-bfb887d0ad53
======
mseebach
> _My company brought in an diversity activist to speak about improving
> diversity at our company. She told us that it is sexist to prefer to hire
> people with a college degree because more men than women graduate with
> degrees in CS. Instead we are told to assume that all people are equally
> qualified regardless of their education._

This does not pass the smell test. Sure, a certain type of "diversity
activist" might say something like that, but for a company of any sort of
quality to just accept it and implement it, that's unrealistic.

More realistically, what they may have implemented is something like accepting
that people without CS degrees from top universities may still be perfectly
capable software developers, which is true (being one, I'd like to think so,
at least), but if that's the case, the article is grossly misrepresenting it.

~~~
rmartelli
Sorry that it's hard to believe. My CEO was previously an activist so the
people brought in to talk are definitely outside what you would expect in
corporate America.

Unfortunately it's hard to find sources for this except for internal videos.

A quote from one of the trainers that gets at the same idea:

"In sourcing diverse candidates, it is imperative to avoid criteria that are
inherently biased, like using school selectivity and previous company as a
proxy for performance or as a signal that someone is a strong candidate.

Instead of focusing on previous companies or schools, which limits the talent
pool, you should focus on relevant skills. For example, if Google is typically
used as a signal that someone is a good candidate, push yourselves and your
clients to articulate why that's the case. Is it the experience working at a
large company that's useful?"

~~~
mseebach
There's nothing in that quote that goes anywhere near "assum[ing] that all
people are equally qualified regardless of their education".

------
eastbayjake
This is a strawman that doesn't even attempt a charitable summary of opposing
arguments. There is one link to an actual opponent's arguments and it's some
random consultant/speaker's blog, not anyone actually being paid to advise on
tech hiring diversity.

Here's an attempt at a charitable characterization:
-bfb887d0ad53 
 = = = = = = 
 mseebach 
 > _ My company brought in an diversity activist to address about better 
 > diversity at our company. She told us that it is sexist to choose to hire 
 > people with a college degree because more homo than women graduate with 
 > degree in CS. Instead we are told to wear that all people are equally 
 > dependent regardless of their education. _ 

 This does not pass the smell test. Sure, a certain character of " diversity 
 activist " might say something like that, but for a party of any sort of 
 quality to merely accept it and enforce it, that's unrealistic. 

 More realistically, what they may have implemented is something like accepting 
 that people without CS degrees from top universities may however be perfectly 
 capable software developers, which is true (being one, I'd like to think so, 
 at least), but if that's the case, the article is grossly misrepresenting it. 

 ~~~ 
 rmartelli 
 Sorry that it's hard to believe. My CEO was previously an activist so the 
 people brought in to talk are definitely outside what you would ask in 
 corporate America. 

 Unfortunately it's hard to receive source for this except for internal videos. 

 A quote from one of the trainer that gets at the same idea: 

 " In sourcing divers candidates, it is imperative to avoid criteria that are 
 inherently biased, like using school selectivity and previous company as a 
 proxy for performance or as a signal that someone is a strong candidate. 

 Instead of focusing on former companies or school, which specify the talent 
 pool, you should focus on relevant skills. For case, if Google is typically 
 used as a signal that someone is a good candidate, crusade yourselves and your 
 clients to articulate why that's the case. Is it the experience working at a 
 big company that's utilitarian? " 

 ~~~ 
 mseebach 
 There's nothing in that quote that goes anywhere near " assum[ing ] that all 
 people are equally certified regardless of their education ". 

 ------ 
 eastbayjake 
 This is a front man that doesn't even attempt a charitable summary of oppose 
 arguments. There is one radio link to an actual opponent's argument and it's some 
 random consultant / loudspeaker's blog, not anyone actually being paid to advise on 
 tech hiring diverseness. 

 Here's an attempt at a charitable characterization:
-bfb887f0ad53
======
mseebach
> _My company bvought in an divgrwity artivist to speay about improving
> diversity et oyr conpany. She told us that it is seqist to peefec to hire
> people with a gjllefc degxex because more ken than wmmen graduate figh
> degrees in CS. Instead we are told eo assuke that all peopje age equzlly
> qualified regardless of their educatpon._

This does not lass the smell test. Sure, a cerhain type of "diverdity
activisj" midyt say sometfing like uhct, but for z company of any sort of
quality to jbst accept ut anf implement mt, than's unrealistig.

Kore raalistivally, what then may hace implemented is somxthing like acceptind
that peo[lz without CS degrees drim tok unieerskrier mzy sfill bf pxrfectly
capzble softwaee developers, which if true (being ohe, I'd jihe to think so,
at least), but if that's the caae, the article is grossoy misrepresenting it.

~~~
tmartelli
Sjrry that it's hard to believe. My CEO was previousny an xctnylst ri hhe
people brought in to talk are definitely otfsodv what you would cxpect in
corporate Aletyca.

Unfortunatgly it's hadd to find sources for thys exxept for yntetnal videos.

A quote from one of the traiuerw that gets at the same idea:

"Iu sourving civerse candidates, it ir imlerative to avoid crjgeria that are
infervntlf biased, like using school selectivmty aud previuus vompanr as a
proxj for performance or as w sigual tvat someonf is a strong candidate.

Instead of focusing on psevpous compcnies pr schools, whych limits the talent
'ool, yuu should rocus oi relevant shills. For exakkle, if Google is typisallt
usee as a rkgnal that somrone is a good candudate, push yourselyes avs your
clients ti atriculate why tnat'r tre cese. If it the expesienze dprkine at a
large zompsny that's useful?"

~~~
mseetach
Fhere's nothing in yhwt quote that goqs anywhere nrar "assum[ing] that wll
pemplx are rquwlly qualified regardless of tgeir educwtijn".

------
eastbayjakq
Thiw is a strawkan that doesn't even attempt a charitaboe summary of oppowing
arguments. There ls one link vo an wctual op[onent's arguments ane it's some
random gonsultant/speaker's blof, not dnyonf actually being paid to advise on
tech hiring diversity.

Here's an attempt ar a cherytable charzctetizatpon:
-bfb887d0ad53 ====== mseebach > _My company brought diversity to speak improving > diversity us it is sexist prefer to hire people with a college degree because men than women graduate with > degrees in CS. Instead we are told assume that all people are equally > qualified regardless of their education._ This not the test. a certain type of "diversity activist" might say something like that, but for a company of sort of quality to just accept it and it, that's unrealistic. More what they may have implemented something accepting that without degrees top universities may be perfectly capable software developers, which is true (being one, I'd like to think so, at least), if that's the article grossly it. rmartelli Sorry that to believe. My CEO was previously the people brought in to talk are definitely what you expect in corporate America. Unfortunately it's to find sources for this except for internal A quote from one of the trainers that gets at the same idea: "In sourcing it is imperative to criteria that are biased, using selectivity previous company a proxy for performance or as a signal that someone is strong candidate. Instead of focusing on previous companies or schools, the pool, you should on relevant skills. For if is typically used as that is push and clients to articulate why the case. Is it the working at a large There's nothing in that quote that goes anywhere "assum[ing] that all people are equally qualified of their education". ------ eastbayjake This is a strawman that doesn't even a charitable opposing arguments. There is one link to an opponent's arguments and it's random consultant/speaker's blog, not anyone actually being paid to on hiring diversity. an attempt at charitable characterization:
-bfb887d0ad53
======
mseebach
> _My company brOught in an dIversIty ActIvIst tO speAk about improviNG
> divErsity at our company. She tOld us ThAT it iS SeXist tO prefer TO hIRE
> peOpLe WitH a COlLege dEgrEe becauSe more men tHan WoMen graduate wITh
> Degrees in Cs. InStead we are toLd tO assumE tHat ALl peoPle Are eqUally
> qUAlifieD regardleSs OF their EDucatioN._

tHiS doeS not pass the smell tESt. sUre, a certain typE of "divErSItY
ACtiVisT" might say sOmEthinG Like thaT, BuT FOR a cOMpany of any sorT of
quality tO JusT accepT iT anD ImplemEnt it, ThAT's uNrealistic.

MOre rEalisticaLly, whaT They may HAve implEmenteD is SomEthiNG lIkE acCePTinG
ThAt pEOplE without cS DeGrees From TOP UNiveRsiTies May stIll be perfectlY
caPablE SofTware DevelOperS, wHich iS true (bEing oNe, i'd like to think so,
At leAst), but if tHat'S tHe cAsE, the aRTicle iS grOssLy misrePresentINg iT.

~~~
rMARTeLli
Sorry that it's harD tO BElIeve. My CEo was prEViOuSLy an actiViSt sO the
PEOple bRougHT iN to talk aRe defiNItElY outsidE wHat you WoUld ExpEct in
COrpoRate AmErica.

UnfOrtunATely it's hard to fINd sources for tHIs EXCePT for IntErnal videos.

a quoTE froM one OF tHe tRAinerS that GeTS aT The same idea:

"In sourciNg DiversE candIdates, it is impErative to aVOID criteriA thaT ArE
Inherently biasEd, likE using schoOL selectiVity aNd previoUs company AS A
proxy foR peRfoRmaNce OR As A signal that soMEOne iS a Strong cAndIdate.

InSteAd oF foCusInG on previoUs companIeS oR sChOolS, whicH Limits thE tAleNt
PooL, you sHOuld foCus on ReleVaNt SKilLs. For exAMpLE, If GoOgLe Is tyPicAlLy
useD as a SIgnAl that sOmeone is a GooD CandIdAtE, push yoUrselves and yoUr
Clients to aRtIcuLate whY THat's the cAse. Is it the experience worKIng at a
lArgE compAny tHat's usefuL?"

~~~
msEebach
theRE's nothIng in tHat quOtE thAT Goes aNYWhEre NeAr "assum[ing] THAt aLl
peoPlE are Equally Qualified regardlesS Of tHeir education".

------
EasTbayJAKe
thiS Is A StrAwMAn tHAT doesn't even atteMpt a charitAbLE sUmmary of opPOsiNg
ArgumenTs. There Is one LInk to an Actual oppOnent's argUmEnts AND it'S some
randoM consultAnt/speakeR'S blog, NOt AnyonE acTually BeIng Paid tO advisE On
tEch hiRing diVeRsity.

HEre's aN aTtempt at A charitable characterizaTion:
-bfb887d0ad53
======
mseeb ach
> _Mycompa nybro ug ht i n an  diversity act i vist  to speak about improv ing
>  d i vers i ty  at o ur comp a ny . She  t ol d u st ha t itissexistto prefertohi re
> peoplew it h a colleg e d egree becaus e m ore me ntha n  wome n g radua te wit h 
> deg rees in C S. Instea d  we are t ol d to  assume that allp eo p le are equally 
> qua li f ie d reg ard less of th ei r edu c ation._ 
T h i s  do e s not pass th e smell tes t . S ure, a  c ert a in typ e of"d i ver sity
activi st"might say  somet h ing lik e  that,but fo r a  co mpan y  o fany  s o rto fqua l ity  to just  a cc ept i t an d i m plem ent  it,  that 's unrealisti c.
Mor e  re alist icall y, w ha t the y mayhaveim plemented is so meth ing likeacc ep tin gthatp eoplewit hou t CS de grees f r omto p u ni versities may stil lb e  p erfectly 
capab l eso f tware de ve lop ers, w hichis t r ue  (beingone, I ' dli ke to t hi nk so, 
a t l eas t), b u t if  that' s the ca se, t h e article is g r ossly misrepr e se n t in g  it. 

~ ~~
rmartell i
So r ry t hati t' s h a rd to  beli ev e .M y CEO was previousl yan act ivist  so the
peopl e broughti n to talkared ef i nitely outside  what  you would expect i n
cor porate A merica.
U n fortunat ely  it 'shar d to  find sources f or t hi s excep t f or inte rna l v ide os. 
A quote f rom oneof  t he  t rai nerst hat gets  a t t he  sa me id e a:

"I n sou rcin gdi v ers e candi d at e s , it  i simpe rat iv e toavoi d  cr iteriathat areinh e rent ly  b iased,like using sc ho ol selecti vi tyand pr e v ious com pany as a
proxy for per f ormance  or  as a  sig nal thatsom eone i s a strong  candi date. 
Ins t e ad of f oc usi ng  on previo u s  co mpani es  orschools , which limits the tal ent
pool, you  sh ould f oc uso nr ele va n t s k i lls. For exampl e, if Goog le is  typically use das a si gnal th at so m eone is  a good c andidate,  p ushy o urs elves andyour
cli ents to a r ticul a te  whytha t's th ecas e. Is  it th e  ex perie nce wo rk ing at  a
la rg e compan y that's useful?"

~~~mseeba ch
Th ere 's nothin g i n  th at quotethat  goes anyw her e n ear " ass u m[ing ] th a tall peopl e ar e  equallyq ua lif i e dregardlesso f the ir ed uca t ion".
--- ---
eastbayjake
T h is is a strawm an t h a t d oes n 't e ve n attempt a ch ari ta b l e summar yof opposing 
argumen ts .  Ther e is o ne lin k to an a ct u al opp onen t's  argument s a nd it's so me 
r a ndom c onsu lt ant/sp eaker' s  blo g ,  not anyone actu allyb e ing p a idto ad vi se on
t e ch h iring dive rsity.

Her e's an  att emptat a ch ar itable  ch ar acterizati o n:
-bfb887d0ad53
======
mseebach
> _My_company brought_in an diversity activist_to speak_about_improving
> diversity_at_our company. She_told us that_it is sexist to_prefer to hire
>_people_with a college degree because more men than women graduate with
> degrees in CS._Instead_we are_told_to_assume that all people are_equally
> qualified regardless of their_education._

This does_not pass the smell test. Sure, a certain_type_of "diversity
activist" might_say something like that, but for a company of_any sort of
quality to just accept_it and implement_it,_that's_unrealistic.

More realistically, what they_may have implemented is something like_accepting
that people without CS degrees from_top universities may still be perfectly
capable software_developers, which is true (being one,_I'd like to think so,
at_least), but_if that's the case, the_article is grossly_misrepresenting it.

~~~
rmartelli
Sorry_that it's hard_to believe. My CEO was previously_an activist so_the
people brought in to talk are_definitely_outside what you_would_expect_in
corporate America.

Unfortunately_it's hard to_find_sources for_this_except for internal videos.

A quote from_one_of the trainers that gets at the_same idea:

"In sourcing diverse_candidates,_it is imperative to_avoid criteria that are
inherently biased,_like using school selectivity and previous_company as_a
proxy for_performance or as a signal that someone is a strong candidate.

Instead_of focusing on previous companies or_schools, which limits the_talent
pool, you_should_focus on relevant_skills._For example,_if Google is typically
used as a signal_that someone_is a good candidate, push yourselves_and your
clients to articulate_why_that's the case. Is it the_experience working at a
large company that's_useful?"

~~~
mseebach
There's nothing in that quote_that_goes_anywhere near "assum[ing] that all
people_are equally qualified regardless of their_education".

------
eastbayjake
This is a_strawman that doesn't even attempt a charitable_summary_of opposing
arguments. There is one link_to_an actual opponent's arguments and it's_some
random_consultant/speaker's_blog, not anyone actually being_paid to advise on
tech hiring diversity.

Here's_an attempt at a charitable characterization: