5 ms·

I'm disappointed that "Key Reality" #2 and #4 in an article about addressing a gender related issue are both unsupported gender stereotypes. Those points could

I'm disappointed that "Key Reality" #2 and #4 in an article about addressing a gender related issue are both unsupported gender stereotypes. Those points could just as easily say 'people' instead of 'women', and as near as I can tell be just as true. I'm quite willing to believe that "People" tend to be conservative about switching jobs, especially if they've had a negative experience in the past. And I can see tech interviews set up "people" for failure; but I don't see anything specific to women in that, unless you want to start from some really negative stereotypes. Working on those issues will probably help your offer acceptance rate, regardless of gender - but you need to be sure you can still distinguish good candidates from bad candidates, so you can't just toss them entirely. So that leads us to the contrast between point #3, don't lower hiring standards, and the conclusion - a method of trying to get better results from reduced experience requirements when hiring. Getting good results from less experience is definitely something important and useful, but less experience -is- a lower standard, so I think the most interesting topic is there. Is watching people in hacker school really enough of an equalizer compared to years of experience? How does it compare to running an intern or co-op program? Is there any problem with the sponsored hackers getting trained on Etsy's dime but working for a competitor? How is hacker school different/better than working with a local university?

jeffdavis 14y ago
"but less experience -is- a lower standard" * If they are hiring for junior positions, perhaps not; perhaps they just expanded their junior engineering team. * If nobody hires junior female engineers now, there will be no senior female engineers later.
forrestthewoods 14y ago
When I read the article I knew someone would complain about those points and that'd it'd be the most upvoted comment. Point #2 I'll grant them. Maybe it's an over generalization and maybe it's not. It is however what they have seen in their experience so it's certainly their reality. Point #4 is a little odd, but I'm also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given everything they have done and are trying to do. Taken in the greater context I find it incredibly uncool to cry wolf at the slightest miscue. It'd be much easier to discuss sensitive issues if the first reaction wasn't to grab a pitchfork and rally the troops. Let's try this instead. Dear Etsy, I didn't fully understand your comment about interview processes generally setting women up for failure. Could you elaborate? Thanks.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  Point #4 is about interview anxiety, and the confrontational approach used by too many interviewers. These are the kind of interviewers that keep asking technical questions until they find something you don't know, just so they can deflate your ego during the interview. And yes, it's a problem that less-aggressive guys have to deal with as well. Sometimes we have to choose a bad situation, and sometimes it causes us to work for a competitor instead. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem, a pain point for some people, which could be solved.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    These are the kind of interviewers that keep asking technical questions until they find something you don't know, just so they can deflate your ego during the interview. If I ask questions at difficulty levels 1-7, and you flunk 7, I know you are a 6. If I stop at 4, all I know is that you are >=4.
    - stephengillie 14y ago
      Or you could discuss concepts at difficulty levels 1-7 and gauge how well I'm keeping up. The conversational interview is just as effective, more disarming, and more pleasant. I'd dare say it's more humane.
      - barry-cotter 14y ago
        Please defend your assertion that this undoubtedly more humane method of interviewing is as effective as the brutal way.
    - gcheong 14y ago
      The problem here is the pressure of the time limit which is only compounded by starting off easy in the beginning where there is more time and then ending with the hardest problems which take the longest to solve. Then the question as was raised in the original point 4 is what are you really trying to interview for - speed or the ability to develop a solution in a collaborative manner given a minimum expectation of intelligence?
schoper 14y ago
"Unsupported gender stereotypes." Stated also as "opinions based on experience." Possibly also "opinions based on experience that contradict one's equality indoctrination in kindergarten and therefore deserve loud public indignation."
- fleitz 14y ago
  The fundamental problem with most stereotypes is that there is generally much more information available by asking the individual. eg. Instead of assuming women are more conservative, just ask the candidate, ask questions surrounding their risk profile. There are great tools one can use from the finance industry to assess an individuals risk profile and tailor an employment package that meets their profile. Some candidates like myself (a guy) want more time off because we'd rather spend time with family than coding. If you can create a tailored work environment you'll have no problem attracting talent that's diverse, instead of just a bunch of people who like to work 80 hours a week. If you offer one size fits all employment you will hire people only for who that size fits. If you offer bespoke employment you'll hire bespoke individuals.
  - schoper 14y ago
    In a world of perfect information, that would work. In a Bayesian world (ours), it doesn't work. Say that you have two types of widgets, widget A and widget B. Both have tolerances that fall along the same normal distribution but with different means. The mean for widget A is off by 0.1mm, and the mean for widget B is off by 0.2 mm. Now, say that you measure each widget before accepting it, using a perfect measuring function. In this case, it doesn't matter whether you use widget A or widget B. However, in the real world, you have an imperfect measuring function. Say that it gives you an answer along a normal distribution with some standard deviation. Does this make the case for widget A or widget B different? Yes, you'll have more widgets fall within tolerances if you only use widget A. To further improve the model, you would want to know the rejection cost of using an incorrectly sized widget and the supply-demand costs involved in only using widgets of type A. The results of the optimization problem would tell you how much of widget A versus widget B to use.
- 14y ago
fleitz 14y ago
I don't know why anyone would be hesitant to join companies' with uncertain financials with unremunerated risk... probably has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with intelligence. Buying lottery tickets is not a wealth building strategy. They talk a lot about diversity and then talk about ivy league, how much diversity are you really getting from focusing on such small segments of the workforce? Unless they are specifically targeting the Ivy league Harvard's grad gender ratio should mean absolutely nothing. I don't see what being born to wealthy parents has to do with good developers, or diversity. The article might as well say "We're diverse because we hire people who think the same but have different genitals"
- JPKab 14y ago
  Your point about the Ivy League is, sadly, waay too true. The Ivy League is way too weak on socioeconomic diversity. I think a classic, and rather accurate criticism of efforts to increase diversity is the notion of what "diversity" actually means. How many students does Harvard have who grew up in trailer parks in Appalachia? Certainly these students, culturally, would be more different, and therefore increase "diversity" more than a black student raised by a wealthy family in a New England suburb. What about an Asian student who is from a poor Hmong family in Minnesota? It seems current admission policies would lump her in with all of the other Asian students which the Ivy League has used a defacto cap to limit. What has always been weird to me is the widespread observation (and most certainly accurate) that organizations with huge gender imbalances are more prone to weird groupthink type issues (Wall Street's excessive risk taking, hospital nurse/elementary school infighting), and a constant notion of "we need more women here." But when companies try to talk about solutions, there is suddenly a requirement to view women as exactly the same as men. If the effect of having more women in an organization will change the organization (for the better, according to research), it is very likely that women have some inherent attributes which make them differ from men.
chernevik 14y ago
A company increases its woman engineers by 450%. But they're getting dinged on the language they use to discuss the problem they were trying to solve? It's almost as if some people are more concerned with policing language than with actually getting anything done.
- Scriptor 14y ago
  When they're trying to explain how they were able to increase women hires, it's useful to get actual information rather than what seems like filler.

jeffdavis 14y ago

"but less experience -is- a lower standard" * If they are hiring for junior positions, perhaps not; perhaps they just expanded their junior engineering team. * If nobody hires junior female engineers now, there will be no senior female engineers later.

forrestthewoods 14y ago

When I read the article I knew someone would complain about those points and that'd it'd be the most upvoted comment. Point #2 I'll grant them. Maybe it's an over generalization and maybe it's not. It is however what they have seen in their experience so it's certainly their reality. Point #4 is a little odd, but I'm also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given everything they have done and are trying to do. Taken in the greater context I find it incredibly uncool to cry wolf at the slightest miscue. It'd be much easier to discuss sensitive issues if the first reaction wasn't to grab a pitchfork and rally the troops. Let's try this instead. Dear Etsy, I didn't fully understand your comment about interview processes generally setting women up for failure. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

stephengillie 14y ago
Point #4 is about interview anxiety, and the confrontational approach used by too many interviewers. These are the kind of interviewers that keep asking technical questions until they find something you don't know, just so they can deflate your ego during the interview. And yes, it's a problem that less-aggressive guys have to deal with as well. Sometimes we have to choose a bad situation, and sometimes it causes us to work for a competitor instead. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem, a pain point for some people, which could be solved.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  These are the kind of interviewers that keep asking technical questions until they find something you don't know, just so they can deflate your ego during the interview. If I ask questions at difficulty levels 1-7, and you flunk 7, I know you are a 6. If I stop at 4, all I know is that you are >=4.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    Or you could discuss concepts at difficulty levels 1-7 and gauge how well I'm keeping up. The conversational interview is just as effective, more disarming, and more pleasant. I'd dare say it's more humane.
    - barry-cotter 14y ago
      Please defend your assertion that this undoubtedly more humane method of interviewing is as effective as the brutal way.
  - gcheong 14y ago
    The problem here is the pressure of the time limit which is only compounded by starting off easy in the beginning where there is more time and then ending with the hardest problems which take the longest to solve. Then the question as was raised in the original point 4 is what are you really trying to interview for - speed or the ability to develop a solution in a collaborative manner given a minimum expectation of intelligence?

schoper 14y ago

"Unsupported gender stereotypes." Stated also as "opinions based on experience." Possibly also "opinions based on experience that contradict one's equality indoctrination in kindergarten and therefore deserve loud public indignation."

fleitz 14y ago
The fundamental problem with most stereotypes is that there is generally much more information available by asking the individual. eg. Instead of assuming women are more conservative, just ask the candidate, ask questions surrounding their risk profile. There are great tools one can use from the finance industry to assess an individuals risk profile and tailor an employment package that meets their profile. Some candidates like myself (a guy) want more time off because we'd rather spend time with family than coding. If you can create a tailored work environment you'll have no problem attracting talent that's diverse, instead of just a bunch of people who like to work 80 hours a week. If you offer one size fits all employment you will hire people only for who that size fits. If you offer bespoke employment you'll hire bespoke individuals.
- schoper 14y ago
  In a world of perfect information, that would work. In a Bayesian world (ours), it doesn't work. Say that you have two types of widgets, widget A and widget B. Both have tolerances that fall along the same normal distribution but with different means. The mean for widget A is off by 0.1mm, and the mean for widget B is off by 0.2 mm. Now, say that you measure each widget before accepting it, using a perfect measuring function. In this case, it doesn't matter whether you use widget A or widget B. However, in the real world, you have an imperfect measuring function. Say that it gives you an answer along a normal distribution with some standard deviation. Does this make the case for widget A or widget B different? Yes, you'll have more widgets fall within tolerances if you only use widget A. To further improve the model, you would want to know the rejection cost of using an incorrectly sized widget and the supply-demand costs involved in only using widgets of type A. The results of the optimization problem would tell you how much of widget A versus widget B to use.
14y ago

fleitz 14y ago

I don't know why anyone would be hesitant to join companies' with uncertain financials with unremunerated risk... probably has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with intelligence. Buying lottery tickets is not a wealth building strategy. They talk a lot about diversity and then talk about ivy league, how much diversity are you really getting from focusing on such small segments of the workforce? Unless they are specifically targeting the Ivy league Harvard's grad gender ratio should mean absolutely nothing. I don't see what being born to wealthy parents has to do with good developers, or diversity. The article might as well say "We're diverse because we hire people who think the same but have different genitals"

JPKab 14y ago
Your point about the Ivy League is, sadly, waay too true. The Ivy League is way too weak on socioeconomic diversity. I think a classic, and rather accurate criticism of efforts to increase diversity is the notion of what "diversity" actually means. How many students does Harvard have who grew up in trailer parks in Appalachia? Certainly these students, culturally, would be more different, and therefore increase "diversity" more than a black student raised by a wealthy family in a New England suburb. What about an Asian student who is from a poor Hmong family in Minnesota? It seems current admission policies would lump her in with all of the other Asian students which the Ivy League has used a defacto cap to limit. What has always been weird to me is the widespread observation (and most certainly accurate) that organizations with huge gender imbalances are more prone to weird groupthink type issues (Wall Street's excessive risk taking, hospital nurse/elementary school infighting), and a constant notion of "we need more women here." But when companies try to talk about solutions, there is suddenly a requirement to view women as exactly the same as men. If the effect of having more women in an organization will change the organization (for the better, according to research), it is very likely that women have some inherent attributes which make them differ from men.

chernevik 14y ago

A company increases its woman engineers by 450%. But they're getting dinged on the language they use to discuss the problem they were trying to solve? It's almost as if some people are more concerned with policing language than with actually getting anything done.

Scriptor 14y ago
When they're trying to explain how they were able to increase women hires, it's useful to get actual information rather than what seems like filler.