> What bias occurs against my [Filipino,Vietnamese,Thai,Malaysian,Pakistani...] brothers, that doesn't also apply towards me, an Indian? > What about American

> What bias occurs against my [Filipino,Vietnamese,Thai,Malaysian,Pakistani...] brothers, that doesn't also apply towards me, an Indian? > What about American CS Students, who presumably don't have a "teach to the test" based education system? They are well represented in tech. I gave the "teach to the test" example as an example of how culture affects tech interviews and why that's a problem on the interviewer's side, not as a specific example of why Indians do well in the U.S.. Nor was it a litmus test for "people who will do well in interviews", because many other factors contribute. Though "teach to the test" is probably a part of why Indians do well. In my comment above I explained the mechanism by which the majority white-male-american tech industry unconsciously ends up crafting interviews where white-male-americans will do better. It wasn't about giving an exhaustive set of reasons as to why each demographic does the way it does. But if you want examples, just google "pipeline problem tech" and you'll get more than enough examples in the hundreds of articles out there about why the "pipeline" is a red herring, often with examples as to why various interview practices (or other practices) end up excluding demographics. I gave one example about women, and below I talk a bit more about "choosing the pipeline", but I'm not going to start a discussion where I give an example of systemic bias for/against one group and you ask why it doesn't apply to another group ad infinitum. These biases are complex, intertwined, and not always tangible. There is a simple mechanism as to how they appear, and lots of evidence that they exist (interviewing.io itself has done some of research on this by running voice modulation etc on their platform, but there's plenty more research otherwise too), independently of the pipeline. Edit: I guess an example that folks might find easier to understand is in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12860397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12860397 , it's an unconscious bias against self taught people. Most self taught people are pretty picky in what they actually do, because they're often doing it for fun. On the other hand, if you are a CS student, you will learn whatever is taught in colleges, and follow what your peers do (e.g. practice coding puzzles for interviews). So a self taught person may not be great at coding puzzles because that's not an actual skill that they've ever needed when coding for fun, whereas CS students tend to be competent with these. I know many autodidacts who have had issues with this but are otherwise great programmers. I myself am self taught, and while I did practice coding puzzles, I have felt such biases too. > Fewer folks that pursue degrees in tech, fewer applicants in the pool. ... > degrees in tech and here it is again, you're choosing your pipeline. I just talked about that. There are plenty of autodidacts out there. Plenty of folks (often from a lower income background who cannot afford college, or be able to juggle college and work) who go to coding bootcamps. Plenty of folks who do go to college, but go to less prestigious ones because they can't afford it or they have to go to college near their holes (and they have less mobility because of job/family to support/whatever). Again, there are articles all over the internet about this. I recall reading about companies which target historically black colleges in their interview process. They don't quota it or otherwise disallow people from interviewing with them; they just go to the colleges for campus interviews. No different from other companies who go to Stanford for campus interviews.