still can't - understand the fundamental concept that you cannot take population-level statistics and use them to pass judgements on individuals. Just because a certain population doesn't like X on average, does not mean that a particular member of that population currently doing X is somehow wrong or unsuitable because of that. Damore didn't make this mistake, but was widely accused of it (and from what I remember from reading the memo two years ago, he repeatedly warned the readers against making this mistake).


The concept that men and women may have different interests is considered sexist

I would posit that men and women have different realities, thus different needs. This shapes interests.

It's not wholly unassailable, but needs to be approached differently than goals like "achieve x percentage of women in tech" are typically approached.


I'd agree with your observation about different realities, and I think it's woefully underappreciated. I think it only truly clicked with me once I entered a stable, long-term relationship with my now wife - which made me immersed in the daily minutiae of a woman's life, the stories, the perspectives, the concerns, the emotions. It's something that's hard to learn from just brief, casual interactions, no matter how open-minded one is.

Personally, I feel the issue of gender balance in tech is approached completely wrong from every direction. The goal should be to give opportunity for anyone who wants to join and excel in the field, and to let them feel comfortable and safe in it. But the topic became a battleground for interest groups that demand fixed ratios and discrimination in their own favor, and there's also the strong confounding factor of money - IT is currently one of the easiest, if not the easiest, way to make lots of money with little training and up-front investment, so the media spotlight is focused on tech (vs. other occupations).


There's also history to consider. Computing was a woman-dominated field until relatively recently in history, which strongly suggests that the root causes of the shift in male/female ratios in technical fields isn't biological (unless there was a massive biological upheaval in the human species in the past 50 years).

the root causes of the shift in male/female ratios in technical fields isn't biological

I agree with this, but I'd just note that the shift isn't as dramatic as you are making out.

Computing was a woman-dominated field until relatively recently in history

The field of computing started in the 1950s (generously). Worker proportions are difficult to estimate, but the maximum proportion of female computer science degrees was 37% in around 1987[1]. In 1986 The Atlantic noted that "[in the federal government] only seven percent of the employees in the top five CS [pay grade] ratings were women, while more than three quarters in the bottom grades were."[2]

[1] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-the-declinin...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1986/09/women-i...


Going by computer science degrees is the wrong metric because computer science as a unique discipline only arose as late as the '50s. Before that, the field's predecessor was the human computer, a field dominated by women for quite some time.

This is also unlikely to be due to some inherent biological differences and instead reverse prejudices; women were assumed to be more patient and reliable and were favored in both human computation and telegraph / switchboard work.


Before that, the field's predecessor was the human computer, a field dominated by women for quite some time.

Sure, this is true. But it's a pretty different job to programming.

This is also unlikely to be due to some inherent biological differences and instead reverse prejudices; women were assumed to be more patient and reliable and were favored in both human computation and telegraph / switchboard work.

Also typing pools, which is another job that has disappeared.


How many aspects of the differing realities are due to inherent biological differences, and how many are due to societal environment, though?

I think enough are due to societal environment that this is something we can work on, but not by arbitrarily saying things like "We want to hire more women in tech."

I posted something of a "case study" in this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21695925

It's currently downvoted and has one not very nice reply. I guess it's far less of a shit show than it really "should" be, but this is kind of par for the course. People want to believe that sexism is some nebulous problem "out there" and it's not anything they, personally, are doing and if you try to point out what can be done differently in the here and now, well, people are offended and use that to justify doubling down on mistreating people who are already suffering from social exclusion based on gender, skin color, whatever.

I've had college classes in things like Social Psychology and Negotiation and Conflict Management. I'm a woman and I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class and then I spent about two decades doing the full-time homemaker thing and wondering where the hell my life went wrong that I didn't get the two-career couple modern American dream that I had expected.

So I know a lot about the space. I've read a lot of books on women's issues and I spent a lot of time in therapy and so forth, but most people don't really want to hear what I have to say. It makes them uncomfortable.

Some points I have been trying to make on HN for years:

1. Most men will not genuinely engage me in a substantive and positive way that leads to some kind of professional development or professional opportunity. They either argue with me or they hit on me. Neither fosters the kind of professional connections I need.

Among other things, I need people to talk with me in earnest about my work. I need people to promote my work, which historically has just not been done. Only recently has anyone other than me apparently posted any of my writing to HN that wasn't basically mud slinging and gossip.

And I think I can't get that primarily because men basically are nice to women when they are looking for sex and that's pretty much it. And they actively avoid being too nice to any woman they aren't trying to sleep with for fear of it having some kind of negative outcome, such as an unintended affair or career-damaging gossip.

2. I need income and no one really wants to hear that. I was a homemaker for years and the things I'm good at combined with my gender cause people to feel that I am supposed to do nice things for them out of the goodness of my heart because I care like I'm their mother. I have a pretty good idea where that pattern comes from, but it's a broken mental model that harms the incomes and lives of a great many women. This shitty expectation that I should benefit others for free out of the goodness of my heart was hung on me even when I was literally homeless.

-----

Decades of trying to sort out my own problems and reading up on what happens with other women has me convinced that the lack of ability to seriously connect with men socially in a professional way is a huge barrier to professional development. I'm convinced that a lot of female-led startups fail because they don't get those small nudges about what needs to happen with the business or code base that men get from having a beer with buddies or whatever and discussing it casually. So pivots happen much later and involve much larger changes and it's deadly to a lot of businesses.

I've been on HN for over a decade. Only in recent weeks do I have contacts via HN with men who will talk with me via email about something other than personal bullshit. I've been exchanging emails with two different men met through HN about housing issues.

Two contacts is something I should have been able to come up with in the first year, not more than a decade later. Everyone else has basically either emailed me to bond personally while doing not a fucking thing to further my professional goals, was actively trying to victimize me because they were shitty people, or they were hitting on me or they were writing me basically out of pity as their good deed for the day and not because they really had anything meaningful to discuss with me in earnest.

I feel I've been endlessly patient with a truly appalling situation and it hardly budges and if I get frustrated and upset because I'm still dirt poor and still can't make my life work and my gender is a very large factor there, then I get amazingly shitty feedback like it's somehow my fault for being rude or something. So basically no matter how virtuous I am, it's never enough and there is always some shitty BS excuse to blame me for it.

This boils down to "People don't really want it to change." It doesn't directly negatively impact the men here that they are aware of, so not their problem that there is a woman in their midst who routinely can't afford enough food to eat every day.

I'm quite fed up and if I had some means to go postal and murder a bunch of people that in my mind are "at fault," I probably would at this point. I just have no means to somehow blow up HN and multiple people met through HN.

I no longer know what to do. Being patient, diplomatic, articulate, long-suffering and blah blah blah isn't solving it. At the rate I'm going, I might have a middle class income in another hundred years, assuming I live that long and it's mind boggling to me that people who routinely claim they are interested in addressing issues like sexism are amazingly content to continue to basically step over my body in the gutter and mutter to themselves "Not my problem."

So the world isn't likely to change because the world doesn't actually want to change. It would rather look for excuses and justifications than viable solutions.


>>>And I think I can't get that primarily because men basically are nice to women when they are looking for sex and that's pretty much it. And they actively avoid being too nice to any woman they aren't trying to sleep with for fear of it having some kind of negative outcome, such as an unintended affair or career-damaging gossip.

You're not wrong....but I'm in no way, shape, or form surprised by this gender dynamic. Although I think the "career-damaging gossip" is a fairly recent phenomenon. Enough men have had their lives destroyed by either awkward romantic attempts on their part or flat-out lies on a woman's part that guys have reacted in an entirely rational manner by simply avoiding females. The assumption is that there is NO professional benefit to the guy that is worth the risk.

My (totally unsolicited) ¥2 is you probably need to overcome that assumption very early in any conversation if you expect assistance.

>>>I just have no means to somehow blow up HN and multiple people met through HN.

Do some social engineering to reveal their physical locations. Then strap tannerite-based nailbombs to UAVs? As long as we are brainstorming here...


My (totally unsolicited) ¥2 is you probably need to overcome that assumption very early in any conversation if you expect assistance

I've been celibate for medical reasons for over 14 years. I've been a member in good standing here for over a decade. I've gone to great lengths to avoid trouble. So far that seems to benefit me just enough to not yet be banned and that's it.

And it really shouldn't be that way. And I don't feel any good would come out of digging into those details here and now.

Do some social engineering to reveal their physical locations. Then strap tannerite-based nailbombs to UAVs? As long as we are brainstorming here...

That's good for a chuckle, but the reality is I'm far too poor to do anything like that. I'm not exaggerating when I say I routinely don't have enough money for food.

If I could come up with the means to assassinate six or ten assholes across the globe from a distance, I probably would be wealthy enough to pay cash for the building I want and would, therefore, have no reason to be sitting around stewing and wishing a few assholes would choke to death on their next bowl of soup.


Well it's basically always possible to claim that society has some hidden variable, but I'll bite. As a woman, if you want children/family you need to secure at least a certain baseline of living quality and stability before the age of 35 and realistically much earlier. This alone dramatically changes the timeline and priorities of women.

The cost of freezing eggs is pretty small compared to tech salaries though, so if women's instincts are telling them not to go into tech because they need to hurry up and have kids, those instincts are out of date wrt what modern medicine can do.

With what modern medicine can do, sorta, kinda, in the West, if you're wealthy enough. Freezing eggs is nowhere near standard practice (though with ever growing credentialism, it may well just become such), and having kids (really: starting a family) involves a lot of other things than just getting some sperm and an egg to occupy the same space at the same time.

(Also, really, modern tech is currently one of the most family-friendly profession out there, because of demand surplus. I think GP is talking about women living a different reality than men, not about women not wanting to go to tech strictly because of it.)


having babies when you are an elderly woman (which is the age of 35 according to obstetricians) becomes more difficult with each passing year.

> The concept that men and women may have different interests is considered sexist

The concept that men and women may have different interests due to biological differences is extremely sexist, yes. For all the sources Damore cited, there's an entire body of academic work (and an entire cultural revolution in the United States spanning upwards of a century) to the contrary on that topic specifically. 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.

Had he kept his comments to a realm of "men and women might have different representation in computer engineering because they have different interests on average," he would have been treading on thin ice with people disinclined to assume good faith but could have probably kept his job. Attempting to hang the causality on biology really did him in (and when his memo became public, it put Google in a situation where they ran serious risk of tolerating a hostile work environment if they kept him).


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 role. It's suggesting they have agency and make choices which fail to serve some abstract narrative about the theoretical importance of so-called equality of the sort that gets debated and hypothesized about in articles like the one under discussion.

I was a homemaker for a lot of years. Self-proclaimed feminists have a long history of being incredibly ugly to me.

I'm not the only person who has noticed that feminists are basically openly hostile and contemptuous towards homemakers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ1xOOyENmw


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 assumption---clearly illegal to act upon but still acted upon nonetheless---that young women are a higher-risk hire and promotion because they probably want to leave the workforce to raise a family in three years). Assumptions like that constrain women who do want a career because the company is going to invest in the male employees who are assumed to be in it for life.


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.


> 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.

Is "what they want" the driving factor in men's lives? If so, it's a somewhat fundamental principle of American cultural philosophy that we do all we can to make the option available for women too, if they want it. To do otherwise is to abandon the notion of "created equal."

The American experiment may be founded on flawed reasoning there, but it's going to be a heck of an uphill battle to convince people that's true. A battle I'm not going to fight because I'm on board with the "created equal" notion.


America has a generally worse track record for women's rights than Europe. It boils down to the fact that the American attitude of "we were created equal and I can too achieve just as much as a man if you will just get out of my way!" is a broken mental model.

European women asked for help with carrying the burden entailed in bearing and raising children. They asked for things like maternity leave. America is the only wealthy, developed country on the planet that still lacks a strong national maternity leave policy.

American "rugged individualism" is a delusion. It always has been. It serves the needs of women especially poorly.

Once a woman gets pregnant and has a child, she needs other people to help her raise that child, like it or not. We can't do what some mammals do of hiding the kid up under some bushes while we go get food.

Society as a whole has to make it easier for parents to do right by their kids. America has an atrocious track record in that regard.

And women like me are the ones that get ROFLstomped in the process, often while very much benefiting other people. I spent a month playing nanny for my sister and her child. She got a serious career. I still am failing to pull that off.


This also suggests that family should play a role in rearing children because the nanny chain is not sustainable except for an elite class.

Yes. And that elite class can only exist in a system where servitude by the masses is the norm. To call it a search for equality is straight up a lie.

It's a narrative that actively seeks to trade gender-based inequality for class-based inequality. And then that class-based inequality has a strongly gendered bent to it. You don't typically see men working as nannies and maids.

I find it abhorrent in the extreme.


Actually any psychologist can contradict you easily. If you find arguments like "men are on average taller and heavier than women" to be sexist, you have a wrong sense of what sexism is.

Your examples are not related to software engineering. Please name software engineering related biological differences between men and women, backed by solid scientific studies.

Do we even have a scientifically-backed set of essential biological or cognitive skills related to software engineering?

I would probably start with [1] and [2].

Paper [3] concludes that sex-based differences in risk tolerance tangibly impacted approaches to spatial navigation AND program development.

There's a few others on spatial cognition and mental information processing: [4][5][6]. Paper[5] in particular links spatial cognition to mental modeling, which was identified in [1] as a software engineering skill. And [6] directly connects it to navigating source code.

[1]https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eafe/74dddaf7ada62a52a2e712...

[2]https://web.stanford.edu/~roypea/RoyPDF%20folder/A17_Pea_Kur...

[3]https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4021352

[4]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03601...

[5]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2729....

[6]https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1268852


[1] and [2] are not studies. [2] isn't even peer reviewed.

[3] is behind a paywall. It appeared in the "2006 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance", which is a pretty good indicator that this is not work done by social scientists, i.e., not scientifically backed. I have worked in science, the good papers appear in journals highly relevant for the topic.

[4] and [5] are not about software engineering.

[6] is also behind a paywall, and is based on a study with 24 students.

As I can't access the full-text papers, what is the reported strength of the effect, i.e., if person A is x% better than person B in spatial recognition, how much better is A in software engineering?

edit: here is a study presenting evidence that spatial skill differences in gender are not biological, see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-38414-001. Without paywall: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike_Stieff/publication...


That sounds suspiciously like a straw man. The actual meat of the argument is what matters, not the simple fact of the comparison.

Nobody is saying biology is "limiting" anything. That's the crux. They are choosing something else. Not better and not worse, but something they feel better suits their needs or desires.

CS isn't some magical field that floats on air. In fact, it's mostly a miserable profession with managers who don't understand how it works, cooped up in an office the whole day under artificial white light while sitting on your ass.


I can’t shake the feeling that the women who leave programming because it’s “unwelcoming” don’t realize that it’s just as miserable a profession with managers who don’t understand how it works cooped up in an office the whole day under artificial light for men as it is for women.

Uh, sure, there are common negatives. But from what I can tell, it really does appear that women have to put up with a boatload more shit than men in addition to the negatives they have in common. And a lot of it hits in exactly the areas that make up for the rest of the shit - try having every one of your nonobvious decisions challenged, subtly or overtly, and see how easy it is to work through your problems with managers or whatever.

People should look at the memo with all its links to papers to decide if these claims are "largely unsourced."

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

There was a version initially floating around that had all the links removed.


There is absolutely no sourcing for research showing women being inherently or unfixably uninterested in computer science. None. He had a bunch of links to studies about bland stuff like personality differences, using them to make arguments the study authors never indended and (where asked) refused to support.

Calling that "sourcing" is essentially trying to treat Damore's fundamentally political document as an original piece of social science research.


> There is absolutely no sourcing for research showing women being inherently or unfixably uninterested in computer science.

Damore never made such claims. At the population level, it does indeed seem like women tend to be more interested in people-oriented subjects (nursing, pediatrics, law) and men tend to be more interested in thing-oriented subjects (engineering, compsci, surgery).

So even a discipline like medicine which has roughly gender parity, you still see segregation along gender lines, where women are overrepresented in subfields which deal directly with people (pediatrics, obgyn), and men are overrepresented in subfields which treat people as things (surgery). So a theory that delineates things vs. people has good explanatory power for explaining gender disparities [1].

Furthermore, Damore never claimed that such tendencies aren't "fixable". He claimed that the discriminatory policies currently in place are not only completely ineffective at influencing the gender numbers (and so should be ended), but that policies that take this research into account would be more effective.

> Calling that "sourcing" is essentially trying to treat Damore's fundamentally political document as an original piece of social science research.

If you're actually interested in a proper analysis Damore's claims by actual researchers in this field, I suggest reading [2].

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...

[2] https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-r...


"women being inherently or unfixably uninterested in computer science" is not the claim. Do you grok the part where he talks about distributions?

Saying that women can or need to be "fixed" to make them interested in computer science is incredible sexist.

The author is leaving unstated what we all know to be true: most of these jobs aren't really that hard. You don't really need the people with pedigreed CS backgrounds, but it's easier than actually figuring out how to screen candidates. The "pipeline problem" is the pipeline itself. So you have to go around the pipeline by avoiding the formal education system, which is where the bias is observed.

The problem is that if you give a rocket engineer the job of opening a pickle jar, you are forever in danger of them doing something titanically ornate, instead of just opening the goddamn jar or installing one of those toothy wedges under a cabinet near the fridge, where people can still function normally if they forget it's even there.

The one time I worked on a team of all highly senior people you couldn't get any of us to do anything. We were always writing code to do the thing for us. Which sounds okay at first, until you started trying to trace through all that code and then holy shit, we have made a terrible mistake.

On any project there is a mix of tasks that are perfectly suited for mid-level developers, and a set of tasks that are interesting enough but relatively low risk that you can use to train up low- and mid-level people for something meatier. Many of those tasks are also perfect for introducing new team members too.

If you aren't constantly trying to make 90% of the tasks simple enough for a boring team member to do then I don't know how you prevent the overall complexity of the system from eventually swamping you all. There are systems that look like they avoid this but if you look hard enough there is almost always one or two people who are holding the system hostage, and if they don't want something done to the system, it's not getting done, no matter how many customers leave. Eventually power overshadows merit and you get an oligarchy instead of a democracy.


> If you aren't constantly trying to make 90% of the tasks simple enough for a boring team member to do then I don't know how you prevent the overall complexity of the system from eventually swamping you all.

One has to keep in mind that the things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Otherwise, you risk ending up with the stereotypical low-skill Java Enterprise shop, where inexperienced and not particularly skilled developers end up writing (or autogenerating) code by kilolines, where if someone better trained were to stop and think for an hour, it could all be done in 100-1000x less code, and with similar improvement in maintainability.


Yes, and for me the happy ratio is around a 90:10 split.

There is a time and place for really sophisticated code, and people will just have to expend some effort to understand its behavior at least, if not in fact how it accomplishes it. If that's leaking throughout the system then it's likely a code smell.

I'd like to reiterate that the statement you quoted was made in the active voice. It's a process. As you add things to the system you should be looking at all of the pain points around it and amortizing the cost of addressing those issues. If you don't arrive there around the time the system begins to gel, but before calcification, you will never arrive. But if you try to get there from day one, you'll pick the wrong priorities and you'll certainly end up in that Enterprise hell you mention.

What I see happen is that people grow with the project, memorizing one thing after another without ever appreciating the weight of it all, and then one day they have to hire more people because someone left, and all of a sudden they're terrified of letting that person do any real work. Because how could they know? Absolutely no effort has been expended setting new people up for success, and the token efforts feel more like sabotage than help. Then it takes years of their lives to memorize all the same stuff and really, I believe you should be investing that time in something more worthwhile. I'm living through that again and it's every bit as bad as I remembered.


Thank you for elaborating. What you wrote resonates very strongly, it's essentially the way it's been in every job I worked on. Hell, I'm guilty of it myself - once I have my own fiefdom in the codebase, I feel terrified of letting someone else work in it. In my mind, I have the vision of them struggling unproductively because they lack the knowledge about all the tiny little idiosyncrasies, of various design decisions that were never documented, etc. I recognize this is a wrong state of things, but it's hard to fix.

I feel like a step towards a solution to this problem (which I likewise observe), is to document these idiosyncrasies in the code. My rule of thumb is that when I write or read weird code that's necessarily weird (to avoid idiosyncrasies in downstream/upstream systems), I try to add a very concise clarifying comment that acknowledges the code as weird, and points in the direction of both the problem we're avoiding and some potential solutions to make the code less weird in the future.

For example, when reading an old codebase, if I invest 20 minutes in determining why the code differs from the documentation, I add a comment saying `NOTE(gen220): the code does not match the comment. The reason appears to be X. We might resolve this with Y or Z`. That, or update one of either the code or the comment, whichever makes the most sense in the situation.

That way, a new team member (or myself, but 2 years older) won't have to stumble in the same places, and are empowered to take a stab at fixing the problem, which has been documented for them.

Personally, when my idiosyncrasies are so-documented, I feel much safer handing things off.


I agree with your proposed step forward.

Myself, recently I've been more often producing fresh code than working on someone else's, so I ended up aggressively documenting design decisions in code - most of them in top-level file comments, and the more local/tactical decisions within the scope they affect. I try to do that simultaneously with writing the code, because unless I write things down immediately, there's a good chance I'll never go back to put them in.


I do this and I also initial and date the comment so people have some idea where in the timeline it was introduced and who to talk to about it.

In my old age I use comments to write my code before I write the code. The comments explain in pseudo code what Im trying to accomplish.

# check to see if the user has a cart. The default state for

# users is to not have a cart. The original implementation

#created a cart for every visitor which resulted in 10s of

#thousands of unused carts.

# if the cart does not exist only create a new one because

# they are adding an item. You can never assume the user has

# a cart.

as I read code that isnt mine and figure out what it does, I write comments like the above about why I think it works that way. I will sometimes date the comments. You can do that with your own code as you make modifications or additions. It adds minimal overhead and is tremendous for when you go back later.

For a check like if i > 5 then do something I have seen comments like "check for i>5" which is obvious. I would want something like

# Im hardcoding a 5 here because <bad reason> so that when

#<whatever I represents is > 5 then we do <some stuff>


Exactly!

Most of tech is what I would consider "trade school" level work. That is, it's not really any harder than if you went to trade school for HVAC. Sure there's lots of thermodynamics and air flow stuff involved, but you don't need a physics degree. You just need training, and experience is 90% of the job qualifications. People routinely overestimate the importance of their "skill" at most jobs.


> most of these jobs aren't really that hard

This is a popular trope among non-programmers, and I can see why they’d like it to be true (it would make hiring a lot easier!) but actually yes, these jobs _are_ that hard. They’re hard because they’re constantly changing. Environments change, languages change, tooling changes, team structuring changes… and the programmers have to keep up. What may have been easier for, say, a self-taught PHP developer who doesn’t really know how databases work, or how networks work, or how operating systems work, or how HTTP works, ten years ago is much harder for that same developer without a decent grasp on the fundamentals trying to get their head around, say, React. There are easier jobs in “tech” like project management or testing, but developing software isn’t one of them.


That's not quite right either, because if these were truly easy jobs someone would have figured that out and won by hiring cheap developers with non-traditional backgrounds. In fact engineering jobs are hard, and there is a big spread in candidate quality.

The issue is that heretofore the best proxy for candidate quality is educational background, hence the pipeline problem. And you definitely fix that by going around the pipeline. But we shouldn't be blind to the fact that this has costs. You need to see a lot more bootcamp grads than Stanford alums to fill the same position. It's a cost worth bearing, but still a cost.


> if these were truly easy jobs someone would have figured that out and won by hiring cheap developers with non-traditional backgrounds

Note that the same argument works as evidence against recruiting bias and pay disparity. Discriminating against people or paying them less due to factors unrelated to job performance is leaving money on the table. Such discrimination persisting would imply that the market is very inefficient in this aspect.


The fact that many of the web companies want to crowd everyone in a few hundred square kilometers of the Bay area demonstrates that they don't know what they are doing and are leaving money on the table. That doesn't disprove the fact that women are somewhat more uninterested in pursuing those jobs than men are.

> because if these were truly easy jobs someone would have figured that out and won by hiring cheap developers with non-traditional backgrounds.

This is literally what is happening at many companies, quite often. I know so many female developers who have, in the past, said things like "Oh, I'd never work at Uber". And because of this, Uber has to pay their engineers a lot more money, because they can't attract any female employees.

Skiping on diversity initiatives is not just immoral, it is dumb. And you will lose money because of it.


Stages at the end of the pipeline obviously get much more starved than stages closer to the beginning. Computer scientists learn this in computer architecture 101.

The problem isn’t FAANGs, it’s the rest of the smaller companies that have gone from 20% female to 0% because they can’t compete with google’s salary package and supply really is limited at that stage in the pipe. If you work at a non-FAANG, the problem has gotten much worse than it was 10 years ago.


Or to play with the metaphor, it may be a pipeline problem but there's also the phenomenon of "back pressure", where cause-and-effect move in both directions.

> it's an easy out to avoid taking action at whatever stage of the 'pipeline' you happen to be working at...you need to look for other ways to find talent that bypass that problem

Another 'easy out' is to simply lower the bar for female applicants


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: