3 ms·

I don't see why you're being downvoted. They literally say > We secured the best new graduates for software engineering roles, but we noticed something: they w

I don't see why you're being downvoted. They literally say > We secured the best new graduates for software engineering roles, but we noticed something: they were all male. So they did decide to look pass candidate performance. The problem is that they are bragging about simply hiring more females, anyone can do that. How the company will perform as result of that is what matters and they didn't address that at all.

microcolonel 9y ago
> The problem is that they are bragging about simply hiring more females, anyone can do that. How the company will perform as result of that is what matters and they didn't address that at all. The other rather interesting thing is that they seem to have introduced all of these measures at the same time; so they won't actually be able to analyze or compare the performance outcomes for a given year. The people who like the policies will say they're working great, but the year just didn't produce as many hires which turned out well (except perhaps through candidates from the schools which they did not remove from the list).
achompas 9y ago
> So they did decide to look pass candidate performance. Not quite. Your quote is missing context: they hired the best candidates from the schools they visited. That’s not the set of all schools, though! They tried to correct this by visiting schools whose CS demographics more closely match the general population.
- curiousgal 9y ago
  They also say > this meant going to some never-before-visited schools as well as cutting out a few schools that had been on our list before They wouldn't have eliminated those schools if the new schools produced better candidates.
  - achompas 9y ago
    Great catch, I missed that. EDIT: Wait, I rushed and misread your comment. Why wouldn't they eliminate these schools if the new schools produced better candidates? I would imagine it was the opposite: remove schools because the new schools produce better candidates, and time is finite.

microcolonel 9y ago

> The problem is that they are bragging about simply hiring more females, anyone can do that. How the company will perform as result of that is what matters and they didn't address that at all. The other rather interesting thing is that they seem to have introduced all of these measures at the same time; so they won't actually be able to analyze or compare the performance outcomes for a given year. The people who like the policies will say they're working great, but the year just didn't produce as many hires which turned out well (except perhaps through candidates from the schools which they did not remove from the list).

achompas 9y ago

> So they did decide to look pass candidate performance. Not quite. Your quote is missing context: they hired the best candidates from the schools they visited. That’s not the set of all schools, though! They tried to correct this by visiting schools whose CS demographics more closely match the general population.

curiousgal 9y ago
They also say > this meant going to some never-before-visited schools as well as cutting out a few schools that had been on our list before They wouldn't have eliminated those schools if the new schools produced better candidates.
- achompas 9y ago
  Great catch, I missed that. EDIT: Wait, I rushed and misread your comment. Why wouldn't they eliminate these schools if the new schools produced better candidates? I would imagine it was the opposite: remove schools because the new schools produce better candidates, and time is finite.