4 ms·
If only 12% of Computer Science majors why do company's strive for a 50% split?
I am trying to understand this and honestly can't make sense of it. If only 12% of Computer Science majors are women then why do companies strive for a 50/50 split? It seems like it would cause discrimination towards males? Could someone explain this for me?
Where the 12% comes from: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Women_in_computing
- frozenport 12y agoBecause 50% of humans are women.
- questions 12y agoYes, but not 50% of computer scientist are women. You don't see schools trying to get 50% males as teachers. It has to do with major choice.
- MalcolmDiggs 12y agoBecause companies strive for the best possible candidates, and 50% of those are women, regardless of what they happened to major in. The gender-imbalance in computer science is an artificial barrier, exactly the kind that should be statistically eliminated by a thorough equal-opportunity application process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity)
- questions 12y agoIf only 12% of the candidate pool is women, shouldn't 12% of the jobs be held by women? Doesn't this make it much easier for a women to get a job over a man?
- MalcolmDiggs 12y agoWho said 12% of the candidate pool was women? 12% of the majors are, that's not the same thing. I think many tech companies want the smartest people they can possibly find. By that measure, 50% of the candidate pool is women. And no, it's not easier for a woman to land a job than a man. If it was, we wouldn't be seeing the abysmal diversity numbers we're currently seeing.
- yzzxy 12y agoStriving for 50% creates high demand in the labor market for female CS workers, which incentivizes colleges to strive for the same 50/50 ratio (many now do, see CMU) to fill all-important hiring and starting salary metrics. It also encourages young women to consider CS as a career. Over time, this could fix the gender imbalance issue in tech.
- questions 12y agoDoesn't it screw over the current males who are applying for jobs and loosing out on positions because I female is preferred over them?
- yzzxy 12y agoIn my opinion, that debate isn't really worth having in this context - see the HN rules on reopening flamewars[0]. Suffice to say that affirmative action has already been discussed inside and out in almost every single context. The US Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke is a good starting point if you want to read about the issue. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- questions 12y agoWell, then feel free not to participate in this debate. I understand where the courts stand on affirmative action, that case is a little different than what I am talking about. Also, just because a the Supreme Court decides something doesn't mean they are correct (Dred Scoot v. Standford).
- yzzxy 12y agoIt's a little different, but still a good starting point. It contains some strong arguments both for and against affirmative action, and is significant beyond simple legal status. I cited that case not because I believe SCOTUS is correct in all contexts, but because the format of Supreme Court cases is a good way to have an argument in my opinion. Facts are presented from previous hearings, without deliberations over authenticity, and legal arguments are made based on those facts. I note that I don't think the debate is worth having here because it is against the HN guidelines: > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. not because I don't think the discussion is still worth having in the present day. Finally, I would like to point out that Dredd Scott v. Sandford is often considered an accurate legal ruling. The direct result of the ruling was disgusting, but side remarks by justices in the majority opinion revealed fundamental inconstancies in US state/federal slavery laws and precipitated the Civil War.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]