Slashdot Mirror
Domain: interviewing.io
Stories and comments across the archive that link to interviewing.io.
Comments · 6
-
Re:name and voice anonymity (Re: Easy Solution
The problem is that this anonymisation removes the inherent unconscious bias that leads to women getting better outcomes than men.
The Australian study basically says, "Don't use blind recruitment because it removes a disadvantage from men":
https://pmc.gov.au/resource-ce...Another company says they found no statistically significant difference - but even though they were trying to eliminate bias against women, men did better as a result of their gender being hidden: http://blog.interviewing.io/we...
So no, Google wont anonymise. It'd give them actual equality of opportunity and they appear not to want that at all.
-
Re:I had posted this elsewhere. My op
On the other hand, there is abundant evidence across all sectors that simply changing the name on a resume to a female sounding name or to a black sounding name reduces the number of callbacks you receive on that resume
This isn't "all sectors" though, this is the IT industry. In this industry, the evidence suggests recruitment outcomes are better for women. e.g.
http://blog.interviewing.io/we...Not just the IT industry either:
https://pmc.gov.au/sites/defau.... Women and people of color are less likely to be promoted, to earn similar pay
You have evidence for this? I have evidence that suggests otherwise:
http://media.dice.com/report/m...Forget black people being shot by police, forget the massive pay and gender gaps in the workplace, forget every real challenge facing the world
Oh no! A population group is demanding the very fucking same equality that everybody else is demanding and suddenly it's wrong?
By the way, there are no massive fucking pay gaps in the workplace and I really can't be arsed providing links to the 78 studies that demonstrate this so you'll just have to take my word on it - or try actually showing some fucking evidence of your own instead of a hate filled sexist racist rant.
No wonder you found the entire document objectionable, it challenged your bigotry.
-
Perhaps its the interview process?
This article http://blog.interviewing.io/we... discusses an interesting experiment where males and females had their voices masked for technical interviews so they could analyze the differences in how women perform while controlling for gender discrimination. Some fascinating results that show how women react differently to tech interviews than men, possibly resulting in them getting less employment offers and/or lower salary. I wonder how much this effect can be attributed to the results mentioned in this slashdot article. Like most problems with women's performance/success compared to men, this is mostly a cultural issue. There are things we can all do to pitch in and improve the situation but its not really something the government can legislate away.
On the other hand, i wouldn't be surprised to find the tech industry is actually more discriminating toward women than other industries, given that we already know there is rampant agism (reluctance to hire older programmers) and a culture that encourages workers to forgo family and other commitments in favor of longer hours and 'crunch time' -
Instead of commentary. . .
. . . why not read the ACTUAL BLOG POST at Interview.io ?
No spin, no agenda, just laying out the data that they found in the process of running their organization. . .
-
Re:That's not what I read.
They don't "do" worse. It's that "women leave... roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview.". It's like looking at unemployment figures without checking to see who gave up looking for a job.
A good question, assuming that is true, is why?
-
That's not what I read.
They don't "do" worse. It's that "women leave... roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview.". It's like looking at unemployment figures without checking to see who gave up looking for a job.