Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Uses US Women's Soccer Team To Explain Why It Doesn't Hire More Women

theodp writes: "It is not surprising that the U.S. women have been dominant in the sport [of soccer] in recent years. The explanation for that success lies in the talent pipeline," writes General Manager of Citizenship & Public Affairs Lori Forte Harnick on The Official Microsoft Blog. "Said another way, many girls in the U.S. have the opportunity to learn how to play soccer and, as a result, they benefit from the teamwork, skill development and fun involved. That's the kind of opportunity I would like to see develop for the technology sector, which presents a different, yet perhaps even more significant, set of opportunities for girls and young women. Unfortunately, the strength in the talent pipeline that we see in female soccer today is not the reality for technology. The U.S. is facing a shortage of Computer Science (CS) graduates. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent." Going with the soccer analogy, one thing FIFA realized that Microsoft didn't is that if you want girls to play your sport, you don't take away their ball!

212 comments

  1. Interesting.. by El+Lobo · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are more women working at MS that women contributing to the Linux community.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Interesting.. by jedidiah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That probably doesn't keep SJWs from whining that there aren't enough women employed at Microsoft in IT.

      You could poach the available talent pool AND all of the current college students and still come up short.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Interesting.. by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

      As anybody that wants to can contribute to the Linux community, that should tell us something. (No, prissy, huge-ego women that barge in, want to tell everybody how to do things, predictably get ridiculed and pushed out again and then start to whine about that do not count as "wanting to contribute". Neither do female "kernel developers" where you are hard pressed to find a single meaningful commit. Those that actually want to contribute are welcome. Those that want to do politics are not.)

      This whole thing is about equal opportunity and women have had that for a long time now. It is not about equality, which involves forcing people to do things they obviously not want to do.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Interesting.. by gweihir · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Indeed. The SJWs basically have a fascist mind-set. They want to force both genders to behave the same way, completely ignoring that the freedom to chose what you want to do with your life is an essential freedom. Hence what they want would produce nice statistics, but a dysfunctional and non-free society.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, that isn't surprising at all.

      It would be more interesting to see if there are more female programmers working at MS than contributing to the Linux community.

      Like, MS probably has more women in marketing and legal than there are Linux programmers in total.

    5. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's why these companies look to Asia for their workers. American workers are tech illiterate, by and large. This includes even CS students. Sure, they can be simple code monkeys, but for any position beyond that, US workers are mostly worthless. Add in the fact that H1Bs are also cheaper and easier to exploit, and it's obvious why US companies are hiring them.

    6. Re: Interesting.. by gweihir · · Score: 0

      That is not quite fair. Graduates of the few good CS programs in the US are good at what they do and can compete internationally. It is just that most US CS programs are really not very good. I visited a 2nd tier University CS PhD program a while ago and what the people there were doing and their level of understanding is what we in Europe expect from CS BA candidates. That was quite an eye-opener.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen and believe... Caveat emptor

    8. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply speaking two categories: hard and soft skills (good SW engineer is not nessissarly a good UX designer). For the engineer, using the soccer analogy should look closely at the title 9 tenants and goals not more h1b

    9. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut the BS. Everybody knows its free to students and small, independent Developers. Enterprise is the only one paying like that. But I think you already knew that

    10. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They lack the beard growth required for OSF commits.

    11. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forget IT! If your typical SJW really cared so much about gender "equality" they'd be focusing on the lack of women working in construction jobs!

    12. Re:Interesting.. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Linux community doesn't really stand a chance since Microsoft isn't 100% technical where as most of the "linux community" doesn't have any overhead or advertising or accounting or datacenters or call centers or executives or web designers or game developers or.... For instance up until recently Microsoft's highest level woman employed was in HR. There is no HR (although maybe there should be :P) on a github project.

      The other contributing factor is that Microsoft does hire a lot of women in technical positions but a lot of them are international where tech is viewed as just a "Good high paying job" not as "A bunch of geeks and mouth breathing virgins". That's why I always bang my head on the table when stories go something like this: "Tech is a toxic soup of misogynistic assholes... and we need more women to choose computer science!" Regardless if it's true as long as that stigma sticks around women aren't going to be knocking down the doors to be the first person to be victimized and discriminated against. However while women are far more likely to pursue tech in a developing country like India, it's mostly because "Tech is a good high paying job" not "Tech gives you the opportunity to contribute to an ideologically driven project that is an unpaid position in your free time!" That's the opposite of a "Good high paying job" that's a no paying job.

      Also the "Linux Community" is all around pretty small. It doesn't take *that* many people to create an operating system. Even if the Linux community had the same demographics as Microsoft it's safe to say that Microsoft employs about as many people to develop windows as the number of people working on the linux project. Both projects are similar in scope and design. By comparison, Microsoft not only makes windows they also have Office and Xbox and Azure and Microsoft Game Studios and Movies and Music and Hotmail and MSN.com and Cortana and Bing and Here and Lumia and Surface and... So you would need to do an apples to apples comparison of Microsoft's Windows Team vs the 'Linux Community'.

    13. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lack the beard growth required for OSF commits.

      Which 'beard' are we talking about?

      I've been with a few women who would've been more than qualified for OSF commits if you see what I mean? ;)

    14. Re:Interesting.. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent."

      Of course, there are not 140,000 new jobs. There are a whole bunch of layoff's, office closures that puts a bunch of programmers out of work [like, say, Microsoft did not too long ago].

      There are a whole bunch of already-graduated programmers that are explicitly rejected from these 'new jobs' because they can't afford to work cheap enough.

      H1B's to the rescue!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:Interesting.. by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      "Tech is a toxic soup of misogynistic assholes... and we need more women to choose computer science!"

      Please, *please* submit an article with this title to the Firehose.

    16. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more women working at MS that women contributing to the Linux community.

      How the fuck do you claim to measure that?

    17. Re:Interesting.. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      if N > 0

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ................. and yet, US dictates everything that is information technology. Therefore their system works. Just like their women football. While the rest of the world sees football as the ultimate men's sport, their women team stomps the world lol....
      Sooner or later US will dominate every sport. There's no DDR or SU anymore...

    19. Re:Interesting.. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Ah I see you're talking about Randi Harper and her harassment against the Free BSD community for someone daring to have a different opinion then her. Yes, that Harper, the one who claims to have an anti-harassment group called "OPAI" and engages in harassment.

      The problem of course, is that the FOSS community operates on merit, to SJW's and radical feminists merit and meritocracy are verboten. They'd rather have racial and sex based quotas. If people want to see how bad it's gotten look at Github, and their removal of the meritocracy rug. They're also the ones pushing for codes of conduct, that take peoples feelings into account. And at least in the projects I've started working for they've instituted a no-code-of-conduct policy.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    20. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more women working at MS that women contributing to the Linux community.

      citation?

      Regardless of Microsoft employee gender, Linux is vastly superior to Microsoft Windows. Current Linux (and Android, which is Linux) are superior to every Windows ever sold - combined.

      This is why multi-billion dollar supercomputers run Linux and don't run Windows. http://www.top500.org/lists/2015/06/
      NASA
      Amazon
      Google
      Slashdot
      etc.

      Go look.
      http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report/
      Even www.microsoft.com uses Akamai. (LINUX!)

      Anybody who doesn't already use Linux or Android... go get it. Multi-boot it or run it in a virtual machine, whatever. It's free and way better than Windows EVER WAS. I have used every OS since before 8-bit PC's with the exception of BeOS, and I did have the install media it was just too weak to bother.

      Windows belongs in a computer museum. Mac OSX only has a user base because people fled Windows.

      Windows is death knell.

      Get Linux. distrowatch.com

      Tutorials everywhere. https://www.google.com/#q=nixie+pixel https://www.google.com/#q=linux+install etc.
      there is no shortage of people using Linux.

      Microsoft people try to invoke emotion and remind how many copies they sold. gtfo. No kind of marketing can magically make Windows superior to Linux.

      eg. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability

      Anybody defending Windows is lying. It's a POS. Google search for "windows sucks"

    21. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As anybody that wants to can contribute to the Linux community, that should tell us something. (No, prissy, huge-ego women that barge in, want to tell everybody how to do things, predictably get ridiculed and pushed out again and then start to whine about that do not count as "wanting to contribute". Neither do female "kernel developers" where you are hard pressed to find a single meaningful commit. Those that actually want to contribute are welcome. Those that want to do politics are not.)

      This whole thing is about equal opportunity and women have had that for a long time now. It is not about equality, which involves forcing people to do things they obviously not want to do.

      Yeah, let's just keep it to the prissy, huge-ego men shall we? And I don't believe that women see coding as a low-stress career. Not from the nature of the work, but the nature of the abundance of male testosterone.

    22. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we want more CS graduates, we need more kids learning computing on Commodore 64s where your operating system is BASIC. Play some games like Telengard, get annoyed by how often you die, then realize you can change some lines of the program so that when you die you don't lose so much stuff. Experiment with POKE codes and REM control codes. Give kids fun that actually teaches them something, instead of sitting them in front of brain-drain shit on TV or Angry Birds. We've been teaching kids to be losers for the past few generations, and the unpaid interest is getting debilitating.

    23. Re:Interesting.. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have never heard of Randi Harper. Just shows that the problem is real.

      Personal feelings have no place in technical decisions and in grading technical merit. Anybody that does not understand this has no place in any parts of the STEM field.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you clueless neckbearded little cunt.

    25. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or the lack of stay-at-home Dads and the inequality between Maternity and Paternity leave schemes.

      There are differences between men and women, let's stop trying to ignore that. The average man or woman might do a thing better than the other gender and of course we know that doesn't mean that all men or women do that thing better than every person of the other gender.

    26. Re: Interesting.. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If we want more CS graduates, we need more kids learning computing on Commodore 64s where your operating system is BASIC.

      These days the Commodore 64 has been replaced with the substantially cheaper Raspberry Pi and Arduino as well as the Linux desktop and Android devices, experimenting with computing has become easier, cheaper and more accessible than ever before. But just because the technology sector has expanded doesn't mean the number of people interested in computing has expanded at the same rate.

    27. Re:Interesting.. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's not surprising. It costs thousands of dollars for an MSDN subscription to get the IDE for the Microsoft platform. How many young girls have that kind of cash laying around?

      But you dont need an MSDN subscription to get the IDE.

      Visual Studio Community 2013
      A full-featured IDE – Free for students, open source contributors, and small teams. Start coding the app of your dreams for Windows, Android, and iOS.

      https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/visual-studio-community-vs.aspx

    28. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^ TLDR; ^^

      Mark my words: the Year of the Linux Desktop is coming!

      :P LOL!

    29. Re: Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you clueless neckbearded little cunt.

      Aww poor baby mad that God put hair on men's chins.. aww you don't have none.. aww

      Mad because Windows sucks and there's no way to say it doesn't suck.. aww you poor stumped baby.. aww

      go update your windows idiot and ssssttttffffffffuuuuuuuuuu
      go get your beta edition of pro edition garbage 10 and download all your anti virus suites. LMAO

      W I N D O W S _ I S _ D E A T H _ K N E L L

      WINDOWS IS DEATH KNELL DWORD: 1

      LMAO @ "clueless" too. Not a damn thing you can say is there? Windows is for MILF's cam whoring and video games. Maybe not for much longer though, Linux is one of those good things about life.

      WINDOWS is not SPACE STATION QUALITY.
      WINDOWS is not GOOGLE SERVER QUALITY.
      WINDOWS is not AMAZON QUALITY.
      WINDOWS is not WWW.MICROSOFT.COM QUALITY. ahhahahahahha
      [Microsoft's servers run on Akamai.. LMAO LINUX THERE TOO BUD hahahahahahah]

      http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report/?url=www.microsoft.com

      netcraft on the other hand runs on? FREEBSD AND LINUX
      http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report/?url=toolbar.netcraft.com

      Windows is crashware.

      hahahahhahahah u maaaaaaaaaaaad because you bought that shit hahahahahhaa

      burrrrrrrrrrrrn burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn

      I suggest you got to distrowatch.com and grab Linux since it's better than Windows all day all night 365 days a year... and free.

    30. Re:Interesting.. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have never heard of Randi Harper. Just shows that the problem is real.

      Personal feelings have no place in technical decisions and in grading technical merit. Anybody that does not understand this has no place in any parts of the STEM field.

      Consider yourself lucky. She's been attacking a kernel developer in BSD for the last 4 months because he doesn't give a shit about her feelings, and she's trying to insert herself into the development by flagging down the misogyny train.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    31. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have never heard of Randi Harper. Just shows that the problem is real.

      Personal feelings have no place in technical decisions and in grading technical merit. Anybody that does not understand this has no place in any parts of the STEM field.

      Consider yourself lucky. She's been attacking a kernel developer in BSD for the last 4 months because he doesn't give a shit about her feelings, and she's trying to insert herself into the development by flagging down the misogyny train.

      I knew her personally. Will leave details at that level of comment. The modus operandi for her actions aren't due to true outrage or concern over the disputed matter(s) at hand. It comes from a *very* concerning level of cognitive dissonance - one that many close to her advised she investigate with the help of qualified professionals. I can and still hope with all certainty that she finds some peace, but at the same time, I detest what she's doing in this battle.

      Please construe my thoughts as solely objective. There is a good person deep down inside. It just needs to be harnessed.

    32. Re:Interesting.. by AnotherSeattlePrgmr · · Score: 1

      I think the best thing is ignore comments from all people that use terms like social justice warrior or use SJW because they think they are so cute. Get over your racism, sexism, and inability to treat people as individuals.

    33. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curiously, the quality of male tech professionals almost perfectly mirrors the density, quantity, and length of their facial hair.

      At the same time, women that are willing to deal with working in the male-dominated tech sector are almost invariably excellent. My theory is that if they were mediocre they wouldn't bother, unlike men.

    34. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^ TLDR; ^^

      Mark my words: the Year of the Linux Desktop is coming!

      :P LOL!

      Linux has been "on the Desktop" for years. If you don't already get it, get it.

      distrowatch.org

  2. Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some engineering degrees (Computer, Electrical), math degrees, etc. can be used in lieu of a CS degree provided you can prove you can code.

    This is all pandering to the need that companies HAVE to go get H1-B's, when the reality is no, there is PLENTY of local talent that can do these jobs.

    1. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not everyone in IT even needs a STEM degree. A lot of position are more about soft skills anyways. There are also people who thrive in tech positions without a STEM degree.

      I even know someone that managed to get promoted into IT off of a factory floor.

      This is more about the consequences of large corporations treating their employees like disposable cogs to be laid off by the "Two Bobs" guy during the next business lull. They are no longer wiling to invest in their own people, even the ones that have gone to great effort and expense to be desirable as new hires.

      You don't have to be terribly talented to be a tech worker in the large companies. Actually, it helps if you're not.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some engineering degrees (Computer, Electrical), math degrees, etc. can be used in lieu of a CS degree provided you can prove you can code.

      In fact, a CS degree is not proof that you can code, it is proof that you understand the theory of Computer Science. An associates degree in computer programming from a trade school proves you can code.
      More than likely, a CS major can code. Almost certainly a Computer Engineer can code. Lots of people can code. There is no shortage of people who can meet the demands of these 140,000 jobs. In fact, Microsoft just laid off 6,000 people that can fit the bill.
      Looking more closely, the article says that 100,000 jobs require a CS degree. So they are being specific here. They need 100,000 people who went through college to understand the theory of Computer Science. Not programs, very specifically they need Computer Scientists. I'm not sure why. In fact, I think that they don't understand the requirement they are asking for. I am guessing they want code monkeys, not Computer Scientists. In which case, we have those available in spades.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't have to be terribly talented to be a tech worker in the large companies. Actually, it helps if you're not.

      Yep. I once worked for a talented manager and he was able to find a place for just about everyone. He put the "lesser" talents on projects that would bore the shit out of the "geniuses". And many times, the "lesser" guys did some excellent work - even genius work.

      People are too quick to discount others in this profession these days. It wasn't like that when I started 25 years ago. If you loved tech and learning, you were part of the crowd. Now things have gotten cliquish and even elitist where the entry ticket is a CS degree - others need not apply.

    4. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alright I have to say it... if there are 140k US jobs for CS each year in a decade that will be 1.4 million jobs and will employee over one third the entire population not the workforce which is smaller the population includes everyone. Anyone with a CS degree should be able to get great pay in their field since only 28% of new jobs will actually be filled, and that doesn't appear to be the case.

      No I think there is something funny with their claim.

    5. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In fact, a CS degree is not proof that you can code, it is proof that you understand the theory of Computer Science.

      More to the point, it's proof that you have massive student debts so you're likely to put up with abuse to keep repaying them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Damn I got an extra decimal... now you know why I'm not a mathematician.

      Still if only 28% of the jobs are being filled why the heck aren't they paying more.

    7. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. This is a classic example of the last item in that list.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    8. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are far too many people without any technology skills or domain knowledge who are running projects badly or producing flawed analysis and requirements.

      This is why large companies have mostly failed projects, and bloated IT departments that rely heavily on vendors and get fucked by them.

    9. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US population is over 300 million. 1.4 million jobs is not anywhere near a third of that. Also, big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple have starting salaries of over $100,000, so they do pay pretty well.

    10. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Unless you went to some top or bottom (Phoenix college) tier school, you won't have massive debt.

    11. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, a CS degree is not proof that you can code, it is proof that you understand the theory of Computer Science.

      Not even that. It's proof that you can regurgitate answers, which does not require any understanding.

    12. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less than 1% of the people we interview show any hope of being useful programmers. Even of those 28% CS grads, most have the quality of a diploma mill. The jobs do pay well, but only for those who are actually good. Most good programmers that I have met quickly got promoted or received massive raises in order to retain them.

    13. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they screen out anybody looking to enter the field who hasn't lied on their resume. I used to want a job in IT, but there were literally none out there. You had to have at least 3 years of experience to even read a script at the helpdesk. And with that 3 years of experience, the pay sucked.

      I'm guessing the main reason that there aren't as many women in IT as men comes down to them not wanting to put up with this bullshit and being somewhat less interested in the innate problems as men.

      But, when you screen out people who don't yet have experience, all that's left are the ones that lied about their experience on their resume or have some pointless BS certififications from a mill. I'm not at all surprised that there's so many incompetent people working in IT right now. The ones that are competent had to go through a ton of crap to get where they were today or are old enough that the crap hadn't yet been invented to keep them out.

    14. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google, and Apple have starting salaries of over $100,000, so they do pay pretty well

      Pay is relative to the local economy. I've known programmers getting paid $200k/year and could barely afford a house near their job.

    15. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the exams and homeworks involve coming up with algorithms solving logic problems.what are you regurgitating?

    16. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      More than likely, a CS major can code. Almost certainly a Computer Engineer can code. Lots of people can code.

      Are you sure about that?

    17. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I used to want a job in IT, but there were literally none out there." Where were you looking? The Antarctic? You don't have an IT job but you are in a position to claim there are huge numbers of incompetents currently working in IT? There are quite a few incompetents but you are certainly in no position to make that judgement without some experience. You need to be able to do more than just write code to be a developer you need to be able to demonstrate that you are a problem solver. CS degrees are nice to have but they are hardly a mandatory requirement.

    18. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You had to have at least 3 years of experience to even read a script at the helpdesk. And with that 3 years of experience, the pay sucked.

      That's more of a recruiter and/or HR manager problem. I once applied for a tech position at a legal firm. The HR manager rejected the resumes for "lacking tenure" (i.e., at least three years each in the last three positions). The recruiter had a difficult time explaining to this person that short-term contracting was perfect normal after the Great Recession and anyone who had three years in the last three positions already had a new job. A year later the position was still vacant.

    19. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Damn I got an extra decimal... now you know why I'm not a mathematician.

      Still if only 28% of the jobs are being filled why the heck aren't they paying more.

      Game/set/match.

      Presumably, in the inviolable laws of supply and demand, the pay will go up, until the demand is met.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      No I think there is something funny with their claim.

      Not necessarily. After the Great Recession came and went, a lot of the old farts are still hanging on to their jobs, refusing to retire and make room for young whipper-snappers like myself to make big bucks. The shortage of skilled tech workers TODAY is the reason why I went back to school to learn computer programming after the dot com bust. Too many old farts can't afford to retire.

    21. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I went back to community college to learn computer programming after the dot com bust in 2001, taking two classes per semester for five years while working 80 hours per week as a video game tester. Uncle Sam picked up the tab for all my courses with a tax credit to learn new job skills. I make more money — and pay more in taxes — today than I did 15 years ago.

    22. Re:Luckily you don't need just a CS degree by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You can see the change here. It has gone from being a passion to being a career. It was a passion that you could parlay into a career doing things you were interested in. Now? It is about the 401k and keeping a keen eye on the next place of employment. You get folks interested in the money and not really interested in the tech. Note the lack of neckbeards.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Subject by itamihn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I studied CS there were 5 women and 200 guys in my class. With that in mind, complaining about an IT company not hiring many woman is nonsense.

    1. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do wonder if women are shying away from the CS class because of cultural issues or the way they are treated, or if it's something like not being interested. The same way that a lot of men probably aren't interested in taking dance classes in college (I assume). Although, maybe it's a combination of problems.

      It may be worth using private money to offer CS scholarships to women. That way, if they aren't interested, it's not much of a financial loss.

    2. Re:Subject by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Same here. And the women in my CS starting year (where I knew 5 of the 9 by random accident) universally had a very dim view of women that went to study easy subjects. Their explanation of why so few women study CS was that "the little ladies do not want to work hard and get their hands dirty doing actual work" (translated literal quote from one of them). This whole idea of looking at gender statistics and then deducing there is a problem is stupid. As such, it is quite in line of what SJWs usually say and do, admittedly.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re: Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, don't you see... It's Man's evil society that's trained them to be "little ladies" and that's the problem.

      (Sorry, figured I'd beat the idiots to it since their ridiculousness is so predictable. Gonna go throw up now.)

    4. Re:Subject by xvan · · Score: 1

      Somewhere I read that giving scholarships to force women into tech, in egalitarian countries where they could actually choose another path, would result in those women leaving their major, producing workforce deficit because of those empty places that could have been filled by men.

      I think that it was a British study case in the Chemistry field, and these were made with public money. I wasn't able to find the source for it.

      I can't think why private funds would choose to involve themselves in that sort of failure.

    5. Re:Subject by DrLang21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This whole idea of looking at gender statistics and then deducing there is a problem is stupid.

      That part isn't stupid. What is stupid is deducing that the solution involves creating new incentives for young women to go into computer science. It's a far deeper cultural phenomenon*. People don't like to admit this though because addressing deep seeded cultural phenomena require generations to change. That's no good for politicians who can't see any further than the next election cycle or executives who can't even see further than the next annual earnings report.


      * Note I use the word "phenomenon" and not "problem". Whether or not any cultural phenomenon is a problem is besides the point.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    6. Re:Subject by SMTB1963 · · Score: 1

      This whole idea of looking at gender statistics and then deducing there is a problem is stupid.

      That part isn't stupid.

      While you make a fair point, that part has a fair share of stupidity as well. Assuming statistics tell us something about reality, someone is looking at the numbers and declaring that reality is a problem. But why is the reality that men outnumber women in tech related positions a problem? Conversely, why is the reality that women outnumber men in Accounting/Auditing not a problem?

      It's a far deeper cultural phenomenon*.

      So it's all nurture and no nature for you, eh? God forbid biology has anything to do with it.

    7. Re:Subject by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, I used the word "problem" and for a reason. Because this is universally sated as a problem. If you downgrade it to "phenomenon", then rationality sets in and the determination of whether something needs to be done or not is still open.

      Here is another one: It seems that 100% of babies are carried to term by women. By the same reasoning as above, this would be a "problem" and statistics urgently need to be adjusted on that. See how stupid that is? I was merely pointing that out.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Subject by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Exactly my point. Now, if women wanting to go into STEM were prevented from that by society, that would be a problem. But there is really no indication of that happening. Anything else is decisions by individuals and I am certainly of the opinion that women are free to decide to _not_ go into STEM and that their reasons are their own and are not to be trifled with.

      Equal opportunity and equality are two completely different things. We do have equal opportunity for the genders. Enforcing equality would be fascism though as it would ride right over the individual's freedom to decide for themselves.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Subject by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      God forbid biology has anything to do with it.

      There is no evidence that biology has anything to do with the proclivities of the genders for computer science. There is lots of evidence that many gender differences which are popularly ascribed to biology are in fact cultural, for example competitiveness.

      Your anecdotes and personal preferences for what might be true just aren't as convincing as systematically gathered evidence.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    10. Re:Subject by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      What is stupid is deducing that the solution involves creating new incentives for young women to go into computer science.

      All you need to do is ask a 8-12 year old girl what she wants to do and figure out how to get software to help her do that. "Programming" is just a means to an end to let lazy us lazy people take over the world. Find something, anything, repetitive and boring and figure out how to automate it. That's what software does for me. Software, for me and thousands of others, isn't the end game it's a tool to allow me to be lazy. If a 10 year old girl is tired of having to do _________ on the computer teach her how Python (or Perl) can do that for her. That's how you get girls into programming.

      I personally use Python to mail out daily photos of my son. I've automated my Facebook picture posting. I really want to get a Ramp/Soak arduino built so that I can use it to bake the perfect cake. If that is what girls are interested in, then help them get there. If they have other interests foster their interests with STEM / code.

      All of these "STEM STEM STEM" "CS CS CS" initiatives fail to do the most basic question of "What would you like to do". Why has no one just asked 8-12 year old girls what they want and then trying to figure out where programming fits into it. Not the other way around.

      If girls aren't interested in gaming, why pink wash a Barbie game? Why throw money at getting them into programming for Windows Core if that's what they're not interested in at 12, 15, 18 or 20?

    11. Re:Subject by SMTB1963 · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence that biology has anything to do with the proclivities of the genders for computer science. There is lots of evidence that many gender differences which are popularly ascribed to biology are in fact cultural, for example competitiveness.

      Last time I checked, competitiveness is a behavior, not a skill. In any event, there is plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women, and there are strong correlations between these differences and observed strengths/weaknesses of the sexes relative to one another. Do you need a citation for that, or do you know how to use a search engine?

      Your anecdotes and personal preferences for what might be true just aren't as convincing as systematically gathered evidence.

      What anecdotes? I don't believe I told any stories. Care to point out these supposed anecdotes to me?

      And what personal preference did I relate? If you're referring to my comment on biology, I was merely stating that dismissing biological factors in these matters is foolish.

      If you read my statement and concluded that I somehow prefer a biological explanation to a cultural one, you are stuck in a black and white world. There are shades of grey here, and there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days. This is 2015, not 1955.

    12. Re:Subject by reve_etrange · · Score: 0

      plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women, and there are strong correlations between these differences and observed strengths/weaknesses of the sexes relative to one another.

      Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.

      If you read my statement and concluded that I somehow prefer a biological explanation to a cultural one

      "God forbid" that figures of speech imply meaning.

      there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.

      Whether this statement is an expression of your anecdotal experience or just willful blindness is impossible to say.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    13. Re:Subject by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Their explanation of why so few women study CS was that "the little ladies do not want to work hard and get their hands dirty doing actual work" (translated literal quote from one of them).

      Which is odd, considering many of them become mothers. When that happens, I can't imagine any part of their person or environment stays clean very long.

    14. Re:Subject by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. Now, if women wanting to go into STEM were prevented from that by society, that would be a problem. But there is really no indication of that happening.

      The women in STEM problem is real.

      But they got the goddamned solution backwards.

      The solution isn't t castigate and alienate the men in STEM by calling them sexist pigs and blaming it all on them, chasing the women away.

      The solution is to make STEM a career a more desirable one, and the women who have a real interest will likely follow.

      Nice office, clean working conditions, decent pay, respect Hey, now that sounds good. That isn't STEM though. That's accounting and management.

      An office in the basement with exposed ceiling, working crazy long hours, eating take out pizza because you gotta have that shit done tomorrow, so no socializing or networking for you, Charlie. That's a whole lot of STEM as it exists.

      The question might be better framed. "Why on earth do men even want to do this?"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Subject by gweihir · · Score: 1

      While you are certainly right about the problem with the working conditions (and there is career-options in addition as factor), I doubt fixing that would raise women in STEM by more than 10% or so. Most women who have a real interest in STEM are already in that field. I know a few.

      On the other side, the STEM fields are what keeps modern society going and 10% more STEM experts would be hugely desirable.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re:Subject by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Which comes as a surprise to many of them and hence may not influence choice of career much or at all. But the main deterrent seems to be the hard mental work required.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Subject by SMTB1963 · · Score: 1

      Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.

      Sigh.

      Talk about willful blindness. Why don't you take a look at this and tell me about vague handwaving. That's not the only "systematic evidence" either. And I'm not inclined to spoon feed you any other scientific studies on this subject...you're unlikely to open your eyes to anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.

      "God forbid" that figures of speech imply meaning.

      And what meaning is that? How does "God forbid" - a common idiom - indicate that I prefer biology over culture? Perhaps English isn't your first language.

      Whether this statement is an expression of your anecdotal experience or just willful blindness is impossible to say.

      Fine. I'm prepared to change my mind if you can show me some "systematic evidence" to the contrary. And please don't waste my time by citing something more than a couple of years old. My statement was unambiguously qualified.

      But since you prefer to divine "implied meaning" over the actual meaning of plain spoken words (and you don't know what constitutes an anecdote) I'm not hoping for much out of you.

    18. Re:Subject by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      and there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.

      My 5 y/o neice claimed "girls can't do physics". I erally can't help wondering where that came from.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:Subject by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I do wonder if women are shying away from the CS class because of cultural issues or the way they are treated, or if it's something like not being interested.

      How would they know how they would be treated? There is no discrimination in CS on the contrary, but there are a constant stream of bullshit articles claiming there is by pointing at gender imbalances in professors and IT hires.

    20. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my advanced French conversation class there was one other guy, and about 18 women.

      The issue no one seems to want to talk about is that this is absolutely NOT an issue of ability or sexism. It's an issue of gender-leaning differences in interests. Yes there are women who are drawn to coding. Yes there are men who are drawn to social sciences. But neither group represents the most common scenario. Both groups have equal capacity

      But genders do not share the same interests. That much should be obvious from looking at entertainment, fashion, music, games, design, etc.

    21. Re:Subject by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      In any event, there is plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women...

      Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.

      It took me about 3 minutes to find the following studies showing that brain structure/chemistry is indeed different for men and women:

      http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news...
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
      http://nro.sagepub.com/content...
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
      http://www.brain-mind-institut...
      http://scan.oxfordjournals.org...

      The last two of the studies listed above don't just show gender specific biological differences in the brain, they link the differences to skills/behavior.

      Honestly, a trained chimp could find this stuff. Why is it you can't?

    22. Re:Subject by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Why don't you take a look at this

      Do you understand the difference between a press release and a peer reviewed article?

      tell me about vague handwaving.

      OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving. What fMRI studies show about brain structure is irrelevant to the outcome of behavioral studies on whole people.

      How does "God forbid" - a common idiom

      Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    23. Re:Subject by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      You didn't get it. When you take studies about differences in brain structure and claim it supports a the notion that a specific apparent behavioral different is inherently biological, that is vague handwaving.

      Further, behavioral studies which crucially fail to control for culture don't actually say anything other than how people behave, as opposed to why.

      The interesting thing here, demonstrated in the OP's responses, is that the underlying motivation is the belief that women don't face obstacles in STEM. If you work in STEM and aren't a complete fool, it is beyond obvious that women do indeed face severe obstacles.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    24. Re:Subject by SMTB1963 · · Score: 2

      Do you understand the difference between a press release and a peer reviewed article?

      Yep, I do. Since you're obviously unable to navigate the internet, here's a link to the peer reviewed study.

      OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving.

      Reading comprehension isn't you strong suit, is it?

      The only claim I made was that there are differences in the biology of human brains based on gender, and these differences are correlated with observed behavior. You do know what correlated means, don't you? Have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Jumping to the conclusion that I claimed gender differences in brain biology explains gender differences of cognition/behavior only speaks to your obvious bias.

      Refusing to entertain the possibility that biology might play a role in the cognitive differences between men and women is the stuff of dogma. It is textbook black and white thinking, and all it shows is your devotion to some kind of social viewpoint that has nothing to do with science...it's a lot closer to religion.

      Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.

      Backpedaling? Hardly.

      I do own my statement, I just don't own your interpretation of it. My statement simply bemoans the assertion that the answer to the question has an either/or answer - contrary to the position of the person I replied to. Your continued insistence that it means something it doesn't is just plain hardheaded.

      My preference is to allow for the possibility that biology may be a factor (in addition to culture) that explains observed gender differences in behavior/cognition/skills. You shut out this possibility based solely on an assumption that men and women are able to all perform tasks equally, and any observed difference to the contrary MUST be due to some kind of cultural injustice forced on women by a patriarchal society. You've closed your mind to any other possible factor that may have an influence on gender differences.

      But by all means, continue to put words into the mouths of any one challenging your beliefs, continue to misrepresent their positions, continue to claim they've made arguments they haven't, and continue to clasp your hands to your ears and shout "NA! NA! NA!" when presented with inconvenient truths.

    25. Re:Subject by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      You didn't get it. When you take studies about differences in brain structure and claim it supports a the notion that a specific apparent behavioral different is inherently biological, that is vague handwaving.

      Uh huh. I'm pretty sure it's you that doesn't get it. I made no such claims. What I did do is provide you with a list of links that conclusively show biological differences in the brains of men and women, which were trivially easy to find, and which disprove your position that there's no reliable evidence to the contrary.

      Further, behavioral studies which crucially fail to control for culture don't actually say anything other than how people behave, as opposed to why.

      Did you actually read any of the papers in my list of citations? If you did, you would have noticed that the studies are grounded in observed brain structure/biology, not behavior. Controlling for culture in these studies would be based on the assumption that culture somehow has a measurable effect on brain structure and biochemistry, and that different cultures would have different brain structures. Is that your position?

      In any event, I would point out that the last two papers I linked to do in fact seem to claim a causal relationship between male/female brain differences and observed behavior. The paper's abstract hosted on the Oxford Journal site reads in part:

      "The current study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine whether induced stress resulted in gender-specific patterns of brain activation during a decision task involving monetary reward....Gender differences in behavior were present in stressed participants but not controls, such that stress led to greater reward collection and faster decision speed in males but less reward collection and slower decision speed in females."

      I'm not a neurologist, and I take no position on the conclusions of that study. But it sure looks to me like the paper's researchers are claiming a direct relationship between differences in male/female brains and gender differences in the ability to perform a decision making task under stress. Does this study meet your standard of reliable information? If not, why?

      The interesting thing here, demonstrated in the OP's responses, is that the underlying motivation is the belief that women don't face obstacles in STEM.

      Which OP is that? The only thing I see under discussion here is the question of 1) whether or not there are biological differences in the brains of men vs women, and 2) whether or not biology might play a role in women being underrepresented in some professions and overrepresented in others.

    26. Re:Subject by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I believe my careless use of the term "inherently biological" is at fault in creating a misunderstanding. I did not mean to deny that there are physical/chemical differences between male and female brains. Dualism is false, and to say that men and women have different behavior is to say that there are such physical differences. If culture affects behavior, then culture necessarily affects brain structure and neurochemistry.

      What was under discussion previously in this thread was that such differences are inherent, that is, determined by the genetic differences between men and women. At least, that is the necessary implication if these differences are to justify institutionalizing gender imbalances within particular fields. That's why I previously wrote that fMRI studies for example only tell us how people differ, not why. The "why" is a much more difficult question to answer, requiring at least a number of additional cross-cultural and genetic experiments.

      I did read the links you posted. While they are quite interesting, none of them provide any evidence that what they discover is inherent to men and women. If men are apparently better at spatial reasoning, or women are apparently better at social tasks, the skeptic should look to how male and female children are encouraged to play, and how they are socialized. Indeed, the first article you posted specifically notes that there were few gender differences earlier in development.

      Gender differences in broad characteristics such as "competitiveness" have been shown to be entirely cultural (a fMRI study comparing Maasai and Khasi men and women would be fascinating), and it is the skeptical position that even more complex traits such as skill-levels and proclivities are likely cultural as well. Again, differences in any such characteristics necessarily imply measurable physiochemical differences as well.

      But why is the reality that men outnumber women in tech related positions a problem? Conversely, why is the reality that women outnumber men in Accounting/Auditing not a problem?

      there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.

      Those quotes are from the parent to which I initially responded. The first is a standard non-sequitur: women are not treated purely according to their ability in STEM. That's the real problem, not the gender gap (although I suspect there is a connection). The second is merely absurd in the face of the ongoing portrayal of STEM in our culture's media, let alone what one would see in carefully observations of social interaction between STEM workers (in academia or industry).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    27. Re:Subject by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      Dualism is false, and to say that men and women have different behavior is to say that there are such physical differences.

      So you acknowledge the possibility that gender differences in brain structure/biochemistry could cause differences in the ability of the genders to perform certain tasks. Have I got that right?

      If culture affects behavior, then culture necessarily affects brain structure and neurochemistry.

      That's a pretty extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... got anything? Can you cite any peer reviewed study that supports your assertion, or should we just take your word for it?

      What was under discussion previously in this thread was that such differences are inherent, that is, determined by the genetic differences between men and women.

      I don't think so. You keep saying that, but again, my reading of the discussion so far is you are arguing that culture alone explains observed gender strengths/weaknesses. If I'm not mistaken, you now seem to have reversed your position on the matter.

      I did read the links you posted. While they are quite interesting, none of them provide any evidence that what they discover is inherent to men and women.

      I guess it's a good thing that no one here has claimed a causal link between gender specific brain differences and gender specific skill differences. Why do you keep saying someones has?

      ...the skeptical position that even more complex traits such as skill-levels and proclivities are likely cultural as well.

      You don't know much about the scientific method. An unbiased researcher would not dismiss a possible influence on an experiment.

      The second is merely absurd in the face of the ongoing portrayal of STEM in our culture's media, let alone what one would see in carefully observations of social interaction between STEM workers (in academia or industry).

      Then you should have no trouble citing an authoritative study that refutes that poster's claim.

      Cheers!

    28. Re:Subject by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize the men's rights movement had regressed to Cartesian dualism, thanks for enlightening me.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    29. Re:Subject by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      I guess you're the type who resorts to sniping when you can lo longer support your arguments. You must be very proud.

      I doubt, however, that you're open to any enlightenment whatsoever. You've demonstrated a very closed minded viewpoint in this discussion.

    30. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My class had no women. None. The handful that tried because they heard it was a high-paying job (back in the early dot-com era) changed majors within the first couple years after the coursework started getting harder. There was one that actually finished the following year...

      I, too, believe there is something to this. Then again, the attrition rate among men was also quite high, just not quite as high as among women.

    31. Re:Subject by undefinedreference · · Score: 1

      ... or executives who can't even see further than the next annual earnings report.

      I didn't realize any looked further than the next quarterly earnings report. They're driven exclusively by this ultra-short-term cycle.

    32. Re: Subject by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      I have seen qualitative evidence that they at least look as far as a year. I would give a hand wavey estimate of 70% quarterly 30% annual. I make this assertion based on the ability to budget for capital equipment and longer term development projects.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    33. Re: Subject by undefinedreference · · Score: 1

      As far as I can discern, capital equipment budgeting is based entirely on historic patterns as calculated by accountants. The executives would prefer if it wasn't an expense. The long-term projects that exceed a quarter tend to be personal pet projects that make easy scapegoats or provide easy targets for their successor to pad their quarterly results.

      It's a vicious cycle as they shuffle around the landscape leaving a path of destruction and paper profits everywhere they go.

  4. At least they are trying to solve the problem by davidwr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The important part of the article that was left out of the summary is that Microsoft is trying to address the problem by funding programs that encourage girls to get into the talent pipeline at a young age and stick with it.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:At least they are trying to solve the problem by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      The headline, I think, is the worst part; the choice of "doesn't" (vs. "can't") sets up the expectation that MS is refusing to hire qualified women. Perhaps that's true on some level, but it's certainly not the story...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:At least they are trying to solve the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But even if Microsoft chips in, how many 7th grade girls can afford the $2000+ MSDN subscription fee to even start programming for Windows? The express version of Visual Studio is too crippled to use, forcing the purchase of the full version.

    3. Re:At least they are trying to solve the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, just stop. You either don't know enough basic info to warrant comment, or you are willfully stupid. Which is it?

    4. Re:At least they are trying to solve the problem by tlambert · · Score: 1

      The express version of Visual Studio is too crippled to use, forcing the purchase of the full version.

      I'm still looking for the full version of Visual Studio on my Commodore 64...

  5. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only girls used BASIC? Who knew? Seriously, that's a pretty far reach. You're trying too hard to make this someone else's problem. The bottom line is that girls aren't as interested in technology as a general rule. Sure, they like to play games, use their phone to chat, etc. But rarely do I meet a female who is passionate about digging down into the guts of why things work, and fixing them when they don't. As long as you have a 10:1 ratio of interest, you're going to have a 10:1 ratio in the sector. It's not discrimination. I see more opportunities for women in the field these days than ever before. We can't as a society force equity to the point where you have an equal mix in every sector. We can strive to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities. I think we're there now, and what we're trying to do is force an equality beyond what anyone really desires, or would be beneficial for the individual, the sector, or the public as a whole.

    1. Re:So by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      There's something to be said for the simplicity of old school procedural languages. In some places, such languages are even still relevant. It's not always all about the new shiny shiny.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know plenty of women who love to code. None of them were born here, though. One is an immigrant from the Philippines now getting a BS in chemical engineering, one got her Master's degree in physics in Tehran and came to the US for her PhD, a number are from PRC⦠women from around the world come to the US to code, learn, and enjoy equality. Our own women spend their time watching TV.

    3. Re:So by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      We can strive to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities.

      That we can. What we can't do (without things like quotas) is ensure equality of outcome, which is what this article is really about. No matter how neutral and objective Microsoft's hiring practices are, they can't hire women who don't apply there and won't hire women who aren't qualified. There's also, of course, the problem that HR is again confusing credentials for ability, but that's an ongoing issue that's as much of a problem for men with great computer skills but no degree as it is for women.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re: So by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Our own women spend their time watching TV.

      Oh come now, that's not true. In my 20 years coding professionally, I've met literally several American female coders. Several!

    5. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if BASIC is not "around" anymore and boys are still interested in coding, does that mean they're saying that girls are too stupid to learn to code on what is available?

  6. "Strength of the talent pipeline" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft has enough money to not only open its own educational facilities and provide incentive for CS-minded students to attend them, it has enough money to build them worldwide.

  7. Maybe women are smarter? by mileshigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a tech marketing lady I met observed, the men make the stuff and the women sell it in our industry. She added "maybe that's because we're smarter about getting paid!"

    Might help if Microsoft, among others, stopped supporting increased tech H1-B quotas. They tend to depress wages and working conditions, making the "pipeline" we're trying to promote less attractive than, say, marketing. Or doctoring or lawyering. There are only so many really smart people to go around, so one profession's gain is another profession's loss. Design engineers seem to have plateaued around very roughly $100K. That's an OK living, but not exactly what I'd call professional earnings.

    1. Re:Maybe women are smarter? by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      It sounds like she's being dishonest with herself about how she manages to get paid. Even very butch female professionals that otherwise don't have a glamourous bone in their body will use their gender to their advantage.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Maybe women are smarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didnt go into programming because I was good at anything else. I went into it because it was the *only* thing I was halfway good at. I pretty much suck at everything else. I am at least competent at what I do. Most people I meet can at least do 3-4 other things competently. Especially women. They have a better pallet to pick from of what jobs they will like to do. For example my wife would probably make a great programmer. She would hate every second of it. In fact I would say my career has stalled out because I can not do other things well. Such as manage people or write documentation (both very important for continued existence in the field).

      That's an OK living, but not exactly what I'd call professional earnings.,
      That depends on where you live. In the heart of the valley not so much. In the middle of kansas that is pretty sweet. In india you would live like a king.

      The lie most of these companies have been telling themselves is 'this is a young persons game'. It is not. They have millions of competent people they do not want to hire because they are 'old' (> 30). The older programmers are great they have all the cool tricks that make things run awesome. They also have really good investment advice. They know when to burn it at both ends and when a 40 hour week is fine. Because they have all the cool experience they can share. They can help put the good ones on a great trajectory. Instead I see company after company wasting VC money to find 'unicorns'. All because they want to hire cheap labor and pretend they are getting awesome talent for peanuts.

    3. Re:Maybe women are smarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is sexism like that tolerated. Imagine the uproar if a man in an official position said men were more successful than women solely because of what is in their pants.

  8. Stop by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the argument is that because more women don't take Computer Science degrees that results in less women being hired, so don't take Computer Science away from them?

    Very few women actually enroll in Computer Science / Engineering Programs, as a result this means that the talent pool from which to hire from contains less females vs males. This doesn't mean that big commons don't want to hire women, it just means that there aren't a lot of qualified women pick from.

    1. Re:Stop by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      The FIFA exception for excellence in achievement for US women is steeped in the opposite supply and demand curve. There are plenty of qualified applicants to choose from.

      Unlike athletically gifted American males, who often choose to make a career in baseball, hockey, basketball, and the other football, there isn't as much competition for the athletically-gifted females.

      It's precisely why the US women are a force to be reckoned with, and the men are not. Soccer, the World's football game, gets a great deal more of the premium female athletes.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Stop by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2

      Exactly, so because very few women ever take a degree in Computer Science or Engineering that mean's the total number of women to possibly pick from is very low, hence even fewer of them will be picked from the talent pool. This all goes back the argument that just because you have a post secondary qualification, doesn't mean you should get a job. If 2% of an Engineering / Computer Science program is comprised of females then that means the total talent pool to pick from for an employer will be 2% female and 98% male. Now assuming that 60% of that talent pool is actually talented, and deserve a job, that means only 1.2% of females are actually worth hiring, just like 58.8% of males. This is often regarded that most companies have sexist hiring policy's, when in fact they hire the same amount of men and women when you consider the available options in the given talent pool.

      In my Engineering programs, I took two of them, the total number females compared to males who graduated was 2 females ( across both programs ) and 60 males, so assuming the 60% talent margin, that means only 1 of those females was worth anyone's time. That doesn't make the companies who didn't the hire the other girl sexist it just makes them honest. Just because you took a post secondary degree, does not mean you deserve a job, you need to also boaster the talent to back yourself and that is what a lot of people are missing.

    3. Re:Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they don't enroll because of harassment. You can't only look at the part of the problem. Harassment is real, it exists, and it is why they avoid this field like the plague.

  9. The Biggest Problem For Women in Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The biggest Problem for women in tech right now is the people who will not stop talking about the problems for women in tech.

    It's 2015. We've been through the sexual revolution, equal pay struggles, and even the girl power movement became old 15 years ago. Women today have skills, opportunity and education and most companies are bending over backwards to accomidate women in the workforce and indeed are reaping the benefit of such. It's a great time to be in tech, and a woman in tech besides... ...Except, for everyone in tech, there is one group of people who will not stop talking about women like it's 1955. Hipsters on blogs endlessly proclaiming that the tech industry is chronically saturated with troglodytes, that women cannot get a break, that geeks are habitually evil sexist white male nerds who fight to keep females out of their "fiefs". That we need more and more and more stories, and anecdotes, and drives to shame us all into being even more open, because the openness which tech achieved on its own is not good enough. We must listen to and pay handsomely a host of consultants, and journalists, and cultural critics in order that we might be saved from the original sins of privileged cis nerd geekdom.

    "What's that you say? You don't believe you are sexist? You should be ashamed! Here's another horror story about some frail young petal who was digitally raped by some guy on some social media whatever. See, tech is a cesspool. You nerds are horrible. Even your hobbies oppress women. Do as I say or I'll call up your employer and get them to sack you."

    These people, are a plague. Their hysteria is scaring women away from tech, and generating resentment inside it. This is what happens when you politicise an industry, and make no mistake Politiicisation is the driving factor here. This industry, this industry that is trying to raise humanity upwards, is being sucked down into the swamp of tribal culture wars and identity politics. This is a black hole from which there is no escape. Tech companies need to start ignoring these people and their reactionary moral panics, and focus on the positive, like we did all along. Geeks can achieve equal workplaces by itself, which is more than can be said for Hipsters.

  10. whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whew, I thought his analogy would be a more foot-in-the-mouth comment along the lines of: despite the pipeline for girl soccer development, they still couldn't compete within men's leagues.

    1. Re:whew by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      Whew, I thought his analogy would be a more foot-in-the-mouth comment along the lines of: despite the pipeline for girl soccer development, they still couldn't compete within men's leagues.

      That's because Slashdot and Dice framed his remarks dishonestly to make them sound bad. Slashdot ought to be ashamed. (I correctly expected the thesis of his article to be "Here's what Microsoft is doing to improve the training pipeline," but that's because I assume Slashdot screwed this up.)

      With regard to whether women's soccer can compete with men's soccer in terms of competing for American entertainment dollars is an interesting question. I don't watch either sport, but a fairly common opinion on Twitter is that women's soccer is MORE exciting than men's soccer because only the men's game has diving/embellishment, flopping, or "possum-ing." (I gave all three names because the act is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL in hockey, basketball, and gridiron football, respectively.)

      Is this actually common, or is this a pretend opinion held by people whose real opinion is "I like international sports, but only when my team wins?"

  11. Here's a bold idea... by supremebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't you try offering them MORE MONEY, and watch the problem resolve itself! It might not be cool, but classic labor Economics still works in the 21st century.

    Of course, Microsoft (or any other big tech company) doesn't really have a reason to do that as long as they can get a bunch of cheap H1-B workers to fill the positions instead.

    1. Re:Here's a bold idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why don't you try offering them MORE MONEY

      Because gender discrimination in pay is illegal.

    2. Re:Here's a bold idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you try offering them MORE MONEY, and watch the problem resolve itself! It might not be cool, but classic labor Economics still works in the 21st century.

      Of course, Microsoft (or any other big tech company) doesn't really have a reason to do that as long as they can get a bunch of cheap H1-B workers to fill the positions instead.

      You are suggesting that we pay a gender less, simply because they are of that gender?

    3. Re:Here's a bold idea... by CurryCamel · · Score: 0

      I don't see how that is a problem here.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

    4. Re:Here's a bold idea... by MisterToad · · Score: 0

      Maybe the C.S. curriculum is flawed. The once was a business data processing degree. We should find out what information is actually needed to be a successful programmer and designer. Look at the top programmer/designers through history, few if any had C.S. degrees.

      --
      Dick
    5. Re:Here's a bold idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a large portion of that is executive pay. Compare by position, and most of the gap goes away. Not all, mind you. But most.

    6. Re:Here's a bold idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that is a problem here.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

      It is illegal to pay men and women differently for doing the same job. The "gender gap" is mostly the result of men and women doing different jobs. A male engineer and a female engineer, equally capable, and equally experienced, should be paid the same, and any systematic discrimination is illegal. There is no requirement to pay a male engineer the same as a female childcare worker.

    7. Re:Here's a bold idea... by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      should be payed. That's the crux. I don't think anyone disagrees that the majority of the gender gap is due men and women doing different jobs, on average. Its just that not everyone thinks the causality is one-way.

      No two persons can be evaluated to be of equal value, and have equal pay, especially in expert positions (which CS mostly is). And if gender correlates with pay differences, that means that gender discrimination is happening.
      Or that the one sex is better than the other at that particular job. But with the quality of the work being extremely difficult to measure objectively, we can only assume the former.

      There is no point in sticking your head in the sand by saying the gender gap is illegal to uphold. It won't change status quo.

    8. Re:Here's a bold idea... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two otherwise-identical people of different genders doing the same job are paid almost exactly the same, at least on a population level and with moderate-size or larger companies. To do otherwise is super-dangerous because it is an open-and-shut lawsuit and the information is all discoverable. (Of course individuals may have minor differences due to experience or negotiation at hiring, which generally goes away with tenure - if the company is smart.) You can look at any of the company stats of salaries for like-for-like positions and they're incredibly close to 100%.

      This is a fact and is true today. Look at it another way - if a company could get the same work for 77% of what they pay a man, wouldn't they far prefer to hire women? People in companies could be wildly sexist, but they'd fail - that's just too much money left on the table! The 77-cents-on-the-dollar thing is an absolute lie. I'd link to actual articles, but there's too many. It makes me so angry to hear otherwise-intelligent people (like the President!) repeat it - are they that cynical, or do they really not get it? (It's got to be the former - when someone pulled up the WH workforce stats, they were quick to reply that it wasn't fair to compare across titles and experience, which is exactly how the 77c number was fabricated.)

      So what's going on? Well, there is undoubtedly a motherhood gap, because mothers generally take time off to be with the new child, which puts them behind their non-childbearing peers of any gender. Some women, of course, don't ever come back, but are still included in the stats. Of those that do, well in some industries it's particularly difficult to take a leave of absence (for any reason) - academia and tech are prominent examples. If I as a man took 6+ months off to go hiking in Asia, I'd be in the same boat.

      This isn't that complicated. The question is, what do we want to do about it? Well, it's an unavoidable fact of taking time off. We can incentivize anybody who take time off for any reason by negating the setback with an opposite incentive - this seems highly risky and undesirable. Alternatively, because procreation is a societal good, we can incentivize specifically mothers in this fashion. I trust that women wouldn't just have kids to get this benefit, and who pays for it is an open question, but it still seems like a perverse incentive - and in any case it may not be legal to do this. Regardless, such a change should be an open debate - but trying to fix it by erasing the symptom of the 77c lie would just be sneaking through the back door.

      The only alternative I see is to accept that having kids is a life choice like any other, and it has downsides and upsides. The downsides are easier to measure, but maybe not important. I personally don't know many women, including my own very successful mother, whose joy about being a mother is tempered by "but it has reduced my lifetime earning potential by X%". People do things for reasons other than money.

      This whole thing smacks of the nasty phase of old-style feminism where women berated mothers for being unenlightened and choosing to have kids. I thought we were past that...

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:Here's a bold idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it should be a requirement

    10. Re:Here's a bold idea... by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, because procreation is a societal good, we can incentivize specifically mothers in this fashion. I trust that women wouldn't just have kids to get this benefit, and who pays for it is an open question, but it still seems like a perverse incentive - and in any case it may not be legal to do this.

      I see this thread is completely pointless from now on & uptill now.

    11. Re:Here's a bold idea... by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try offering them MORE MONEY, and watch the problem resolve itself! It might not be cool, but classic labor Economics still works in the 21st century.

      Of course, Microsoft (or any other big tech company) doesn't really have a reason to do that as long as they can get a bunch of cheap H1-B workers to fill the positions instead.

      An MSc in CS takes 5 years... So that's a very very long term plan... Also not feasible...
      To make people choose CS for money to a larger extent than they already do you would have to double or triple wages... Wages that are already high enough to incentivise studying CS for the money.

      Anyways, people don't choose everything in their lives with their wallet. What a sad world that would be.

    12. Re:Here's a bold idea... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      As a stay at home father I'm getting sick of the 77% number. It's bull shit and here's why....

      A year ago I quit my job. I had been in industry for all of ~9 years. That means by this year I would have been in industry for 10 years. If I had been paid the exact same amount of money the entire time I would immediately be at making 90% of income as my peers. But start to weight my starting salary vs bonuses and raises and that number slips.

      Additionally I'm 1 year removed from what has happened in industry. I've a 1 year gap on my resume (thankfully filled with GitHub commits). I've 1 year that I haven't been networking.

      By this time next year that will be 2 years. Then 3. There are 3-4 women I went to university with that did the same thing. I was just in a position where my wife's job earned us more income and I wanted to stay at home and take care of the homefront, contribute to OSS, and raise our son.

      This is a situation that everyone that becomes a parent and it's statistically the woman that makes the decision to stay home. Especially when you consider that STEM majors usually marry other STEM majors (at least all my friends did).

      If you want to get women into industry you need to take an approach like IBM is doing: http://www.tonikal.com/ibm-hel... I showed that article to my wife and she said she would be pissed if she had to pump and dump for an entire week.

      The internet and technology is another way to address this gap. You need to do exactly the opposite thing that Yahoo and Reddit did and let people work at home. There are still other Engineers that I went to school with that will be doing a finite element analysis on their laptop while breast feeding. For 90% of my job there was absolutely no reason to be at the office. Apple has launched their "Home Advisor" program where they're starting to insource all their call centers. Everyone I know of that talks to an Apple tech says they love it. Meanwhile I have to argue with someone in India any time I contact Comcast. (And not that there is a problem with someone in India, but there was a language barrier especially between "reccomends" and "requires" a professional install when getting my Cable Card)

      My company before I left started doing the same with their IT support staff. You would call someone sitting at their home, and a lot of times they were women married to our engineers. They gave them a VOIP box, a head set and they sat at home and fielded IT questions.

    13. Re:Here's a bold idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer Information Systems. Jack of all trades hybrid between practice and theory for the entire stack. Assuming it's taught well.

    14. Re:Here's a bold idea... by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I think that domestic software engineers should be paid more in general regardless of gender. That's my somewhat biased opinion, since I fall under that category. I don't want my kid to follow in my footsteps, since I'm not sure if there will be any well paying entry level jobs in this field by the time she graduates.

      That said, offering bonuses or other incentives to get more diversity in the CS field wouldn't be a bad thing.

    15. Re:Here's a bold idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      IThat said, offering bonuses or other incentives to get more diversity in the CS field wouldn't be a bad thing.

      Yes it is a "bad thing". It is also an "illegal thing". Institutionalized racism and sexism are outlawed for good reasons.

  12. Statistics need verifying by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent

    Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?

    The article cites but does not link to a source for this statistic.

    Also, a CS degree is a long, tough slog through dull material that has dubious relevance to most jobs that require a CS degree.

    1. Re:Statistics need verifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because there is a requirement for a CS degree, doesn't mean it's necessary. There is this degree inflation.

      There are too many jobs that require college degrees when none is necessary - I actually saw a receiving clerk job requiring a degree! And most of the software jobs I see are just programming or admin jobs that don't need a CS degree but they're required just to weed people out - reduce the number of applications. If you're developing web apps or business applications, knowing about operating systems, the nitty gritty of networking, compiler design is completely useless. Most jobs out there just require knowing how to program in a certain language and with modern languages and frameworks, one doesn't even need to know how data structures and sorting works - you just need to know what class to invoke.

      It's like development has been dumbed down but the requirements have gone up. It's one thing if you're going to work for Microsoft and develop compilers, operating systems and network stacks, but needing a CS degree to develop a warehouse application?

      And with this whole STEM drive, I foresee a collapse in the job market in a few years - like what happened in nursing. We're going to see a lot of kids coming out with degrees and not enough jobs - and that's not even counting the effect of offshoring or H1-bs.

    2. Re:Statistics need verifying by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent

      Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?

      The article cites but does not link to a source for this statistic.

      Also, a CS degree is a long, tough slog through dull material that has dubious relevance to most jobs that require a CS degree.

      Those are 140,000 openings, so you don't necessarily need new graduates to fill them. You can fill them from other companies (which in theory leaves the same number of openings, but most companies don't fill voids, they just make the other people work harder), or you can fill them from unemployed CS people, of which there are tens of thousands, if not more. There are at least 6,000 more as of a week ago, when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Statistics need verifying by gweihir · · Score: 1

      This is the number of graduates the industry wants, so they can hire the best and pay them nothing.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Statistics need verifying by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent

      Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?

      This is the same company that two weeks ago just laid off 8000 American workers in their annual summer layoff program.

      And almost exactly one year ago laid off 18,000 American workers in their annual layoffs.

      And almost exactly two years ago laid off multiple divisions, with an unspecified number (estimated in the thousands) of American workers.

      And 2010, they laid off about 35% of it's American work force.

      And in the summer of 2009, another 6000.

      ...

      Every year they reduce their staff by 5000-20,000 in America, but they are hiring year round. Somehow they are always complaining about being able to find talent, but they have no problem letting existing staff fall off like an annual sheering of the sheep. The problem is not a lack of workers, or they wouldn't be laying off thousands of developers every year.

      The problem from the company's perspective is that last year's workers don't match this year's buzzwords.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    5. Re:Statistics need verifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those numbers aren't skilled CS workers tho.

    6. Re:Statistics need verifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but I do know directly comparing graduation levels and job postings is a bullshit metric. Many (most?) CS postings are very specific. You need X years of experience with Y framework along with experience in D, U, and X. You're not allowed to learn those things on the job, you must already know them. This breaks the CS job landscape into a non-trivial amount of exclusive subgroups*. Furthermore, most jobs aren't entry level positions (even the ones claiming entry-level want multiple years of experience). Most graduates are entry-level so their pool of available jobs is also significantly reduced.

      I was job hunting and graduated last year.

      *You can switch groups through self-training, but if you have a life and work, you won't have much time for that.

    7. Re:Statistics need verifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There are at least 6,000 more as of a week ago, when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people.

      Not in the US. The vast majority of Microsoft's layoffs over the past two years are entirely from the Nokia acquisition. They are stepping away from that business and are trimming back the 25,000 Nokia employees that came with the deal.

    8. Re:Statistics need verifying by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people

      What Microsoft really wants is more choice without paying for choice. They have a picky hiring process and want what they want. They don't care about society issues or trade-imbalances, that's somebody's else' problem. They just want cheap young choice, and lobby heavily for it.

    9. Re:Statistics need verifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously did not research those numbers before posting.

      The vast majority of the 18,000 last year and 6,000 this year are from the Nokia acquisition and were employed abroad. Only a small percentage were US based. Microsoft has consistently been around 55,000 US employees for many years.

      But go ahead and keep making shit up to fit your nerd rage if it makes you feel smart.

    10. Re: Statistics need verifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opinion is that society should be making the decisions about which pool of applicants a company can hire from. Corporations can and have adapted just fine to the whims of society in the past.

    11. Re:Statistics need verifying by strikethree · · Score: 1

      every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent

      Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?

      If it were true, wages would be sky high. Ipso facto, it is not true.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    12. Re:Statistics need verifying by tlambert · · Score: 1

      when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people

      To be perfectly fair, they were mostly Finnish...

      What Microsoft really wants is more choice without paying for choice. They have a picky hiring process and want what they want. They don't care about society issues or trade-imbalances, that's somebody's else' problem. They just want cheap young choice, and lobby heavily for it.

      The correct code word for "younger workers" this week is "digital native". Last week it was "recent graduate". We have "whippersnapper" penciled in for next Tuesday.

  13. bribe women for CS. by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    that's what FIFA is good at.

  14. shortage versus layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, are we talking about the same Microsoft which has been purging workers for years?

    1. Re:shortage versus layoffs by CurryCamel · · Score: 1
  15. Re:H1-B's are men, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, you mean billion dollar tech companies like Google or Intel who shit their shorts whenever feminists say "discrimination", and "lack of diversity", and "toxic work environment"? Billion dollar companies like those?

  16. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, that's why more women become teachers than engineers. The money is better...

  17. again, /. mutilates the story with a bad title by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The story submitter and/or editors clearly had some agenda here in using a misleadingly suggestive title.

  18. Fortunately by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fortunately, in technology as in soccer, nobody has taken away the ball, and the women that are interested in the field have just as much if not more opportunity than males to learn, study and pursue a career in Computer Science, and the whole article is bullcrap.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Fortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are countless examples of developers who've never taken a class and are entirely self-educated. When they do need to take a few classes for a certification their prior-knowledge allows them to speed through the class so fast it doesn't matter that there are other people of other sexes taking the same class.

      If all males were totally banned from CS classes there would still be a surprisingly large number of capable (although not Formally Qualified) men being hired for CS jobs and starting technology focused businesses.

    2. Re:Fortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what gives me confidence that this would be the case?

      Look at all the countries with no colleges or no computer science courses at all. They still have a supply of male "computer nerds" who start pc repair / tech support / networking / POS solutions / home automation / web development / app development / etc small businesses.

    3. Re:Fortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.

      There are countless accounts of men facing gender related problems in all fields due to discrimination labelled Affirmative Action. What is your argument? That we should treat anecdotal tales as indicative of the whole? That would be bullshit. That we should create even more anti-male slant in the workplace via baseless accusation of sexism simply because equal opportunity never yields equal outcomes? Are some lying? YES, of course. When has there been a drought of liars? False accusations are at an all time high now that due process has been replaced by the social shaming scheme. I don't dismiss the legitimate problems, but I would like to point out you're concern trolling over a very insignificant percentage of people. Even if all the accusations you've failed to cite are true it doesn't represent the majority of womens' or mens' experiences in the workplace, so addressing those issues will not fix the problem you're attacking using said anecdotes.

      E.g., there is a dearth of male romance novelists. Is the romance novel industry sexist? No. No one can keep a man from writing romance novels. You can not say that there is sexism simply because men and women make different life choices. Even though men and women have the same opportunities this does not mean they will make the same life choices. People like you have priorities out of whack, they try to shame male populated industries for the actions of women by trying to present rarely occurring grievances as the norm. Forty years of feminism and there's no survey of women and men as to what work they actually prefer doing, even though this would be the first step in empirically proving sexism exists. The reason why such studies aren't present is that it will blow your allegations of sexism right out of the water.

      That's my position: Professional Complainers never fix anything because then they'd have nothing to complain about and be out of a job; Fostering a "permanent revolution" is the modus operandi of these Critical Theorists. For instance: Take the removal of due process over the past few decades in rape allegations by social justice warriors. Nothing we can do keeps them from lying about the prevalence of the issue (citing anecdotal claims and bogus factoids instead) or gets them to do anything to actually fix the problem (other than blaming all men men for the actions of a few [typical identity politics]).

    4. Re:Fortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Victimitis. A mental disease where the sufferer believes that all of their problems are other people's fault.

    5. Re:Fortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.

      There is some discrimination. I've seen it. You know who I've seen exclude, ignore, belittle, and overlook women in CS and tech for the past 5+ years? OTHER WOMEN. Of course, there are some men that do as well. But women seem to have way more of a problem with other women.

      Also, you must consider the data source for a majority of the reporting... the women themselves. In a field full of low-social ability men, where clear cut responses and frank/heated debate are often the norm, socially conscious women will take offense to any response that is not soft and cushy. They get their feelings hurt when they are TREATED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE and now it's a 'gender issue'. No, fuck that, it's a low-social ability environment.

    6. Re:Fortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern tech world is fast, competitive, aggressive and lacking many rules compared to many other industries. I'm not just talking about these things among companies but within companies. A lot of what they see as sexism is just how we are to each other. We can be mean. Put on a helmet.

    7. Re:Fortunately by SMTB1963 · · Score: 1

      There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.

      There are also countless accounts of men facing gender related problems in securing jobs at breastaurants. Like your accounts, they are also anecdotal. Are you going to let your position on those instances of blatant discrimination be known as well? Would it prove anything?

    8. Re:Fortunately by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.

      I've never seen any of those accounts. I've only seen countless articles claiming that there must be those accounts because we don't have very many women in CS.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Fortunately by phizi0n · · Score: 1

      Even 15 years ago my high school tech/engineering teacher (taught a variety of classes) was giving extra credit to anyone who could get another girl into any of his classes. The classes went from small 15ish people classes with a only couple girls to 25-30 people with half them female. Tech started out rather gender neutral in the 70's and the education side has been trying desperately to fill the gap ever since it appeared.

      The real problem is that tech companies have been abusing their employees for so long. They hire the most desperate cheap labor and that will put up with being overworked, often without extra pay, which are mostly young men and foreigners. It doesn't matter that they are male, it just matters that they will work as much overtime that you throw at them. That has created the stigma throughout society that you have to be a basement dweller to be in tech and females want to be social so it drives them away at an early age. The few that stay are then subjected to all the other shit that comes from being in a gender unequal field but the root cause is that tech workers don't fight for better working conditions.

    10. Re:Fortunately by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.

      Anecdotes do not a study make. Those countless anecdotes wouldn't be about non-tech people like Zoe Quinn, Brianno Wu, etc, would they?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  19. No one cares by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Enough of the gender/race baiting nonsense.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:No one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The claim that "no one cares" is observably wrong. Articles that mention female engineers in any capacity are guaranteed to get a commenter swarm.

    2. Re:No one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Misogynist! You hate women you sexist white cis privileged male nerd gamer!! The internet needs to ban posts like yours.

    3. Re:No one cares by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Only because the issue is a political talking point. It has no utility or meaning outside of that. The people pushing this mostly just see advantage in it.

      And everyone else... for whom I presume to speak is just tired of being subjected to endless progressive horseshit.

      If the progressives want to destroy the tech industry on the west coast US... that's fine.

      They can do that. And then it will just relocate somewhere else. Go ahead. Make more Detroits. Make a new rust belt. I double dog dare them.

      When they're done the primary industry in California will be tourism.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  20. A 20 Year Old Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm beyond tired of the 'LOOMING SHORTAGE' bullsh*t. When the CS unemployment rate drops below 2% and salaries start rising 10% per year, I'll pay attention. It's been at least 20 years since we started hearing this garbage.

    1. Re:A 20 Year Old Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm beyond tired of the 'LOOMING SHORTAGE' bullsh*t. When the CS unemployment rate drops below 2% and salaries start rising 10% per year, I'll pay attention. It's been at least 20 years since we started hearing this garbage.

      In Atlantic Canada a university degree in computer science gets you a whopping CAD30000.00 annual salary for a job requiring 2 years experience. And the politicians have the audacity to complain about people leaving and the provincial budget deficit. An undergraduate degree is the modern-day high school diploma and the graduate degree is the new undergraduate degree in the minds of too many employers. The laundry list of required technical skills down the the version number of specific products as well as a plethora of so-called soft skills means a lot of people simply do not apply, not to say anything of the black holes that are the applicant tracking systems used by the human resources "specialists."

  21. Interesting editing, Slashdot... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Informative
    It's interesting that Slashdot quotes the Microsoft guy as saying "The training pipeline for women in IT and CS isn't very good" when the thesis of his article is undoubtedly "Here's how Microsoft is improving the training pipeline for IT and CS. One result of this is that there will be more qualified women in the training pipeline."

    This is an incredibly dishonest way to frame this guy's remarks. Slashdot and Dice should be ashamed.

  22. Liars, Damn Liars and Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 140,000 number compared to 40,000 graduates is a ridiculous comparison and why most authors don't know about statistics. It is shallow analysis to get people riled up while spreading FUD. There is not a gap between graduates or those who have graduated and are looking for a job. There is a mismatch between what HR wants including what they will pay versus the pool they have to choose from. They are on a purple squirrel hunt and articles like this try to push the STEM agenda which does not really help with why we really need STEM within the curriculum.

  23. H1B Excuse by mpapet · · Score: 2

    This is a common tactic used to keep the H1B-type labor programs going in Congress. You get a bonus with H1B labor programs keeping domestic labor costs down and therefore depressing the number of entrants in the field.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  24. Too Many People by kackle · · Score: 2

    And, with the incredible amount of wasteful digital projects that consume human labor, I question whether we really NEED 140,000 new computer people each year. I'd say about half of the projects I have worked on within the last decade have been canceled before completion. Mine can't be the only company engaged in such misdirected waste. Do we really need so many Linux distributions? Does MS really need to shuffle the features around in its latest operating system? Why do the newer web browsers seem to work worse than their predecessors? How does craigslist.com work so well using, zOMG!, HTML with plain fonts? Do touchscreens need to be everywhere? Do automobiles need so many microprocessors and networks(?!) to where they are now at the point of dubious stability? Does anyone really think that the "Internet of things" is going to live up to its hype when anyone over the age of 40 remembers how we were already promised a Jetsons-like paradise in the late 1990s, when the Java virtual machine was going to connect our dishwasher to our toaster? VRML anyone? Virtual Boy (now called "Oculus Rift")?

    It's like a thousand-pound man is asking for his second bag of potato chips when really he needs a diet.

    1. Re: Too Many People by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      You left out the part about getting off your lawn.

    2. Re: Too Many People by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Pepperidge Farms Remembers...

    3. Re:Too Many People by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Of course Microsoft has to shuffle everything around with each new release. How else do you expect them to make a fortune to re-certify everyone if they kept everything the same between versions?

    4. Re: Too Many People by kackle · · Score: 1

      Ooo, I love Pepperidge Farm...

  25. A lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why this Chestnut keeps being dragged out.

    They whine about a "talent shortage" because they can't find the talent, They want, and the PRICE they want to pay.

    So cry me a river, seriously.

    Keep QQing about a talent shortage all you like though.

  26. keyword 'lack' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That keyword, is a pure bold faced lie. They keep screaming it to get stupid laws passed like H1B, they are among the richest, and yet even after us IT people's abilities gave them BILLIONS they still want to treat us like replaceable light bulbs.

    Fuck microsoft, I hope someone burns their shit to the ground from the inside.

  27. The reason why more Americans don't get a CS deg. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why more Americans don't get a CS degree is that American Companies don't want to hire them. A number of years back my son graduated from a top university with a degree in CS. It took him a year to get a job. If he was from outside the USA he would have gotten a job faster. The programming field is flooded with programmers most of them foreigners so there isn't much incentive for an American to get into such a crowed field.

  28. FIFA by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Wow, to aspire to the high moral standard of FIFA leadership in maintaining fairness for all.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  29. Women succeed at soccer because there are no men by loufoque · · Score: 2

    The reason women succeed at soccer is that there are no men in that field in the US.
    That's Blue Ocean strategic thinking: if you want to succeed, go to uncontested markets.

  30. don't take away their ball? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, FIFA doesn't give free footballs/training/facilities to women, but Microsoft gives free IDEs and documentation to everyone https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/visual-studio-express-vs.aspx

  31. I'd dare say that the real reason.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... that more men work at Microsoft than women is simply because more men apply to worth there in the first place.

    And for any women that might express discomfort with the fact that the workplace is primarily male as a disincentive apply to such a place, I would suggest that is ultimately just a manifestation of their own insecurities (cue the feminists who will call me a misogynist upon reading that)... but my point is that it is *THEY* who are focusing on the gender differences, and not necessarily Microsoft In a work environment that may happen to be dominated by the opposite gender, where one can otherwise perform all of the duties that the job demands with sufficient competency, about the only legitimate reason I can think of that one would have to really experience any discomfort is concerns about sexual harassment. But there are laws that govern that anyways, and a mechanism by which people who engage in such actions can be brought to justice. Some people are sincerely afraid to leave their house alone too... simply because they think they might get mugged. One can either allow fear to paralyze them, or take control of their own life and try and do whatever it is that you want to do. One can't control what other people may or may not do to you, so they really shouldn't worry about that. If one is a woman and finds that you have an aptitude for STEM, then by all means they should enter a field relevant to that, and *NOT* worry about what other people *might* do. Otherwise, they are no different than the agoraphobic who stays indoors because they believe something bad will happen to them if they go out.

  32. Is anyone else tired of this nonsense? by Pollux · · Score: 1

    It irritates me every time I hear this ruddy nonsense that keeps spewing out of Seattle and San Fransisco that we're not cranking out enough computer science graduates.

    Hey Microsoft! Newsflash! Computer science majors rise and fall as starting salaries rise and fall.

    If you want to see more majors, raise your starting salaries. Stop firing everyone and outsourcing to India.

  33. Bad calculation by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent."

    And this would be a logical inference if the only people looking for jobs were that year's college graduates.

    But, actually, very few job openings are filled by fresh-outs.

    Conclusion: mIsleading and false.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Bad calculation by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I am convinced the reason behind that number is that at this number the industry could hire the best and pay them peanuts. (Not that the best will stay good or even reasonably proficient if that happens: If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys...)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re: Bad calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently have a development job and do not have a cs degree.

      I do have a name though.

    3. Re:Bad calculation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They also fail to state how many of those jobs would be there if they subtracted the jobs lost each year.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Bad calculation by Coldeagle · · Score: 1

      Completely agree. Most companies are looking for the purple cow. They are less and less willing to invest the money in developing resources so they can obtain the experience needed to succeed and fill those important positions later. They continually complain about the lack of graduates; however, they would not spend the capital to invest in new graduates anyways.

      I just did a very simple litmus test. I went to indeed and searched for:

      Jr Developer in San Diego. Results: 82
      Sr Developer in San Diego. Results: 536

      Does anyone else see a problem here? We are getting to a point of diminishing returns here!

      I would not relish anyone trying to gain experience in today's market. I was fortunate 14 years ago to be at a rapidly growing company who was willing to take a chance on a pretty good tech support agent whom preformed pretty well and tried out new things. I doubt such a thing would happen in today's job market.

      It scares the hell out of me to think what kind of troubles my daughter will have if she decides to follow in my foot steps. I honestly hope she follows in my wife's (she's a nurse) because that's an industry that is still grudgingly willing to take recent grad's.

      I generally loath government interference in business; however, I think a nice tax credit to companies whom hire new grad's might be in order. It might help with the default rates of student loans at the very least, and it would also help increase the pool of experienced candidates in a few years and maybe make us less dependent on H1B (which generally are not much better than recent grads in my experience).

    5. Re:Bad calculation by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

      Couple this with the fact that 120,000 of those 140,000 positions don't really need a CS degree to do the work the position requires, and you have a better picture of the problem a lazy HR department causes.

      --
      -- Stu

      /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
    6. Re:Bad calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then they do that every year, paying the new grads less, and laying off the expensive senior people, all while getting a nice tax credit. See how that works?

    7. Re: Bad calculation by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Exactly the point that jumped right out at me. As for the poster who said that US people are only good for code monkeys and H1B's for higher work, my experience has been substantially the reverse.

    8. Re:Bad calculation by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Bingo, IT is a catchall and alot of the work assigned belongs in the secretary pool.

    9. Re: Bad calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, you're giving the vast majority of the H1Bs too much credit. I've encountered quite a few "PhDs" that wouldn't hack it in a second-year community college computer science class. I'd pit my coworker with an AS against about 99% of them without a second thought, in spite of the fact he believes that his skills are mediocre.

      What I've realized is that the school systems in most Asian countries are designed exclusively around rote learning. Their purpose is to churn out hundreds of thousands of reliable bureaucratic peons, not hundreds of thousands of independent thinkers. Aside from the short-term mentality of MBAs, where cutting costs for better quarterly numbers is their primary aim, I don't understand why anyone would use this so-called "talent pool" for more than customer support.

  34. Dat Ending Doe by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    that last comment about taking away their ball and that article. strawman? it takes nearly 0 effort to set up a general purpose dev env in windows.

  35. FIFA did not take away the ball, but ... by WoOS · · Score: 1

    And in addition the summary praises FIFA for

    one thing FIFA realized that Microsoft didn't is that if you want girls to play your sport, you don't take away their ball!

    Well they didn't try to take away the ball but tried it on the non-skimpy shorts and succeeded on the natural gras.
    Now if that sets a standard on what the author of the summary expects from companies to do to entice women to come to IT ......

  36. Bad analogy by rossz · · Score: 1

    Because FIFA paid the LOSERS in men's soccer more than they paid the winners in women's soccer.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  37. Gaming is another taboo for woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems video gaming developers is a men only need apply career too. While I agree that more woman need to get involved, I see that in many cases woman simply are working for places like Microsoft and Google in other areas. Not necessarily in computer science but still involved in working in technology. Let's also not forget that FIFA pays very little to woman soccer athletes vs the men. Plus the men have a much better opportunity after the FIFA league to succeed.
    The burn out with computer science is pretty big too. Maybe woman are smarter and pick jobs with more free time, less stress and a longevity that is better?
    Its like how many woman work on oil rigs? Better question, how many really want too?

  38. The question needs to be asked... by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would anybody, in their right mind, get a CS or IT degree if they knew how shitty the environment was?

    Microsoft and every other tech company: We want talent, but we don't want to pay for it. Give us more H1-B workers to cut the average salary, please.

    Game corps: We slave-drive our workers, because it's better to take young talent and burn them out so they leave before they get too expensive. Which is why we're always re-inventing wheels.

    IT: Dealing with really ungrateful idiots every day, all week, all year. The higher-up the chain, the stupider (with tech) they are.

    Why would anyone, male or female, bother to get into this?

    Fuck it. Play soccer.

    --
    BMO

  39. BINGO !!!! by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Interesting

    #1 the companies want a glut of workers so they can pay them nothing and use them as tools discarding when completed.
    #2 Women being slightly smarter than men don't WANT to go into an industry built on virtual slavery and worker abuse. In general they aren't as flexible or willing to commit as much to a career given the option of a family, there are of course exceptions everywhere, but as long as the IT industry is run like a feudal system that thrives on worker sacrifice it is unlikely to achieve a balance of genders. You can't hire those who don't apply, and you can't force women into a educational course they don't want to pursue.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  40. That was a bad analogy by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Let's see how the women's soccer team does against the men's soccer team. So the unspoken argument is that you should hire inferior people to fill the role.

    Somehow, I do not think that is the message they want to get across.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  41. Re:The reason why more Americans don't get a CS de by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the 2008 recession and for the next several years I was bombarded with constant job offers looking for programmers, all starting pay in the top 25% of the local economy. That was when I was fresh out of college. There are a lot of jobs. My current job can never find enough programmers and I'm getting involved with the hiring process.

    There are not enough good programmers.

  42. Microsoft fires a woman with Breast Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew a woman who was an outstanding computer programmer at Microsoft. When she got breast cancer they replaced her. She was devastated. Press releases and HR speak are nice but let's see if they really do anything that actually helps.

  43. Then pay tuition by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    If there really is such a shortage of CS grads then pay the tuition for all of them or stop whining...and stop running to Congress for more H1B. It cannot always be on the shoulders of others to generate and foster talent.

  44. Um .... No. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I hear lots of Brahmin excuses for why they don't hire women or Untouchables in this.

    Just Do It.

    Seriously, I've met many highly educated women who would work in STEM if hiring managers and top execs would just hire them.

    Excuses don't matter.

    Actions do.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  45. Geek coders VS formal coders by phorm · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I've seen issues with coders on either end.

    A lot of people who are very book-savvy (CS degree etc) are terrible at creative thinking or at dealing with a "server on fire" issue. What they're good at is formal coding that follows fairly established principals, and - and people often understate this - formatting. In most cases one predominant advantage to somebody who is formally taught is that their code is fairly readable to somebody who is knowledgeable in the field (depending on where they studied, it may even be a bit verbose).

    Now the self-taught guys/gals... they're good at thinking on-the-fly and learning stuff for themselves, because that's how they learned in the first place. They tend to be more driven by curiosity and willing to experiment as well (which can be good or bad). These are often great people to have when it comes to unusual issues which require out-of-the-box solutions, unfortunately it also tends to give you code with shit variables like
        $a = $z += ($x * $b)

    or in other cases... well, no cases (a lot of IF/ELSE statements instead of a case/switch).

  46. A new low for M$ excuse to regurgitate faulty data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are lots of other degrees within the specialty other than just C.S. degrees and in 2011, 28% of those employed in Computer occupations had less than a bachelors degree. Additionally, since 2009, the occupation has only grown by 69,610, -- not 140,000 per year, more like 14,000 per year.
    support