4 ms·

Even when I was there years ago, it was common knowledge amongst those of us who did hiring that women had an easier time in the interview process. For example,

Even when I was there years ago, it was common knowledge amongst those of us who did hiring that women had an easier time in the interview process. For example, females could not fail the first phone screens. They would always be forwarded to on-site interviews regardless of earlier performance. The justification was that weak performance at the initial screens would be taken into account later by the hiring committee, however men were given no such second chances.

908B64B197 6y ago
> however men were given no such second chances. That is, of course, if your resume doesn't get tossed out for not being diverse enough [0][1] [0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/new-lawsuit-exposes-googles-desperation-to-improve-diversity/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-lawsuit-exposes-googles-desp...
jrnichols 6y ago
This was my experience at a tech company in the Silicon Valley about 15 years ago. Women who applied were put at the top of the stack and guaranteed an in-person interview, over all other candidates. Even if they absolutely bombed the phone screening. We did end up having one potential candidate, but she was making a huge amount at her previous job and would not 'settle' for what was our sysadmin pay scale at the time. (I can't remember the exact numbers, but she was demanding at least 50% more than the top end of our pay scale.)
lrem 6y ago
I'm still doing this hiring thing (which really slowed down in the pandemic). Inviting people who bombed phone screens on site happens all the time. Some reasons behind that seem to be: gender, ethnicity, nationality, internal references, strong CV, recruiters d20. They do get filtered later. Over the years only one person who bombed an on site with me got hired. It was a young white man. I believe described this case on HN before.

908B64B197 6y ago

> however men were given no such second chances. That is, of course, if your resume doesn't get tossed out for not being diverse enough [0][1] [0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/new-lawsuit-exposes-googles-desperation-to-improve-diversity/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-lawsuit-exposes-googles-desp...

jrnichols 6y ago

This was my experience at a tech company in the Silicon Valley about 15 years ago. Women who applied were put at the top of the stack and guaranteed an in-person interview, over all other candidates. Even if they absolutely bombed the phone screening. We did end up having one potential candidate, but she was making a huge amount at her previous job and would not 'settle' for what was our sysadmin pay scale at the time. (I can't remember the exact numbers, but she was demanding at least 50% more than the top end of our pay scale.)

lrem 6y ago

I'm still doing this hiring thing (which really slowed down in the pandemic). Inviting people who bombed phone screens on site happens all the time. Some reasons behind that seem to be: gender, ethnicity, nationality, internal references, strong CV, recruiters d20. They do get filtered later. Over the years only one person who bombed an on site with me got hired. It was a young white man. I believe described this case on HN before.