4 ms·

Are you saying the top X% is racially skewed? Because all things being equal, if the only difference between the two groups is color of their skin, I'd say that

Are you saying the top X% is racially skewed? Because all things being equal, if the only difference between the two groups is color of their skin, I'd say that was a textbook definition of racial bias.

strken 8y ago
The question isn't whether there's racial bias anywhere in the pipeline from conception to employment, because there clearly is. It's whether there's racial bias in the SV companies themselves, or whether it happens exclusively in earlier stages.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  He's explicitly rejecting the notion that the already skewed nationwide tech population is relevant. One would think, that if I was a large company recruiting nationwide, with brand name that's a resume magnet, I would be drawing from the skewed nationwide tech population, because that's what's entering the pipeline. If controlling for geographic factors, that's not what's coming out, something looks amiss. He explicitly is saying that "talent" is determining factor. That seems odd, since that would be conditionally independent.
zepto 8y ago
All things are not equal. Black Americans as a group are poorer than other racial groups save perhaps native Americans, and have worse educational outcomes on average. Is this the result of institutional racism? I’d say so, but it also can be a cause or underrepresentation in higher skilled employment, even if the employers are not biased in their selection processes.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  Yes there are population biases in the hiring and funding data. No one denies that. What he said was "the top x% of the tech population". The tech distribution as a whole is already skewed. If talent was independent of race, you'd expect an equally skewed distribution at whatever talent threshold you set. That's how conditional independence works. His statement is implying that is not true, and that if you set the talent threshold high, you get a different racial distribution. That's a very important distinction, if that is indeed what he's saying. I really think this is what he's saying, because he's explicitly stating that large companies that recruit nationwide should be have a population equal to the skewed nationwide tech population, because they higher only "the top x% of the tech population". Not confounding geographic reasons (i.e. someone doesn't want to move away from their family), but specifically talent reasons.
- jameane 8y ago
  This also plays a role. It would be important to note that the Bay Area also has a very different dynamic than let's say the south or the easy coast where there is also a much longer history of middle and upper middle class black families. For example DC has a huge college educated black population because the government was one of the few places you could get a well paying as a black person with less discrimination. So lots of people decided to settle there. Atlanta has a lot of historically black colleges - creating a pool of educated workers. In CA, most of the black population came over as blue collar workers in the military, shipyards, and manufacturing. Whereas most of the Asian population is made up of professional worker or affluent educated immigrants. Yes I am generalizing here. We don't do a good job of carving out the differences for Asian groups. East Asians tend to be super educated, southeast asians tend to not be, and the outcomes are also widely different.

strken 8y ago

The question isn't whether there's racial bias anywhere in the pipeline from conception to employment, because there clearly is. It's whether there's racial bias in the SV companies themselves, or whether it happens exclusively in earlier stages.

jonathankoren 8y ago
He's explicitly rejecting the notion that the already skewed nationwide tech population is relevant. One would think, that if I was a large company recruiting nationwide, with brand name that's a resume magnet, I would be drawing from the skewed nationwide tech population, because that's what's entering the pipeline. If controlling for geographic factors, that's not what's coming out, something looks amiss. He explicitly is saying that "talent" is determining factor. That seems odd, since that would be conditionally independent.

zepto 8y ago

All things are not equal. Black Americans as a group are poorer than other racial groups save perhaps native Americans, and have worse educational outcomes on average. Is this the result of institutional racism? I’d say so, but it also can be a cause or underrepresentation in higher skilled employment, even if the employers are not biased in their selection processes.

jonathankoren 8y ago
Yes there are population biases in the hiring and funding data. No one denies that. What he said was "the top x% of the tech population". The tech distribution as a whole is already skewed. If talent was independent of race, you'd expect an equally skewed distribution at whatever talent threshold you set. That's how conditional independence works. His statement is implying that is not true, and that if you set the talent threshold high, you get a different racial distribution. That's a very important distinction, if that is indeed what he's saying. I really think this is what he's saying, because he's explicitly stating that large companies that recruit nationwide should be have a population equal to the skewed nationwide tech population, because they higher only "the top x% of the tech population". Not confounding geographic reasons (i.e. someone doesn't want to move away from their family), but specifically talent reasons.
jameane 8y ago
This also plays a role. It would be important to note that the Bay Area also has a very different dynamic than let's say the south or the easy coast where there is also a much longer history of middle and upper middle class black families. For example DC has a huge college educated black population because the government was one of the few places you could get a well paying as a black person with less discrimination. So lots of people decided to settle there. Atlanta has a lot of historically black colleges - creating a pool of educated workers. In CA, most of the black population came over as blue collar workers in the military, shipyards, and manufacturing. Whereas most of the Asian population is made up of professional worker or affluent educated immigrants. Yes I am generalizing here. We don't do a good job of carving out the differences for Asian groups. East Asians tend to be super educated, southeast asians tend to not be, and the outcomes are also widely different.