I'm pretty critical of academia, but even without knowing what lambdaschool.com is I am pretty certain it can't, or should not compete with academia. Vocational training and academic training are very different things. (And both are useful in their own right.) Indeed, a lot of problems in academia come from universities trying to pretend they are vocational schools...
>Indeed, a lot of problems in academia come from universities trying to pretend they are vocational schools...
I think I've seen this sort of sentiment repeated countless times for a number of years, but I strongly suspect it's quite ahistorical and incorrect.
I'm sure there is some diversity in how public university systems developed in various places, but the state university (you know, not Harvard or something) I went to evolved from a teachers college. It was educating people for careers before it tried to follow a curriculum like liberal arts colleges.
Zooming out, wasn't there a period of time when there was a whole movement to repurpose higher education from educating a small elite in Latin, Greek, etc. to essentially vocational education? Didn't this go hand in hand with the upheaval of the industrial revolution, and the idea that the masses should be educated?
When people sneer at universities being places to educate people in useful skills, it bewilders me because it seems like they are just wiping away the last couple centuries in favor of a vague desire to return to an era that simply didn't educate the average person.
I just have had this sense of weirdness for years that never goes away, whenever people matter-of-factly complain about universities being focused on practical subjects as though it were a recent degeneration of higher education. It was always (for the hoi polloi) this way! It was meant to be this way, going back 160 years!
Although you might have a point with regards to vocational training, there is basically no research coming out of places like lambda school and the recurse center (please correct me if I am wrong). Things will change only when researchers can find stable (and reliable) sources of funding outside the traditional sphere of institutions like universities.
Is the gender gap believed to be due to sexist hiring? I had thought getting acceptance letters and job offers was the relatively easy (and maybe even privileged) part, but then women have to deal with harassment, coworkers who would rather be romantic interests than collaborators, or just having to prove themselves more frequently and against a higher bar than the comparable men, so they're more likely to self-select out more quickly than men do.
Is it possible that there are things people might rather do than spend 8 hours a day coding enterprise web-apps, for 30 years? I wish I had the option to self-select out. I would much rather spend time with our toddler. If my wife were to volunteer to take up a programming job, because she wanted to relieve the need for time and resources from me so I could do what I want- is that relationship best described as oppression?
No kidding huh? Who could have predicted this except for anyone who worked in tech for the past decade or two. It’s obvious women have a huge advantage.
Arguing for it is extremely necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't obvious. We have explicit directions to hire and promote more women and executive compensation tied to it. It would be surprising if women weren't favored in the hiring process.
Anecdotal, but I noticed this too in my last two employments. We would give coding tests and the scoring threshold for women would be greatly reduced, because we wanted to have more women around, instead of just guys.
HR would push unqualified female candidates into our hiring pool bypassing our screening processes (despite the fact that we already had vetted qualified female candidates in our pool)...we're talking people three levels too junior, or in one case someone who didn't speak English at all.
Then there would be some really nasty pressure from HR to hire those candidates.
Then late last year our engineering leadership said that they were creating a director level position exclusively for a female person of color that would be an outside hire, which I'm pretty certain is illegal. Though they still haven't done that yet.
"I wonder what the thought patterns around this are. "
I would imagine a form of empathy especially for single mothers and all sorts of possible presumptions about issues in relationships etc. but that's total speculation on my part.
In my early 20s, and during the recession, I worked at a gas station. I also bought a house, so even though I didn't like the job or plan to be there long, I was trying to get promoted (entry-level managers made almost twice as much as entry-level associates, factoring in OT and bonuses).
I was seen as a great worker, because I worked when I was supposed to, but I had a terrible time getting promoted. No one at my particular station was getting promoted, so I assumed it was just a long process. The gas station was also hiring a lot of managers from outside the company - people who had more lucrative and prestigious jobs, which were the casualties of the recession.
One day, though, a new, young, single-mother started with the same job (associate) I had, and I watched her get promoted within a month or two. She was a fine worker, nothing wrong with her, but she was not a better worker than I was.
I do think that being a single mom expedited her promotion. You couldn't talk to her for more than a minute without learning her backstory and hearing about how much she loves her son. I think management saw her as an easy person to root for, and I can't really fault them for that. But, she also played the game much better than I did. When she worked, you knew she was working. In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, she'd make sure everyone knew how much she was busting her ass. At the time, being young and naive, I thought it was extremely distasteful and painfully corny. I didn't understand the concept that management really only pays attention when you give them reason to. Either you're fucking up or fucking off, and they need to correct you; or you're shining your own spotlight on what you've done and how impressive it is. Only experienced and thoughtful managers will properly value good workers who don't make a show of it.
She was also more gregarious than I was, and it'd be disingenuous to share this anecdote without noting that. I think it's part of my bigger point, though. I wanted to make more money so that I could live more comfortably, but she needed to, and the ways we played the game reflected that.
The thing is, if you instead did that the management would be more likely to pick up on the distastefulness and pass you over.
"Playing the game" appears to be a rationalization of favoritism. The game is rigged in favor of some people for whom "playing the game" is much easier due to socioeconomic background / ethnicity etc (which are the actual explaining factors for material success).
But, she would consistently recount the things she'd done - like multiple times throughout the day - and frame it as though it was impressive.
She also acted like she was hustling all the time - kind of like someone moving their arms faster to make it seem like they're running faster. So, if you just glanced over, you'd notice frenetic movement and might assume she was working harder than everyone else. I might have been working at a quicker rate, but without the exaggerated movements, it was less obvious.
I work for USPS now, and it's great to make enough money outside a managerial role to not have to worry about promotions. The vast majority of clerks, carriers, and drivers have no interest in management.
Time to do that most desperate of things, actually read past the abstract.
First, this study was only in academia, and not industry so the results aren't necessarily generalizable. They probably do have some correlation, but they're very different environments.
Second, the very first paragraph after the abstract goes into why actually getting hired is just a tiny part of why women don't go in to stem, "...including inadequate mentoring and networking (1); a chilly social climate (2); downgrading of work products such as manuscripts (3), grant proposals (4), and lectures (5); and gender bias in interviewing and hiring (6–9)."
Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game. While experiment 5 did try to account for this by removing the direct competition aspect so they only rated a single candidate rather than selecting a better choice from 2 options, however again there's no consequence for the choice except having your response presented in a paper.
What this study does show is that academics think that other academics view hiring equally women over men as socially desirable. This is not the same as actually doing it when given the opportunity, for an example of this see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711747?seq=1 and the general trend of Americans saying they go to church even when they don't.
As a potted experiment, it really doesn’t generalize well. Weighting identical candidates except for race/gender/etc. may help uncover obvious forms of discrimination, but doesn’t address the path dependency aspects. For example, in the life sciences, women get less funding and fewer staff when founding research groups, while “elite” male researchers train 10-40% fewer women than other labs; as a result, women tend to have “worse” CVs later in their career due to earlier discrimination.
If a paper claim 1 + 1 = 3, one gotta introduce 2 to claim that the equation is wrong. Plus, you must not change your view based on single paper, because papers are not always 100% correct. There are always papers that contradict each other.
The claim "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track" is not only unproven, it is not even examined. Instead, one small part of that complicated hiring process is examined.
Indeed, one possible explanation is that every woman who participated preferentially selected women because they want more women in the workplace, and every man who participated preferentially selected women because they definitely don't want women, but want to claim that they do, and this study offered them the perfect opportunity. "Look! We're not biased! This survey, which, thank god, didn't require that we actually hire one of these insane harpies, says that I love hiring women! Baaah! Cigars all round!"
An extreme possibility, I concede, and yet one which would explain the findings.
Given two candidates, one being a woman with so-so skills, and the other a competent man, I would (and have done so) hire the woman if no woman was in my team. The main reason being the change in group dynamics that a woman brings.
If enough women are in the team, my attention would revert to the candidate skills and I would probably choose the man.
> Time to do that most desperate of things, actually read past the abstract.
Hmm. Yes, that's a good idea.
> Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game
Hmm...from the article:
"Real-world data ratify our conclusion about female hiring advantage. Research on actual hiring shows female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, but if they do apply, they are more likely to be hired (16, 30–34),...
Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings."
So this was real world data of a preference confirmed by the experiment.
What's interesting is the amount of pushback this study has received compared to the widely acclaimed "lab manager" study that "proves" women are discriminated against, which is much weaker (far less data), less well-designed, also exclusively from academia (and from different disciplines than the ones with the high imbalances!) and without the counterpart of real-world data.
Hmm.
See also: Gender Bias in Science? Double standards and cherry-picking in claims about gender bias.
Women and men leave STEM in roughly the same rate and for the same reason, climate is not the top reason. Lack of advancement and "didn't like the work" are. https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/
It's worth noting this has been backed up by other research. If resumes are anonymised and hiring is blind, then women and minorities actually get hired far less of the time according to multiple studies. [1] This means they are receiving positive discrimination. It's also not surprising, considering the gender balance of HR departments [2], and women tend to hold gender biased beliefs (female teachers in the UK mark boys worse for identical work, for example [3]).
> It's also not surprising, considering the gender balance of HR departments [2], and women tend to hold gender biased beliefs (female teachers in the UK mark boys worse for identical work, for example [3]).
I agree it's not surprising, but you're making it sound a lot more dramatic than it is. Employers are getting raked over the coals by activists and the press for not being "diverse enough". Of course when all else is equal (and maybe not so equal), they'll prefer to hire women/minorities. They'll be willing to go higher in bidding wars with other employers over female/minority applicants. It's not a conspiracy by female HR departments. I've never worked anywhere that HR decided who to hire anyways.
HR is the one telling the company to engage in systemic discrimination because a small minority of highly vocal bigots on Twitter confirm their biases.
HR is the real bigot here, not a small contingent of vocal bigot “activists”.
Seeing under-qualified women who were winging it the whole way through their degree get top jobs straight out of uni, then getting rejected from the same firms myself, had me very jaded on this subject. Also missed an internship i really wanted, instead of automating key processes for the company they ended up doing literally nothing the whole time they were there (they barely figured out the basics of Powershell by the end of the internship (the company wanted it done in Powershell)). This led to depression and a year of me not even bothering to seek employment. Sorry if this comment is pointless, just needed to vent.
My personal view is that it's not about being a woman but about being a well socialized 'cultural fit'. Almost all women i meet are well socialized, only a minority of men my age seem to fit into this category though.
Don't apologize. It's healthy to vent in low-stakes settings, and to recognize that you're emotional at the time.
I hope that you take another look at the job market. Sometimes you get knocked down through no fault of your own. The people who you are frustrated with have probably experienced that in different ways, but it's never pleasant.
You and your talents are valuable, and luck is a big part of life. Keep at it - comparing other peoples' successes or failures to your own is a hedonic treadmill.
How would you go about becoming a better cultural fit?
I'm asking with an open mind here, and knowing two things: just telling yourself "you need to be more social" has, if anything, the opposite effect. And God, do I remember hating the feeling. And the second: I did it. Wasn't a huge difference, but went from mostly INTJ to mostly ENTJ over about 20 years. Unfortunately, 20 years is too long to be able to put my finger on something and say "this worked". If I were to give a hint, I'd say that context matters. Probably the most dramatic change was from being literally friendless for a few years to hosting parties, simply because I found a social group with common interests (and very common flaws). Also in the context category, I'd say competence helps a lot. You know that "Hermione" stereotype where you can only interact with people by helping them? It actually works. It takes many years, but eventually helping should lead to "working with" and eventually to "leading". Mind the "many years" part though.
I got rejected from many behavioral interviews. In a similar vein, the main thing that helped me was the realization that I had to work on my personality as a whole and then the interviews automatically got better. Especially making projects that showed that I cared about contemporary issues was a big plus.
In general: you want to be very humble and appreciative but also enthusiastic about the role. Try to talk about a project/hobby that intersects with the work they do. Try to start off average but once they get to know you, you want to be more friendly/likable (don’t give it your all from the start, it might make you look desperate).
Also sometimes it’s not your behavior & there’s nothing you can do but to find another role. In my experience I always found a better job when I was looking for longer so it’s all good.
If you're really committed, you could collect some data points and take it to the courts. Of course, as with any divisive topic only one 'far side' of the media will want to talk about your case, and you can imagine which network that might possibly be.
Such is the ugly problem of challenging populist movements with reason or nuance - your only sympathetic voices end up being those on the 'other far side' who want to use your experience for cynical political purposes of their own.
Nah, the other side would talk about it too, but definitely put a very negative spin on in, possibly going so far as to claim would-be plaintiff is a sexist/bigot.
Should have led a meet up group that focused on powershell. Or stretched the truth regarding a bunch of people from your powerful class meeting up.
How do they test our interview for socialization anyways?
I has a similar experience, and can also say it had a negative affect on me. Hearing that life isn't fair is very different than actually experiencing it. The hard part for me I think is, as a man, it has been hard to find sympathy or empathy. Which realistically I understand, that in A lot of cases men have the upper hand, but it is an unpleasant feeling when you have been beaten by someone demonstrably under qualified in comparison, and each time they fit a specific demographic inverse to your own.
Social justice initiatives don't advocate for blind hiring, they apply what they consider to be a "corrective" bias. Very few people who have been responsible for hiring engineers in SV would disagree with the premise of the study, although many would argue that there's nothing wrong with it.
47 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadWhat Austen is doing with lambdaschool.com (and similar) will be the way forward.
I think I've seen this sort of sentiment repeated countless times for a number of years, but I strongly suspect it's quite ahistorical and incorrect.
I'm sure there is some diversity in how public university systems developed in various places, but the state university (you know, not Harvard or something) I went to evolved from a teachers college. It was educating people for careers before it tried to follow a curriculum like liberal arts colleges.
Zooming out, wasn't there a period of time when there was a whole movement to repurpose higher education from educating a small elite in Latin, Greek, etc. to essentially vocational education? Didn't this go hand in hand with the upheaval of the industrial revolution, and the idea that the masses should be educated?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university
When people sneer at universities being places to educate people in useful skills, it bewilders me because it seems like they are just wiping away the last couple centuries in favor of a vague desire to return to an era that simply didn't educate the average person.
I just have had this sense of weirdness for years that never goes away, whenever people matter-of-factly complain about universities being focused on practical subjects as though it were a recent degeneration of higher education. It was always (for the hoi polloi) this way! It was meant to be this way, going back 160 years!
It is fine to have an opinion on the matter, but it is unwise to believe that opinion to be so obvious that arguing for it is unnecessary.
Then there would be some really nasty pressure from HR to hire those candidates.
Then late last year our engineering leadership said that they were creating a director level position exclusively for a female person of color that would be an outside hire, which I'm pretty certain is illegal. Though they still haven't done that yet.
That is a very interesting bias. I wonder what the thought patterns around this are.
I would imagine a form of empathy especially for single mothers and all sorts of possible presumptions about issues in relationships etc. but that's total speculation on my part.
I was seen as a great worker, because I worked when I was supposed to, but I had a terrible time getting promoted. No one at my particular station was getting promoted, so I assumed it was just a long process. The gas station was also hiring a lot of managers from outside the company - people who had more lucrative and prestigious jobs, which were the casualties of the recession.
One day, though, a new, young, single-mother started with the same job (associate) I had, and I watched her get promoted within a month or two. She was a fine worker, nothing wrong with her, but she was not a better worker than I was.
I do think that being a single mom expedited her promotion. You couldn't talk to her for more than a minute without learning her backstory and hearing about how much she loves her son. I think management saw her as an easy person to root for, and I can't really fault them for that. But, she also played the game much better than I did. When she worked, you knew she was working. In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, she'd make sure everyone knew how much she was busting her ass. At the time, being young and naive, I thought it was extremely distasteful and painfully corny. I didn't understand the concept that management really only pays attention when you give them reason to. Either you're fucking up or fucking off, and they need to correct you; or you're shining your own spotlight on what you've done and how impressive it is. Only experienced and thoughtful managers will properly value good workers who don't make a show of it.
She was also more gregarious than I was, and it'd be disingenuous to share this anecdote without noting that. I think it's part of my bigger point, though. I wanted to make more money so that I could live more comfortably, but she needed to, and the ways we played the game reflected that.
"Playing the game" appears to be a rationalization of favoritism. The game is rigged in favor of some people for whom "playing the game" is much easier due to socioeconomic background / ethnicity etc (which are the actual explaining factors for material success).
I can't imagine any of these "ways" - could you give some examples?
But, she would consistently recount the things she'd done - like multiple times throughout the day - and frame it as though it was impressive.
She also acted like she was hustling all the time - kind of like someone moving their arms faster to make it seem like they're running faster. So, if you just glanced over, you'd notice frenetic movement and might assume she was working harder than everyone else. I might have been working at a quicker rate, but without the exaggerated movements, it was less obvious.
I work for USPS now, and it's great to make enough money outside a managerial role to not have to worry about promotions. The vast majority of clerks, carriers, and drivers have no interest in management.
First, this study was only in academia, and not industry so the results aren't necessarily generalizable. They probably do have some correlation, but they're very different environments.
Second, the very first paragraph after the abstract goes into why actually getting hired is just a tiny part of why women don't go in to stem, "...including inadequate mentoring and networking (1); a chilly social climate (2); downgrading of work products such as manuscripts (3), grant proposals (4), and lectures (5); and gender bias in interviewing and hiring (6–9)."
Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game. While experiment 5 did try to account for this by removing the direct competition aspect so they only rated a single candidate rather than selecting a better choice from 2 options, however again there's no consequence for the choice except having your response presented in a paper.
What this study does show is that academics think that other academics view hiring equally women over men as socially desirable. This is not the same as actually doing it when given the opportunity, for an example of this see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711747?seq=1 and the general trend of Americans saying they go to church even when they don't.
It adds to our knowledge of a real issue and you seem to be more concerned with not having to adjust your views at all.
Indeed, one possible explanation is that every woman who participated preferentially selected women because they want more women in the workplace, and every man who participated preferentially selected women because they definitely don't want women, but want to claim that they do, and this study offered them the perfect opportunity. "Look! We're not biased! This survey, which, thank god, didn't require that we actually hire one of these insane harpies, says that I love hiring women! Baaah! Cigars all round!"
An extreme possibility, I concede, and yet one which would explain the findings.
What do you think the paper proved?
If enough women are in the team, my attention would revert to the candidate skills and I would probably choose the man.
Hmm. Yes, that's a good idea.
> Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game
Hmm...from the article:
"Real-world data ratify our conclusion about female hiring advantage. Research on actual hiring shows female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, but if they do apply, they are more likely to be hired (16, 30–34),...
Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings."
So this was real world data of a preference confirmed by the experiment.
What's interesting is the amount of pushback this study has received compared to the widely acclaimed "lab manager" study that "proves" women are discriminated against, which is much weaker (far less data), less well-designed, also exclusively from academia (and from different disciplines than the ones with the high imbalances!) and without the counterpart of real-world data.
Hmm.
See also: Gender Bias in Science? Double standards and cherry-picking in claims about gender bias.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/rabble-rouser/2017...
> Second, the very first paragraph after the abstract goes into why actually getting hired is just a tiny part of why women don't go in to stem
No, it does not "go into why". It lists claims that have been made. That's not the same thing.
> grant proposals (4)
Study: No race or gender bias seen in initial NIH grant reviews
https://news.wisc.edu/study-no-race-or-gender-bias-seen-in-i...
> a chilly social climate (2)
Women and men leave STEM in roughly the same rate and for the same reason, climate is not the top reason. Lack of advancement and "didn't like the work" are. https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/
etc.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
[2] https://www.visier.com/clarity/gender-divide-part-1/
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/education-31751672
I agree it's not surprising, but you're making it sound a lot more dramatic than it is. Employers are getting raked over the coals by activists and the press for not being "diverse enough". Of course when all else is equal (and maybe not so equal), they'll prefer to hire women/minorities. They'll be willing to go higher in bidding wars with other employers over female/minority applicants. It's not a conspiracy by female HR departments. I've never worked anywhere that HR decided who to hire anyways.
HR is the real bigot here, not a small contingent of vocal bigot “activists”.
Not just teachers:
Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men?
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7...
My personal view is that it's not about being a woman but about being a well socialized 'cultural fit'. Almost all women i meet are well socialized, only a minority of men my age seem to fit into this category though.
that’s a rather unfair leap to take!
I hope that you take another look at the job market. Sometimes you get knocked down through no fault of your own. The people who you are frustrated with have probably experienced that in different ways, but it's never pleasant.
You and your talents are valuable, and luck is a big part of life. Keep at it - comparing other peoples' successes or failures to your own is a hedonic treadmill.
I'm asking with an open mind here, and knowing two things: just telling yourself "you need to be more social" has, if anything, the opposite effect. And God, do I remember hating the feeling. And the second: I did it. Wasn't a huge difference, but went from mostly INTJ to mostly ENTJ over about 20 years. Unfortunately, 20 years is too long to be able to put my finger on something and say "this worked". If I were to give a hint, I'd say that context matters. Probably the most dramatic change was from being literally friendless for a few years to hosting parties, simply because I found a social group with common interests (and very common flaws). Also in the context category, I'd say competence helps a lot. You know that "Hermione" stereotype where you can only interact with people by helping them? It actually works. It takes many years, but eventually helping should lead to "working with" and eventually to "leading". Mind the "many years" part though.
In general: you want to be very humble and appreciative but also enthusiastic about the role. Try to talk about a project/hobby that intersects with the work they do. Try to start off average but once they get to know you, you want to be more friendly/likable (don’t give it your all from the start, it might make you look desperate). Also sometimes it’s not your behavior & there’s nothing you can do but to find another role. In my experience I always found a better job when I was looking for longer so it’s all good.
Such is the ugly problem of challenging populist movements with reason or nuance - your only sympathetic voices end up being those on the 'other far side' who want to use your experience for cynical political purposes of their own.
Two generations of men have grown up with it.