Reply to Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category.  Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.  [/quote]
Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male.  Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best.  I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females.  What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males.  Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.[/quote]
This attitude 100% explains why people are so threatened by affirmative action for college admissions. The mistaken belief that where you go to school is the only predictor of success in the real world. As a hiring manager in tech, yes, candidates who attended a top program are likely to be stronger than the general applicant pool. But, no, the best candidates did not all go to the best programs. In fact, the best programmer/engineer I ever had the pleasure to work with started off as a diversity hire of sorts. He was a poor, white, male without college role models, who was hired into a coop program by a big engineering firm and worked through his undergrad and masters, which he received from an average public university (not even the flagship conference). I would hire this guy any day, any time. But without that corporate coop program focused on hiring from non-standard pools of candidates, he would never have gotten the opportunity to shine the way he has.[/quote]

I 100% agree with this

The problem is there are two kinds of affirmative action

1.  Finding and seeking out QUALIFIED candidates from unusual/overlooked places

2.  Hiring LESS qualified candidates from underrepresented groups

Do you disagree with point 2?  If you get rid of 2 I think almost everyone would support Affirmative Action 100%

[/quote]

I don't think #2 exists in any significant part.
You may ASSUME that a woman or minority candidate is hired because they are less qualified, but that's not typically true and shows your assumptions and biases, not reality.

More importantly, how you define "LESS qualified" is very subjective and in many cases not appropriate/relevant to the job.

Let's not pretend that there's some consistent and easily measured standard to be used in hiring or promoting.  Will the person with a 3.6 do better in their career than the person with the 3.4?  It's obviously impossible to know that, and in many cases the skills measured in GPA aren't the same as those that are needed to be successful at work.  So the ubiquitous "good fit" is often code for "looks/acts/thinks like I do" and is far more often used against a woman or minority candidate than an old white guy. 
[/quote]

Have you been in staffing meetings #2 is what diversity initiatives are.  We have to higher a woman and URM in each entering class now.

Its bs

[/quote]

OMG! Your subtext of your statement is that all women and URM are less than and not as good. Do you hear yourself?! [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics