5 ms·

I can confirm your observations. At my company we have a couple policies. 1. We only accept applicstions from candidate from non-traditional backgrounds if the

I can confirm your observations. At my company we have a couple policies. 1. We only accept applicstions from candidate from non-traditional backgrounds if they're diverse. Diverse is defined as any of the following: women, black, Hispanic, or native American - maybe also veterans but I'm not sure. Non-traditional background means coming from a coding boot camp, or majoring in a non-computing related field. I think after 3 years industry experience candidates are considered traditional even if they came from one of those two.* 2. Diverse candidates get two attempts to pass the technical phone interview, non diverse get one.* That said, when it comes to the hiring decision we don't discriminate. No disrespect for those candidates considered diverse, just take what you get. And I'm Cuban myself (but not visibly Latino) so I may have benefitted from that part of my identity myself. Untimely I think the lower representation of Black and Hispanic people in tech roles is reflective of education rates. I suspect that were incomes and education more equal that would make representation in tech more equal. There also geography. Not many tech companies in the south where most black people live. As for women thats a more difficult situation. I think that there's strong evidence to back up the claim that women may not choose to enter tech on their own volition. I think the solution to that is to emphasize the value of fields other than tech. Being coder at Google doesn't make a person any more valuable than a lawyer, marketer, salesperson, etc. Sure they may make more money, but that's the product of the labor market. And not to mention the average lawyer probably makes more than the average coder. I've anecdotally seen a growing portion of coding boot camp that are exclusive to certain demographics. I wonder how much of that is due to policies like these. Especially for boot camps that only charge if the graduates get jobs in tech, I can see how it would be disadvantageous to admit white and Asian men. * Edit: I just checked and these policies also apply to people with referrals. So one could justify this by saying we treat diverse candidates as though they have a referral.

pacala 8y ago
> Diverse candidates get two attempts to pass the technical phone interview, non diverse get one. These rhyme with soviet era policies circa 1950-1960 in Eastern Europe. At universities, there was an admission exam for 'healthy origin' people for the majority of the spots, and then another exam where everybody, including those failing the first time, could compete for the scraps. We all know how that turned out economically speaking. Seeing the same policies in XXI century USA is surreal.
- manfredo 8y ago
  To be fair, the tech companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The media has been heavily pushing the narrative that women are underrepresented at these tech companies - and they are compared to the general population. But I've seen plenty of stories, even from reputable sources like the NYT, criticizing tech companies for only hiring 20-25% women while failing to mention that this is exactly in line with the percentages of tech workers that are women. Same sort of deal with URM. Ironically, the concern over discrimination in tech is itself the cause of a significant amount of explicit discrimination.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But I've seen plenty of stories, even from reputable sources like the NYT, criticizing tech companies for only hiring 20-25% women while failing to mention that this is exactly in line with the percentages of tech workers that are women. If the industry is systematically unfavorable to women, hiring at the same percentage as the industry as a whole (which is what matching the “percentage of tech workers that are women” is) is indicative of being fully on-line with the average degree to which the industry is systematically unfavorable to women. It would be inconsistent to criticize the industry but not firms that were dead in the middle of the pack.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Sure, but everyone seems to be assuming that it's systematically unfavorable towards women solely based on the fact that women make up less than parity. That claim only works if one assumes that any disparity is the result of systematic bias.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - pathseeker 8y ago
      >If the industry is systematically unfavorable to women It's not. The CS graduation ratio is just as bad.
jordigh 8y ago
If it's any consolation about how we underrepresented but unqualified idiots are getting hired everywhere, I've interviewed with Mozilla a couple of times now, selecting the "yep, I'm Mexican" tickbox, and this hasn't gotten me any more hired there either of the times I've interviewed. I must be really awful if I can't get hired as a Mexican, eh?
- manfredo 8y ago
  This misrepresentating my company's approach. We don't hire underqualified applicants if they're diverse. Rather we deliberately make it harder for white and Asian men to get to the on-site.
  - llama052 8y ago
    So the company is openly discriminating then?
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Openly... I'm not so sure. In our all hands meeting our head of HR consistently denies that diverse candidates are treated differently. When the Damore memo was sent out one of our senior VPs of engineering explicitly denied preference for diverse candidates. But we do have tools for recruiters to cross reference applicant names with the US census bureau's data to infer race and gender. We give recruiter bigger bonuses for diverse hires and we set specific % targets for them in their OKRs (basically quarterly goals. They don't get fired if they go under this, so I hesitate to call it a quota). That, and the aforementioned practices surrounding interviews and non traditional backgrounds. Looking deeper at the documentation, I think the company maintains plausible deniability by giving recruiters discretionary authority over things like number of phone interviews and initial resume review coupled with hiring targets well above the industry average (current target for women is 33%). So the company does openly discriminate, but it gives recruiters the tools and discretion to discriminate as well as goals that essentially require discrimination to achieve - after that it's "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". My previous statements about non traditional backgrounds and 2nd phone interviews came from recruiters themselves. I can also confirm that, absent a referral, I've done 2nd phone screens for diverse candidates and have never interviewed a non-diverse candidate from a non-traditional background.
llama052 8y ago
Is it fair to claim equal opportunity when you give more opportunities to other people? You are ultimately selecting the factors which could affect the outcome of that opportunity. How is that not discrimination? How do you pick and choose what you consider diverse? When you select the factors you're ultimately not an equal opportunity employer anymore in my opinion.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Is it fair to claim equal opportunity when you give more opportunities to other people? Googles careers page advertises that they're both in equal opportunity employer and an affirmative action employer: > Google is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an affirmative action employer. https://careers.google.com/teams/?&src=Online/House%20Ads/BKWS&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9LkBRDnARIsAGQ-hUfIAN9TivYzOUGaZTovMzvtS7Dfjaouwl0Q7Awn0VpV_F_HzhNsaO8aAmCvEALw_wcB https://careers.google.com/teams/?&src=Online/House%20Ads/BK... So I guess the answer is yes.
  - llama052 8y ago
    That's so strange to me, how do you define equal opportunity when you directly affect that opportunity based on third party factors out of someones control.
    - throwawayvv 8y ago
      Newspeak!
    - rosege 8y ago
      I believe oxymoron is what its called. [a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction]
jriot 8y ago
As a veteran, it has worked against me. Next time I apply somewhere I am going to check Cajun or other since we have 'ethnic status'. I am certain we Cajuns aren't well represented in tech.
tracker1 8y ago
So 40-45% of the population gets the shaft is what you're saying. While I understand a desire to have a more diverse company in general.. the overall population is definitely not 1:1:1:1 for each ethnic/gender group... And every tech hiring study I've seen seems to indicate a bias in favor of women, meaning the issue is either self-selective or generally in education circles, which is driving the issue.
dimgl 8y ago
How does anyone see this and not think this is absolutely insane? Surely this is illegal?

pacala 8y ago

> Diverse candidates get two attempts to pass the technical phone interview, non diverse get one. These rhyme with soviet era policies circa 1950-1960 in Eastern Europe. At universities, there was an admission exam for 'healthy origin' people for the majority of the spots, and then another exam where everybody, including those failing the first time, could compete for the scraps. We all know how that turned out economically speaking. Seeing the same policies in XXI century USA is surreal.

manfredo 8y ago
To be fair, the tech companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The media has been heavily pushing the narrative that women are underrepresented at these tech companies - and they are compared to the general population. But I've seen plenty of stories, even from reputable sources like the NYT, criticizing tech companies for only hiring 20-25% women while failing to mention that this is exactly in line with the percentages of tech workers that are women. Same sort of deal with URM. Ironically, the concern over discrimination in tech is itself the cause of a significant amount of explicit discrimination.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But I've seen plenty of stories, even from reputable sources like the NYT, criticizing tech companies for only hiring 20-25% women while failing to mention that this is exactly in line with the percentages of tech workers that are women. If the industry is systematically unfavorable to women, hiring at the same percentage as the industry as a whole (which is what matching the “percentage of tech workers that are women” is) is indicative of being fully on-line with the average degree to which the industry is systematically unfavorable to women. It would be inconsistent to criticize the industry but not firms that were dead in the middle of the pack.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Sure, but everyone seems to be assuming that it's systematically unfavorable towards women solely based on the fact that women make up less than parity. That claim only works if one assumes that any disparity is the result of systematic bias.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    >If the industry is systematically unfavorable to women It's not. The CS graduation ratio is just as bad.

jordigh 8y ago

If it's any consolation about how we underrepresented but unqualified idiots are getting hired everywhere, I've interviewed with Mozilla a couple of times now, selecting the "yep, I'm Mexican" tickbox, and this hasn't gotten me any more hired there either of the times I've interviewed. I must be really awful if I can't get hired as a Mexican, eh?

manfredo 8y ago
This misrepresentating my company's approach. We don't hire underqualified applicants if they're diverse. Rather we deliberately make it harder for white and Asian men to get to the on-site.
- llama052 8y ago
  So the company is openly discriminating then?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Openly... I'm not so sure. In our all hands meeting our head of HR consistently denies that diverse candidates are treated differently. When the Damore memo was sent out one of our senior VPs of engineering explicitly denied preference for diverse candidates. But we do have tools for recruiters to cross reference applicant names with the US census bureau's data to infer race and gender. We give recruiter bigger bonuses for diverse hires and we set specific % targets for them in their OKRs (basically quarterly goals. They don't get fired if they go under this, so I hesitate to call it a quota). That, and the aforementioned practices surrounding interviews and non traditional backgrounds. Looking deeper at the documentation, I think the company maintains plausible deniability by giving recruiters discretionary authority over things like number of phone interviews and initial resume review coupled with hiring targets well above the industry average (current target for women is 33%). So the company does openly discriminate, but it gives recruiters the tools and discretion to discriminate as well as goals that essentially require discrimination to achieve - after that it's "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". My previous statements about non traditional backgrounds and 2nd phone interviews came from recruiters themselves. I can also confirm that, absent a referral, I've done 2nd phone screens for diverse candidates and have never interviewed a non-diverse candidate from a non-traditional background.

llama052 8y ago

Is it fair to claim equal opportunity when you give more opportunities to other people? You are ultimately selecting the factors which could affect the outcome of that opportunity. How is that not discrimination? How do you pick and choose what you consider diverse? When you select the factors you're ultimately not an equal opportunity employer anymore in my opinion.

manfredo 8y ago
> Is it fair to claim equal opportunity when you give more opportunities to other people? Googles careers page advertises that they're both in equal opportunity employer and an affirmative action employer: > Google is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an affirmative action employer. https://careers.google.com/teams/?&src=Online/House%20Ads/BKWS&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9LkBRDnARIsAGQ-hUfIAN9TivYzOUGaZTovMzvtS7Dfjaouwl0Q7Awn0VpV_F_HzhNsaO8aAmCvEALw_wcB https://careers.google.com/teams/?&src=Online/House%20Ads/BK... So I guess the answer is yes.
- llama052 8y ago
  That's so strange to me, how do you define equal opportunity when you directly affect that opportunity based on third party factors out of someones control.
  - throwawayvv 8y ago
    Newspeak!
  - rosege 8y ago
    I believe oxymoron is what its called. [a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction]

jriot 8y ago

As a veteran, it has worked against me. Next time I apply somewhere I am going to check Cajun or other since we have 'ethnic status'. I am certain we Cajuns aren't well represented in tech.

tracker1 8y ago

So 40-45% of the population gets the shaft is what you're saying. While I understand a desire to have a more diverse company in general.. the overall population is definitely not 1:1:1:1 for each ethnic/gender group... And every tech hiring study I've seen seems to indicate a bias in favor of women, meaning the issue is either self-selective or generally in education circles, which is driving the issue.

dimgl 8y ago

How does anyone see this and not think this is absolutely insane? Surely this is illegal?