Yahoo's Diversity Record Is Almost As Bad As Google's 435
theodp (442580) writes Comparing Yahoo's diversity numbers to Google's, writes Valleywag's Nitasha Tiku, is "like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges." Two weeks after Google disclosed it wasn't "where we want to be" with its 17% female and 1% Black U.S. tech workforce, Yahoo revealed its diversity numbers aren't that much better than Google's, with a U.S. tech workforce that's 35% female and 1% Black. The charts released by Yahoo indicate women fare worse in its global tech workforce, only 15% of which is female. So, with Google and Yahoo having checked in, isn't it about time for U.S. workforce expert Mark Zuckerberg and company to stop taking the Fifth and ante up numbers to show students what kind of opportunities Facebook offers?
Re:Sensationalist summary (Score:2, Interesting)
The IT company I work for is full of young, attractive women. They do a very good job in certain areas, such as handling financial contracts, customer calls, renewals, etc.
Strictly from a development perspective, they simply might not be attracted/interested by that work type, although I personally knew a couple excellent female developers who work nearby.
Re: Most qualified and motivated candidates? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since when did he imply that?
"Who cares about diversity?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Several posts have said, essentially, "shouldn't you hire the best person for the job, ignoring everything else?"
Thats what both Yahoo and Google are saying about why they want to hire a diverse workforce. Both of them realize that their clients and customers are a very diverse group of people, and they hope that by hiring a diverse group as well, they can better create products to meet a diverse set of needs. You can argue that gender and skin color still aren't great ways to find a diverse set of perspectives, and you'd be right, but its one small tool in the arsenal.
Re:Most qualified and motivated candidates? (Score:5, Interesting)
I never said either group was anything. I said the most qualified and motivated people get jobs in a perfect world. Affirmative action for its own sake, conversely, is discrimination against people who worked their butts off for a position and were passed over because they were the wrong gender or color.
That's not true at all. I'm *amazing* in interviews. It's truly probably my best skill. If I get into the interview I almost always get the job. How do I do so well? Is it because of my experience? Grasp of the technology? Does my personality exude an air of efficient and dedicated work habits?
No, you get hired based on psychology, and if you know what's going on you can manipulate that. My biggest concern in an interview is that I accidentally get myself hired for a job I can't do... which has happened before. If I can get hired for a job I'm totally unqualified for, there's something wrong with the system.
Hiring managers are biased, from the very start. Your resume tells them all kinds of stuff about you that you didn't realize. Your race is implicit in your name. Your age as well. Do you go my Charlie? Charles? Chuck? That all says a lot about you. The most important part of the interview is the handshake of all things... that sets the tone. Want to know how to do it properly, ask a Marine, they'll show you. What did you wear? Again, this says a lot about you. The hiring manager doesn't even realize that they're being discriminatory. What they are looking for is someone familiar, and they will pick whomever is the most familiar.
The easiest way to game this system is the simple rule: Let the interviewer talk.
Listen to what they talk about, what they are interested in, and then when they ask you a tough question (Almost always something they have written down to remember because it's very hard to keep on topic in interviews) answer in a way that leads you back to a topic they're interested in. If they were talking about football earlier, answer with a football analogy. Lead the answer to a point where you ask them a question "So if a running back were to... etc... would you think that would work?" More often than not the hiring manager will go off on a tangent about football. In the end all they really remember about the interview was how comfortable they were talking with you.
There are lots of other tricks in this regard but they all revolve around the same premise: Make yourself as familiar as possible to the interviewer. The more they have in common with you the more they will be inclined to pick you. They'll later claim it was "instinct" that lead them to you.
As much as I've benefited from this 'flaw' in the system I can't pretend it's because I'm such a desirable employee. It's clearly very easy for this to lead to discriminatory behavior. The only solution to this that I can think of is to treat hiring like a science experiment. Use double blind methodology. There's no reason for anyone to ever meet the candidate either. The hardest jobs for me are the ones where they basically send me a test ahead of time. "Answer these technical questions" even using Google and such, your lack of experience (if you have any) becomes very apparent in the way you phrase your answers. I've also seen places where the interviews/test/etc... are all done by HR, the candidates are scored by HR and then the hiring manager looks at the numbers. This is better but you end up with a lot of employees that would be great in HR but not so hot in IT. HR reps, for some reason, tend to score candidates that dress nicely very high.
If our current job market really did go after the "best" candidate for the job, and that resulted in racial disparity, I'd agree with you. But it doesn't. Our current system leads to hiring people that are most like the current employees at the company which is bad for the company, the people interviewing and the current employees. Monocultures are bad for everyone.
Re:Most qualified and motivated candidates? (Score:4, Interesting)
Having been a victim of Affirmitive Action by the US Government, I have seen this first hand.
In the 1980's, there were 2 parts to the BPA (Bonniville Power Administration) apprenticeship program.
1 Testing. Skills, aptitude, physical, etc. Normal scoring
2 Score adjustment on Protected Status. Counts for almost 30%
In the 1980's, Millitary service was not a score booster. Scored top in #1. Scored 4th after step 2. Did not apply for any other government position due to chilling effects.
Private industry scores on just #1 unless forced by government pressure for tax breaks or other reasons. Lately there has been lots of pressure by the US Government to "Make it Right"
Due to my Race, Religiion, Gender, Sexual Orientation, & Age, I have a poor chance. Only recently Vetran status is the bright spot on my Resume. With the recent issues with BPA HR, I would have a chance at getting hired if in addition to Vetran status, I was a protected minority, femaie, gay, muslum, etc. In the meantime, I'm in the majority with slimming chances at economic recovery.
Re:Most qualified and motivated candidates? (Score:4, Interesting)
Along these lines I've suggested my wife change to IT many, many times. She's smarter than I am and would be better at it, I'd think. Then we could both be making double her salary, instead of just me.
She won't bite. There's just no passion there, for her.
Re:Most qualified and motivated candidates? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sexism (Score:4, Interesting)
Men, particularly blue collar men, have been disproportionately impacted by the bad economy. Where is the same level of enthusiasm about training blue collar men for an "exciting career as a nurse, nurse practitioner, etc.?" Those are high paying, skilled, wildly disproportionately female-dominated positions. They could easily accommodate an influx of men. There is also a true shortage of qualified people, unlike in computer-related fields. Why no interest? Because if we suddenly gave men the opportunity and incentive (ex aggressive recruiting, preferential college admission, etc. ) to pursue those fields, a lot of women might be pushed out and that'd be "sexist."
No, because men in general do not want to be caretakers. Do you want to spend the rest of your life changing bed pans? I thought not. Women take these positions because they were taught to do so, instead of pursuing more lucrative medical technician or heaven forbid MD positions. I have several female friends and relatives who are MDs, and they will tell you about the obstacles put in their way since they weren't white males.
Re:Most qualified and motivated candidates? (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of them just go off and get other jobs. They realize that they don't want to work in that kind of environment and find a better one. The result is that tech companies miss out on skilled workers.
The ones that do protest get labelled as feminazis and man-haters, accused of all sorts of stuff and generally harassed. Citation: Slashdot comments on any story about a female engineer complaining.