7 ms·

> (women) hold only 20 percent of the company’s higher-paying engineering jobs. I believe women make up less than 20% of comsci graduates? So wouldn't this be

> (women) hold only 20 percent of the company’s higher-paying engineering jobs. I believe women make up less than 20% of comsci graduates? So wouldn't this be about right then. Also I'm assuming women in comsci have lower workforce participation than men do (as in broader economy) so Google must be hiring women at a higher ratio than men from the available pool. I'm 100% in support of open workplaces for gender/race/politics/sexuality/dress and whatever 'work ability' irrelevant preferences. And cases like Susan Fowler are absolutely disgusting. I also feel a bunch of people increasing complain about their lack of success due to gender or race and are not willing to see they have a fair crack at their career but dont have the talent/drive etc and cant see this lack of ability in themselves.

waqf 9y ago
> dont have the talent/drive etc Don't have the talent/drive/connections/hustle/luck …. There are more possibilities than just sexism vs. meritocracy. Edit: hey downvoters, I'm talking about why a random given person of any gender may not be progressing in their career. Read the context.
kevmo 9y ago
What percentage of programmers at Google have compsci degrees? What's the split like within that subset?
- osmala 9y ago
  What percentage of HIGH PAY ENGINEERING jobs in google have comp sci degrees, that's the true comparison. And then there is bigger issue here. It's really the obsession about percentages of women in X position. Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? I believe it is both very small and men are over represented there, and they are over represented in high paying computer jobs.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? Most people are not in the job because they like create things or build things. They are there because they want a job and nothing more. And they want a job where (unit of money)/(unit of work) has a higher value. That means they have to either figure out a way to make more money or do less work, or both. Therefore the question of early interest or passion is meaningless to most people. So as far as they are concerned, it rarely matters how set of people of identity A got to it. They think regardless of that if set A got it, other sets should get it too. This also creates other problems. Set A is likely to do side projects, write programs and hacks out of personal interest. Other sets looking at job as a return/effort metric will likely see why they are expected to do anything all all apart from working 5 hrs a day between 9 - 5. The problem is merit is heavily at the side of A and other sets want the reward to not go with merit, but rather with participation itself.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      I find it interesting that HN commenters frequently take it for granted that someone who tinkered with programming at an early age and do side projects is a better performer at work. I have never seen any multiple-data-point evidence presented to support it. Sure, various prominent entrepreneurs used computers as hobbyists (Gates, Zuckerberg), but does that apply to the typical programmer? We all encountered students in classes who didn't study yet completely grokked their mathematics and algorithms coursework. Why is it so hard to believe that those quick learners use their time effectively at work? Additionally, a multiplier to good engineering is strong communication and organizational skills; those can be enhanced through social recreational activity, and diminished by spending leisure time in solitude. I'm not claiming either method is better, and intuitively the passionate engineer should win, but we shouldn't take it for granted until we get some actual information. Edit: there seems to be some belief that I don't value experience. It is extremely important. We just shouldn't take it for granted that programming at home is as valuable as work experience.
      - 9y ago
- Eridrus 9y ago
  I'm just going to go out on a limb here based on personal experience and say like 95%+ have a bachelor's degree or higher.
rhizome 9y ago
Sure, lack of advancement indicates a lack of ability. It's an old rationalization, but it's a post hoc fallacy. That is: lack of ability to do what? Can you clarify?
- manigandham 9y ago
  > lack of ability to do what To be recognized as more valuable.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Gustomaximus 9y ago
  This is a broad and complex question with many variables, especially the human element and needs deep context to answer. From this I am going to avoid the question as as I get the feeling this becomes 'internet nitpicking' at specifics on a broad issue. But if you'd be more specific in the question I'd be happy to discuss. Apologies if I have misunderstood.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    The Fundamental Attribution Error comes to mind, but the last time I mentioned it someone jumped on me a little about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- Spivak 9y ago
  Or just a lack of drive/desire. In my office almost all of the management positions are filed by women while almost all the technical people are men. I asked about it when I was first hired and most of the people in the office had been offered management positions at some point during their career and they tuned them down because they'd rather do engineering work than human work. Looking at the demographics you might suppose that there's a lot of bias and discrimination but it couldn't be further the truth. We just have lot of mobility and many options for salary increases without 'climbing the ladder' so everyone individually wound up where they wanted to be.
rdtsc 9y ago
It seem there are two issues at hand: 1) Women who are in tech get paid less then men. 2) There are less women in tech to begin with. They are related, in multiple ways perhaps and it's possible tease some links and accompanying explanations: a) Maybe women know they'll be paid less so they don't go into tech to start with. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. b) As you've identified, because of so few women in tech, individuals who end up in well paid positions by chance are less likely to be women as well. So it's a statistical explanation in way. c) There is sexism. I've seen it, together with xenophobia and other prejudices. And because of that women are rejected, as in not getting offers to start with, or even if hired not taken seriously. d) In order to fix 2) women were hired but they didn't have an equivalent skill set or experience as men, so they got the job, perhaps to fill some diversity metric, but they did worse in performance reviews later on so they get a smaller salary, less bonuses etc. Regarding d), I remember going out of the way to bring more women for onsite interviews trying to "fix" 2), that is I wanted to provide more opportunities for success and wanted to increase the diversity in the office. Most of the women failed the interview. I am sure c) was a contributing factor in some cases why the higher ups rejected them. But many simply didn't have their skill set at the level we were looking for. Had they've been offered and taken the job, they might found themselves in the position of getting a smaller salary and poor performance reviews down the road. Now this doesn't present any good solutions, and doesn't address the lawsuit at hand because I don't know enough details about it. So it is mostly a breakdown of the issue as I see and from personal experience, as I was in charge of recruiting and interviewing for a good number of years.
uiri 9y ago
In software engineering, the figure is much lower than 20%. It is at most 15%. The 20% figure includes anyone within a Tech department in the org chart. This means PMs, UX/UI designers, etc. I don't mean to minimize the level of technical competence in these roles. It is great that there are SWE-adjacent roles with 30%+ women. It irks me deeply that Google puts out these misleading statistics which then get parroted by the media and then everyone else.
fujiters 9y ago
This. Men make tons of excuses for their lack of success as well, it's just they can't get in on the discrimination complaint wagon. The Lake Wobegon effect and all that. I think a bit of the anti-"workplace diversity" movement is driven by this as well though. "I'd totally be division chief if the higher ups weren't working so hard to make their diversity numbers work out".

waqf 9y ago

> dont have the talent/drive etc Don't have the talent/drive/connections/hustle/luck …. There are more possibilities than just sexism vs. meritocracy. Edit: hey downvoters, I'm talking about why a random given person of any gender may not be progressing in their career. Read the context.

kevmo 9y ago

What percentage of programmers at Google have compsci degrees? What's the split like within that subset?

osmala 9y ago
What percentage of HIGH PAY ENGINEERING jobs in google have comp sci degrees, that's the true comparison. And then there is bigger issue here. It's really the obsession about percentages of women in X position. Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? I believe it is both very small and men are over represented there, and they are over represented in high paying computer jobs.
- kamaal 9y ago
  >>Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? Most people are not in the job because they like create things or build things. They are there because they want a job and nothing more. And they want a job where (unit of money)/(unit of work) has a higher value. That means they have to either figure out a way to make more money or do less work, or both. Therefore the question of early interest or passion is meaningless to most people. So as far as they are concerned, it rarely matters how set of people of identity A got to it. They think regardless of that if set A got it, other sets should get it too. This also creates other problems. Set A is likely to do side projects, write programs and hacks out of personal interest. Other sets looking at job as a return/effort metric will likely see why they are expected to do anything all all apart from working 5 hrs a day between 9 - 5. The problem is merit is heavily at the side of A and other sets want the reward to not go with merit, but rather with participation itself.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    I find it interesting that HN commenters frequently take it for granted that someone who tinkered with programming at an early age and do side projects is a better performer at work. I have never seen any multiple-data-point evidence presented to support it. Sure, various prominent entrepreneurs used computers as hobbyists (Gates, Zuckerberg), but does that apply to the typical programmer? We all encountered students in classes who didn't study yet completely grokked their mathematics and algorithms coursework. Why is it so hard to believe that those quick learners use their time effectively at work? Additionally, a multiplier to good engineering is strong communication and organizational skills; those can be enhanced through social recreational activity, and diminished by spending leisure time in solitude. I'm not claiming either method is better, and intuitively the passionate engineer should win, but we shouldn't take it for granted until we get some actual information. Edit: there seems to be some belief that I don't value experience. It is extremely important. We just shouldn't take it for granted that programming at home is as valuable as work experience.
    - 9y ago
Eridrus 9y ago
I'm just going to go out on a limb here based on personal experience and say like 95%+ have a bachelor's degree or higher.

rhizome 9y ago

Sure, lack of advancement indicates a lack of ability. It's an old rationalization, but it's a post hoc fallacy. That is: lack of ability to do what? Can you clarify?

manigandham 9y ago
> lack of ability to do what To be recognized as more valuable.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Gustomaximus 9y ago
This is a broad and complex question with many variables, especially the human element and needs deep context to answer. From this I am going to avoid the question as as I get the feeling this becomes 'internet nitpicking' at specifics on a broad issue. But if you'd be more specific in the question I'd be happy to discuss. Apologies if I have misunderstood.
- rhizome 9y ago
  The Fundamental Attribution Error comes to mind, but the last time I mentioned it someone jumped on me a little about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Spivak 9y ago
Or just a lack of drive/desire. In my office almost all of the management positions are filed by women while almost all the technical people are men. I asked about it when I was first hired and most of the people in the office had been offered management positions at some point during their career and they tuned them down because they'd rather do engineering work than human work. Looking at the demographics you might suppose that there's a lot of bias and discrimination but it couldn't be further the truth. We just have lot of mobility and many options for salary increases without 'climbing the ladder' so everyone individually wound up where they wanted to be.

rdtsc 9y ago

It seem there are two issues at hand: 1) Women who are in tech get paid less then men. 2) There are less women in tech to begin with. They are related, in multiple ways perhaps and it's possible tease some links and accompanying explanations: a) Maybe women know they'll be paid less so they don't go into tech to start with. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. b) As you've identified, because of so few women in tech, individuals who end up in well paid positions by chance are less likely to be women as well. So it's a statistical explanation in way. c) There is sexism. I've seen it, together with xenophobia and other prejudices. And because of that women are rejected, as in not getting offers to start with, or even if hired not taken seriously. d) In order to fix 2) women were hired but they didn't have an equivalent skill set or experience as men, so they got the job, perhaps to fill some diversity metric, but they did worse in performance reviews later on so they get a smaller salary, less bonuses etc. Regarding d), I remember going out of the way to bring more women for onsite interviews trying to "fix" 2), that is I wanted to provide more opportunities for success and wanted to increase the diversity in the office. Most of the women failed the interview. I am sure c) was a contributing factor in some cases why the higher ups rejected them. But many simply didn't have their skill set at the level we were looking for. Had they've been offered and taken the job, they might found themselves in the position of getting a smaller salary and poor performance reviews down the road. Now this doesn't present any good solutions, and doesn't address the lawsuit at hand because I don't know enough details about it. So it is mostly a breakdown of the issue as I see and from personal experience, as I was in charge of recruiting and interviewing for a good number of years.

uiri 9y ago

In software engineering, the figure is much lower than 20%. It is at most 15%. The 20% figure includes anyone within a Tech department in the org chart. This means PMs, UX/UI designers, etc. I don't mean to minimize the level of technical competence in these roles. It is great that there are SWE-adjacent roles with 30%+ women. It irks me deeply that Google puts out these misleading statistics which then get parroted by the media and then everyone else.

fujiters 9y ago

This. Men make tons of excuses for their lack of success as well, it's just they can't get in on the discrimination complaint wagon. The Lake Wobegon effect and all that. I think a bit of the anti-"workplace diversity" movement is driven by this as well though. "I'd totally be division chief if the higher ups weren't working so hard to make their diversity numbers work out".