7 ms·

>So for those FAANG engineers that were able to get in early, whether by acquihire, by diversity hire, by luck, by normal hire Can we please stop assuming that

>So for those FAANG engineers that were able to get in early, whether by acquihire, by diversity hire, by luck, by normal hire Can we please stop assuming that being a minority or woman is some kind of hiring free pass? It's often quite the opposite. But more to your point, I've been cynically wondering if the untenably high bar set for technical interviews serves as an industry-wide means of lowering turnover. Also very confused about what constitutes a pass or failure, with the opaquely-defined expectations. I'd love to be able to prepare for my technicals, but usually end up wildly misleading information from recruiters about what the technical entails. (Why are you testing me on Java!? I never claimed to have any experience with Java. I was told this would be a behavioral interview!)

christiansakai 7y ago
I'm not assuming. I'm just describing my experiences and what I've seen with my own eyes, a few times. Take it as what it is. Btw I don't assume that women are strictly diversity hires. Nowhere I said that in my statement. There are many many amazing smart women everywhere, even CS professors that I respected during my education are women. I'm just saying that diversity hire exists, that's all. That is definitely one possibility. If you have studied a lot to get into an X companies and now you also need a lot of luck to get in, then it will deter you from quitting. So basically, for example, two questions, Leetcode Medium difficulty, there are a few solutions. One can be done in O(n^2) the other one can be done in O(n) (non trivial algorithm). You need to code the O(n) algorithm to pass. You also need to be able to do it in under 20 mins each (total 40 mins, 5 mins for questions to the interviewer and introduction). Sometimes the non trivial algorithm is an algorithm that you don't know, which in fact, was founded by some famous CS scientist. So in order to do that, you need to have studied that algorithm yourself and apply it during the interview. For example, Robin Karp algorithm, Knuth Morris Pratt algorithm, Djikstra algorithm.
manfredo 7y ago
At every company I have worked at, policies were in place to extend greater opportunity to URM and women candidates. Most large companies are setting diversity targets well in excess of the share of women and URM workers in software development other engineering roles at the company. This necessitates discrimination to achieve this over representation. For example, Dropbox announced a goal of 33% women in engineering roles when I was there in 2019. My currently employer has a goal of 30% women in engineering. This typically doesn't result in easier interviews. Rather it was implemented by giving recruiters incentives (larger bonuses, or penalties for failure to meet a certain %) to hire diverse candidates. At my current company, over 50% of engineering candidates phone screened last year were women (and were given phone screens at a rate twice as high as men). In other words, framing diversity hiring as "giving a free pass" isn't quite accurate. Rather the companies increase their diversity by adjusting the rate at which diverse and non-diverse candidates are let into the interview process.
- omar_a1 7y ago
  If we could quantify the net effects of sexism and racism in hiring and attrition, we could compare whether the incentives mentioned offset the sexism and racism equivalently. But, since we don't have a means of doing so, it's a futile discussion on this site. Also worth pointing out that just hiring a diverse candidate is pretty meaningless if they get bullied or harassed to the point of being forced out in a short order. But that's beside the point (or, beside the tangent to the point). The context of "diversity hire" above parallels being diverse and getting hired to an acquihire or getting lucky. That's very different than what you outlined above.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Whether one thinks that discrimination in hiring is justified to offset suspected discrimination in other areas is besides the point. The point is, there exists discrimination in hiring that results in women and URM candidates getting offers that would not have been obtained were it not for diversity status. The opportunities of people categorized as diverse in tech company interviewing is substantially different from those not categorized as diverse. Maybe I'm biased towards the SF bay area, but there's a palpable mismatch between how common and prevalent these practices are and the offense people take when they're acknowledged. I'm not sure why you think what I'm saying is different. At my company, white and asian male new grads are only given a chance to interview if they're CS (or math, EE, or other tech majors) grads from top universities like Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc. Candidates from boot camps, less well known universities, or non-tech majors are only extended the chance to interview if they're diverse. Does that mean that a diverse candidate from a boot camp who gets hired is unskilled? No, probably not. Does it mean that a diverse candidate from a boot camp would not have been hired if they weren't diverse? Yes, because non-diverse candidates from boot camps don't get interviewed at all. Maybe I'm biased toward the SF Bay Area, but the mismatch between the prevalence of these policies and the discomfort with acknowledgement of their existence is concerning.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - 7y ago

christiansakai 7y ago

I'm not assuming. I'm just describing my experiences and what I've seen with my own eyes, a few times. Take it as what it is. Btw I don't assume that women are strictly diversity hires. Nowhere I said that in my statement. There are many many amazing smart women everywhere, even CS professors that I respected during my education are women. I'm just saying that diversity hire exists, that's all. That is definitely one possibility. If you have studied a lot to get into an X companies and now you also need a lot of luck to get in, then it will deter you from quitting. So basically, for example, two questions, Leetcode Medium difficulty, there are a few solutions. One can be done in O(n^2) the other one can be done in O(n) (non trivial algorithm). You need to code the O(n) algorithm to pass. You also need to be able to do it in under 20 mins each (total 40 mins, 5 mins for questions to the interviewer and introduction). Sometimes the non trivial algorithm is an algorithm that you don't know, which in fact, was founded by some famous CS scientist. So in order to do that, you need to have studied that algorithm yourself and apply it during the interview. For example, Robin Karp algorithm, Knuth Morris Pratt algorithm, Djikstra algorithm.

manfredo 7y ago

At every company I have worked at, policies were in place to extend greater opportunity to URM and women candidates. Most large companies are setting diversity targets well in excess of the share of women and URM workers in software development other engineering roles at the company. This necessitates discrimination to achieve this over representation. For example, Dropbox announced a goal of 33% women in engineering roles when I was there in 2019. My currently employer has a goal of 30% women in engineering. This typically doesn't result in easier interviews. Rather it was implemented by giving recruiters incentives (larger bonuses, or penalties for failure to meet a certain %) to hire diverse candidates. At my current company, over 50% of engineering candidates phone screened last year were women (and were given phone screens at a rate twice as high as men). In other words, framing diversity hiring as "giving a free pass" isn't quite accurate. Rather the companies increase their diversity by adjusting the rate at which diverse and non-diverse candidates are let into the interview process.

omar_a1 7y ago
If we could quantify the net effects of sexism and racism in hiring and attrition, we could compare whether the incentives mentioned offset the sexism and racism equivalently. But, since we don't have a means of doing so, it's a futile discussion on this site. Also worth pointing out that just hiring a diverse candidate is pretty meaningless if they get bullied or harassed to the point of being forced out in a short order. But that's beside the point (or, beside the tangent to the point). The context of "diversity hire" above parallels being diverse and getting hired to an acquihire or getting lucky. That's very different than what you outlined above.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Whether one thinks that discrimination in hiring is justified to offset suspected discrimination in other areas is besides the point. The point is, there exists discrimination in hiring that results in women and URM candidates getting offers that would not have been obtained were it not for diversity status. The opportunities of people categorized as diverse in tech company interviewing is substantially different from those not categorized as diverse. Maybe I'm biased towards the SF bay area, but there's a palpable mismatch between how common and prevalent these practices are and the offense people take when they're acknowledged. I'm not sure why you think what I'm saying is different. At my company, white and asian male new grads are only given a chance to interview if they're CS (or math, EE, or other tech majors) grads from top universities like Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc. Candidates from boot camps, less well known universities, or non-tech majors are only extended the chance to interview if they're diverse. Does that mean that a diverse candidate from a boot camp who gets hired is unskilled? No, probably not. Does it mean that a diverse candidate from a boot camp would not have been hired if they weren't diverse? Yes, because non-diverse candidates from boot camps don't get interviewed at all. Maybe I'm biased toward the SF Bay Area, but the mismatch between the prevalence of these policies and the discomfort with acknowledgement of their existence is concerning.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7y ago