Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As The Washington Post's Jena McGregor wrote in March, just 1 percent of Google's technology employees are black - a percentage that hasn't moved since 2014.

Indians do not hire African Americans, we have seen this at Infosys, Cognizant, Hexaware, TCS, and Wipro

Does it matter if code is written by backs, Indians, males, females, as long as it works

By that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with never hiring someone who looks like you ever again for any job as long as the job gets done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As The Washington Post's Jena McGregor wrote in March, just 1 percent of Google's technology employees are black - a percentage that hasn't moved since 2014.

Indians do not hire African Americans, we have seen this at Infosys, Cognizant, Hexaware, TCS, and Wipro

Does it matter if code is written by backs, Indians, males, females, as long as it works

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, and yet it's very common in education and PR and nursing, for example. Look at most PR firms and it's almost all women. Same with preschools and elementary schools -- nearly all women. Where is the outreach to get more men into those fields?

There is a huge outreach in public schools to hire male talent. Most men are going to get "diversity points" in the hiring process.

Here's Facebook's career page to hire engineers. Looks like lots of photos and stories of women and non-whites who work in engineering, presumably to encourage those groups to apply.

Here it is for Fairfax schools for instructional positions:
https://www.fcps.edu/careers/career-opportunities/instructional
and MoCo: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/careers/

Show me any signs they are trying to hire more male teachers please...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, and yet it's very common in education and PR and nursing, for example. Look at most PR firms and it's almost all women. Same with preschools and elementary schools -- nearly all women. Where is the outreach to get more men into those fields?

There is a huge outreach in public schools to hire male talent. Most men are going to get "diversity points" in the hiring process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, and yet it's very common in education and PR and nursing, for example. Look at most PR firms and it's almost all women. Same with preschools and elementary schools -- nearly all women. Where is the outreach to get more men into those fields?

There is a huge outreach in public schools to hire male talent. Most men are going to get "diversity points" in the hiring process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree with all 3.

Wage gap is real

Diversity "for diversity sake" is not a joke, we need different viewpoints depending on the job. I am not going to hire a white dude from Vermont who graduated from an Ivy league school to market products to black customers in Chicago, even if his GPA and class rank is higher than the black chick from Chicago who graduated from a Chicago state school.

NO women are not "better at certain things" ... some women are better at certain thing, some women are not, some men are better at certain things, some men are not. I don't think every man would make a better Army soldier than every woman. We need to look at everybody as an individual regardless of their gender.

Outliers don't make the rule. According to certain studies, men on average have one standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women. This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear (likewise the brain structure associated with this type of intelligence, the parietal lobe, differs between male and female brains). However, in some studies, once time constraints were removed, women did as well as men. It has also been found that spatial ability correlates with verbal ability in women but not in men, suggesting that women may use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks than men do. Spatial intelligence is often a requirement to make it through engineering courses, as one needs to flip the orientation of objects in ones head to visualize designs, and understand a summation of forces at moment in basic engineering classes like engineering statics.

That's really fascinating. Can you link to that study? I'm wondering if I can leverage my DS's advanced verbal ability to help with his lack of spatial ability (he has dyspraxia). Maybe a more "female" approach to spatial tasks would help him.

It is known that men tend to favor a more allocentric strategy (accurate judgments of distance), while women are more frequently egocentric (able to recall more street names and building shapes as landmarks) navigators. Perhaps that might be useful to you?

J.M. Dabbs Jr., E.-L. Chang, R.A. Strong, R. Milun
Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women
Evol Hum Behav, 19 (1998), pp. 89-98

L.A.M. Galea, D. Kimura
Sex differences in route-learning
Pers Indiv Differ, 14 (1993), pp. 53-65

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As The Washington Post's Jena McGregor wrote in March, just 1 percent of Google's technology employees are black - a percentage that hasn't moved since 2014.

Indians do not hire African Americans, we have seen this at Infosys, Cognizant, Hexaware, TCS, and Wipro

false - indians do hire AA.

vivek Ranadive's most expensive hires are all AA.

demarcus cousins was making big money under him before he got traded.

vince carter - 8 million US a year

D'arron fox - 19 year old making 5 million

george hill - 20 milllion a year

zach randolph - 12 million a year

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, and yet it's very common in education and PR and nursing, for example. Look at most PR firms and it's almost all women. Same with preschools and elementary schools -- nearly all women. Where is the outreach to get more men into those fields?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree with all 3.

Wage gap is real

Diversity "for diversity sake" is not a joke, we need different viewpoints depending on the job. I am not going to hire a white dude from Vermont who graduated from an Ivy league school to market products to black customers in Chicago, even if his GPA and class rank is higher than the black chick from Chicago who graduated from a Chicago state school.

NO women are not "better at certain things" ... some women are better at certain thing, some women are not, some men are better at certain things, some men are not. I don't think every man would make a better Army soldier than every woman. We need to look at everybody as an individual regardless of their gender.

Outliers don't make the rule. According to certain studies, men on average have one standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women. This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear (likewise the brain structure associated with this type of intelligence, the parietal lobe, differs between male and female brains). However, in some studies, once time constraints were removed, women did as well as men. It has also been found that spatial ability correlates with verbal ability in women but not in men, suggesting that women may use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks than men do. Spatial intelligence is often a requirement to make it through engineering courses, as one needs to flip the orientation of objects in ones head to visualize designs, and understand a summation of forces at moment in basic engineering classes like engineering statics.

That's really fascinating. Can you link to that study? I'm wondering if I can leverage my DS's advanced verbal ability to help with his lack of spatial ability (he has dyspraxia). Maybe a more "female" approach to spatial tasks would help him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree with all 3.

Wage gap is real

Diversity "for diversity sake" is not a joke, we need different viewpoints depending on the job. I am not going to hire a white dude from Vermont who graduated from an Ivy league school to market products to black customers in Chicago, even if his GPA and class rank is higher than the black chick from Chicago who graduated from a Chicago state school.

NO women are not "better at certain things" ... some women are better at certain thing, some women are not, some men are better at certain things, some men are not. I don't think every man would make a better Army soldier than every woman. We need to look at everybody as an individual regardless of their gender.

Outliers don't make the rule. According to certain studies, men on average have one standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women. This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear (likewise the brain structure associated with this type of intelligence, the parietal lobe, differs between male and female brains). However, in some studies, once time constraints were removed, women did as well as men. It has also been found that spatial ability correlates with verbal ability in women but not in men, suggesting that women may use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks than men do. Spatial intelligence is often a requirement to make it through engineering courses, as one needs to flip the orientation of objects in ones head to visualize designs, and understand a summation of forces at moment in basic engineering classes like engineering statics.

Anonymous wrote:

Outliers don't make the rule. According to certain studies, men on average have one standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women[i]. This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear (likewise the brain structure associated with this type of intelligence, the parietal lobe, differs between male and female brains). However, in some studies, once time constraints were removed, women did as well as men. It has also been found that spatial ability correlates with verbal ability in women but not in men, suggesting that women may use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks than men do. Spatial intelligence is often a requirement to make it through engineering courses, as one needs to flip the orientation of objects in ones head to visualize designs, and understand a summation of forces at moment in basic engineering classes like engineering statics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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%

What is your basis for stating #2 as a fact? I have never seen it. Focusing on only women, who are pretty much the only underrepresented group in tech that has sufficient numbers to say anything meaningful, the women who clear the basic training bars probably move up ranks faster. Because they are good.

I'm excellent by any objective measure. My educational pedigree, my professional pedigree, the things I've accomplished in my jobs, and the public thought leadership I've cultivated. But I'm the only woman in a technical role on our 40 person team. Women shouldn't have to be excellent to make it in tech. I'll know there is equality when mediocre women succeed in tech jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree with all 3.

Wage gap is real

Diversity "for diversity sake" is not a joke, we need different viewpoints depending on the job. I am not going to hire a white dude from Vermont who graduated from an Ivy league school to market products to black customers in Chicago, even if his GPA and class rank is higher than the black chick from Chicago who graduated from a Chicago state school.

NO women are not "better at certain things" ... some women are better at certain thing, some women are not, some men are better at certain things, some men are not. I don't think every man would make a better Army soldier than every woman. We need to look at everybody as an individual regardless of their gender.

Outliers don't make the rule. According to certain studies, men on average have one standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women. This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear (likewise the brain structure associated with this type of intelligence, the parietal lobe, differs between male and female brains). However, in some studies, once time constraints were removed, women did as well as men. It has also been found that spatial ability correlates with verbal ability in women but not in men, suggesting that women may use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks than men do. Spatial intelligence is often a requirement to make it through engineering courses, as one needs to flip the orientation of objects in ones head to visualize designs, and understand a summation of forces at moment in basic engineering classes like engineering statics.