4 ms·
Weirded how, if you don't mind elaborating slightly? For example, does it mean: the actual skill level (e.g., smartness) people actually look for and hire hasn
by realityfactchex 2y ago
Weirded how, if you don't mind elaborating slightly?
For example, does it mean: the actual skill level (e.g., smartness) people actually look for and hire hasn't changed, but the activities that hiring teams require candidates to have experience with are (seemingly weirdly) not a great thing to need anyway and therefore lots of great candidates end up twiddling their thumbs?
In that way, the "height" of the bar is the same, but it's a "weird" bar, in that one could have to accept it for what it is, or even stoop to it, or perhaps shift over to it, in order to pass it?
Or more that the overall interview experiences are weird caricatures in and of themselves?
Weird is a great word, but it can be a little non-specific, so I'm left curious about the intended usage/meaning.
- rdfc-xn-uuid 2y ago[flagged]
- MrVandemar 2y ago> It hurts when you see posh privileged urban women having much more chance of getting into a good company than a man who worked his way up through sacrifice. It's not a gender issue. I would be looking to hire someone competent who works hard, not someone who makes "sacrifices" and then expects a job/promotion. The latter never works. That's not the work culture in most places. I've seen it many times, people who make "sacrifices", allowing themselves to be exploited, expecting some promotion from it, and are then passed over for someone who actually has demonstrated they are good at the job and ready for more responsibility, and not being a doormat. Then they become resentful. Don't be bitter. Be better.
- sambapa 2y agoBut they are better, that's his point lolwut
- MrVandemar 2y agoThat is not the poster's point. The poster contends women are being prejudicially hired as "diversity" rather men who have "sacrificed" and worked hard. "lolwut" indeed.
- throw111424 2y ago[flagged]
- latentcall 2y agoYour perceived truth maybe. The truth you’re looking for to fit your world view.
- sambapa 2y agoThe best track on elseq 4
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoAre you asserting that companies in a free market are intentionally hiring people unqualified for their jobs and paying them wages as if they were qualified? To what end?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- randomdata 2y agoRight, but certain careers have figured out that women are, on average, better at the socialization game and thus, broadly speaking, a better fit for the job. Ain't nobody "diversity" hiring on the oil rigs or other jobs where the physical act is more important than interpersonal interaction. However, it is difficult to measure those positive traits for what they are, so employers are selecting based on gender hoping for positive correlation. But that's illegal, so "diversity" hiring was created as a scapegoat to help avoid legal fire.
- throw111424 2y ago[flagged]
- greenie_beans 2y ago> From my experience there are relatively few women who really get in the trenches. have you ever heard of the word "bias"? > Staring at logs in a terminal and sifting through endless YAML not so much. i did not know that one gender could be better at this work. that seems like huge news if true. and yes, you sound like a reactionary. coward ass throwaway account.
- randomdata 2y ago> i did not know that one gender could be better at this work. that seems like huge news if true. There is research that has shown that men are, on average, better at single-focus tasks. And, indeed, it was huge news at the time the research was published – at least as huge as being reported in major news publications is. It wouldn't be huge news now. We quickly grow bored and tired of widely reported things from the past. Humans, of all genders it seems, tend to seek novelty.
- greenie_beans 2y agoplease share this, i'm dying to read this.
- randomdata 2y agoRIP
- greenie_beans 2y agodang, i guess i'll die never knowing the truth
- randomdata 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- norwalkbear 2y agoI think it does work, just look who won the presidential election thanks to Men
- greenie_beans 2y ago> * Diversity hiring: Big US/EU companies are trying to hire more females here because cost is low and they can show great diversity numbers. It hurts when you see posh privileged urban women having much more chance of getting into a good company than a man who worked his way up through sacrifice. do you have any examples of this happening? or is this just a boogie man? my experience has been different: so many mediocre men in this industry. all of the women i've worked with have been brilliant.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kmmlng 2y agoI always got the feeling that the distributions were different for men and women. Male professionals seem to be normally distributed, with a lot of mediocrity, some excellence, and some incompetence. In women, the mediocrity part of the population seems to be missing, so the distribution looks more bimodal. If that's actually the case and not just a warped perception on my part, it could easily happen that, depending on your own skill-level and environment, you'll be more likely to work with one of the two groups in the bimodal distribution.
- memtet 2y ago[dead]
- consteval 2y agoI've had the same experience, and I've reasoned it as follows: It's very difficult to be a woman in Computer Science. CompSci is uniquely awful for women. Like other STEM, it's overrun by men, so you get all the subtle discrimination of that. But CompSci men also tend to be, for lack of a better word, asocial weirdos. Civil engineers have to work with people, CompSci people built up their skills in front of a screen. All this means that the large majority of women are filtered out. The ones that remain are the ones most skilled with navigating tough situations, and who have a strong passion for engineering. A passion strong enough to wade through the downsides. I also think they have to constantly prove themselves, which also builds up their skills.
- trentnix 2y agoMany companies are filtering candidates in favor of mercenaries while pretending they are looking for dependable, committed professionals. If you don’t have specific experience with some CTOs favorite esoteric API or don’t have experience in the same, specific corner of some insurance or usury industry, your ability to actually engineer solutions is considered irrelevant. It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about the application of algorithms to data structures to accomplish some user need. Instead, company after company wants to hot glue some service via some API using some framework on some cloud platform. And because the MBA decision-maker can write Excel macros with GPT, we don’t need programmers to build systems anymore. Just wire up foo SaaS to bar SaaS and MVPFailFastLeanAgile our way to success! Sorry for the rant…
- dartos 2y agoYeah well what do recruiters know about software development? They just know the keywords the EMs and C suite sent them in the headcount request.
- realityfactchex 2y agoThanks, much appreciated
- scott_w 2y ago> It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about... This really isn't new. A look at Slashdot will give you similar complaints as far back as at least the 2000s. I'm sure someone older than me will dig up Usenet posts with exactly the same complaints and tell me to get off their lawn ;-)