Slashdot Mirror
Report Shows Another Diversity Challenge: Retaining Employees (sfchronicle.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Women, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to quit jobs in tech than white or Asian men, according to a new report by the Kapor Center for Social Impact. The Oakland nonprofit commissioned an online survey by the Harris Poll, which asked 2,006 people who voluntarily left tech jobs in the past three years about why they quit. It found women were twice as likely to leave as men (alternative link), while black and Latino tech workers were 3.5 times likelier to quit than white or Asian colleagues. The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
Maybe not. It sounds like a waste of resources.
Let me guess, they were expected to be productive members of the team and not just the token minority, and that got to be too much for them, so they quit rather than be fired for incompetence.
I know it doesn't account for all of it, but I've lost many female co-workers to motherhood and their decision to stay at home with their children.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.
It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.
Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Let me see... If hiring "quotas" are the end-all solution to getting minorities and women into tech jobs, wouldn't "quotas" on leaving a job be the solution to retention?
Am I missing something here?
</sarcasm>
While this claims the primary reason as mistreatment, we know that most people leave their jobs because of their relationship with their boss. Their boss's primary concern is performance. In colleges the highest dropout rates are seen in the groups that are selected for what amounts to diversity programs. More commonly known by affirmative action. A lot of the other issues being removed for, it is presumed that the high drop out rates from affirmative actions selected candidates is because of the lack of ability to perform to the standard that is being controlled for by entrance requirements. You can't goto MIT and expect to survive if you are only in the top 5% of Math ability, when everyone else around you is in the top 0.5% of Math ability.
"Mistreated" liked claimed by Ellen Pao, or actually mistreated?
When a White person (or an Asian) gets mistreated, then he just thinks "Man, people are assholes!"
When a Black or Latino gets mistreated, then he thinks "Man, white people are assholes!"
When a woman gets mistreated, then she thinks "Woman, men are assholes!"
In my black, female opinion (I'm transgender and transracial): Only the Whites (and Asians) have the right understanding: People are assholes.
Before the Great Recession, I changed jobs every three years by either staying at the same company or leaving for another company. After the Great Recession, I took whatever job that came my way that lasted anywhere from four hours to years. I'm currently halfway through a five-year contract. Someone leaving at the three-year mark seems normal to me.
Mistreatment in the eyes of the employee could also be that the individual was under qualified for the position they were in due to aggressive diversity hiring practices. If individual wasn't prepared for their work role, being held accountable by management or their peers for a certain level of performance could be perceived as mistreatment.
It is absolutely necessary to achieve the diversity our corporate overlords desire.
As someone who attended MIT, I can tell you that you'd survive even if you were at the bottom of the top 30% in Math ability. It's true that a lot of inhumanly intelligent people attend MIT, but there are a lot of "regular" folks milling about, too.
If you've been employed in a job that you're not qualified for and not interested in by a company that is seeking to meet a quoter, then it's very likely that you'll leave once you find a job you are more interested in.
The problem with diversity programmes is that they start on the false assumption that men and women are identical and have identical interests and motivations, and therefore the number of men and women in a company should be identical. They then fight furiously with reality to try and achieve these numbers, and in the process end up filling their vacancies with all the wrong people. Those people then leave because they weren't actually interested in the first place.
I'm certain that self-esteem plays a big role in this.
Put all the different races in their own section. That way there can be no abuse if one race by another. Problem solved.
Because almost every tech company I walk into these days, I see nothing but Indians in their 20s and no white males (or any other Americans for that matter)... where are they all going and why doesn't anyone worry about them? ?; ?
The pressure is on white/asian males to provide for their families. It is a cultural thing, we are expected to be the ones to take whatever abuse is shoveled our way in order to care for those who depend on us.
I know it doesn't account for all of it, but I've lost many female co-workers to motherhood and their decision to stay at home with their children.
"The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment."
Motherhood is one factor, but I hesitate to go there first because there is still such a problem with harassment in tech. Still, a company can make the job easier for working mothers in a couple of ways (e.g. good maternity leave policy, providing good day care, providing a place and break time for recent mothers to express milk even if they are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc...).
Real lawyers write in C++
Most companies hire minority employees to improve their image
Once hired they have no mechanisms to protect against discriminations within the corporate structure. Clear penalties and fines for racial or sexual harassment. Full records of conversations between employees during working hours. A CEO who actively enforces these things. This is not your average tech company in 2017. Most CEOs are not students of sociology and population statistics. Most CEOs are not emotionally strong enough to manage this aspect of company culture. So when this all occurs in the blindspot of accountability and oversight, it is really easy to blame minorities for leaving.
A forgiveable offense for the mass of idiots that populate this world.
I'm all for diversity in hosting but you can't control free will. If a woman, black or whomever gets a better offer elsewhere why should the company they are leaving be responsible for that?
"Workplace mistreatment" = "I'm an entitled assclown who whines when they don't get their way in EVERYTHING".
I've worked with several women and (I HATE this fucking phrase) people of colour, and they were all hard working and weren't expecting anything more than what everyone else expected. I still keep in touch with most of them in fact. The difference in my case is that those coworkers of mine were all older (ie NOT a millienial twatwaffle). I suspect most of these little snowflakes complained of mistreatment because they were in over their heads, or expected to make tons of money in IT right out of school and not have to put in the (sometimes) really long hours, nights, weekends, being on-call, all the things older IT people understand and learn to adapt to. So they use 'mistreament' as a crutch when they have to miss a Friday night to restore a failed mail server or whatever.
And they said the 1970s were the ME decade. These little wankers make the '70s look like '50s.
Clearly, your previous boss was such a jerk that he didn't even pay you what you're worth. What an Asshole!
The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
Translation: They couldn't actually do the work.
In my experience, job hoppers are those who have the freedom of options. This would indicate that these folks are more enabled than those stuck behind.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Not mentioned: In tech jobs, women and minorities get hiring preferences, so they probably feel freer to quit and look elsewhere.
On the whole, if you want to see who is most successful in IT just watch who walks out the office's front door at 1am, exhausted, stumbling to their car.
In a vast majority of cases it will not be the female employees. Invariably they have to leave at 5pm to catch the commuter train, or to pick up the kids, or a million other things.
Who it will be will be the single man who has no life or a married man who has a strong wife who works as a team with him to fulfill the goals of family.
That's been my experience. It's just the reality of life. It's not discriminatory. It is to each his own.
The real problem is that women are of the opinion that career success == life success. That is about as far from reality as you can get.
Women should consider the ability to hold a job and contribute to their total family as a "Battle Win".
Then they should look at their long-term ability to have children and raise them well as a "Winning the War."
Caution: Contents under pressure
is "Are women and minorities mistreated more often, or are white men more tolerant of being mistreated?"
Unfortunately, there's no possible way to ask that question that won't produce an hysterical, blind hatred response from pretty much everybody.
Many universities are dropping math requirements because female and black students cite math courses too hard as their reasons for not completing their STEM degrees.
Could the inability of blacks and females to do math affect their performance or expectations on the job, in the tech workforce
The company can't force employees to like someone. If there are known incidents, they can perhaps do something, but most "mistreatment" is subtle and/or unrecorded. The organization cannot micromanage social encounters at that level.
In general, many people are tribal jerks. I've had white colleagues who told about mistreatment when they worked with a uniform non-white group, such as all Asian. The "minority" is often targeted. Sometimes it's driven by resentment of "white culture" discriminating against them in general. They channel that frustration into an individual who happens to be white.
I'm not sure how to fix this because it's probably fundamental to human nature. Mass nagging about "being good" only goes so far. If you over-nag, people often do the opposite as a protest to the nagging. (Is the word "nagging" sexist?)
Table-ized A.I.
They treat everyone like shit :(
need to learn how to suck it up
Why stay in a job where you are unhappy? Just so you can complain every day and bring everybody else down? The right thing to do is leave and find something else.
Probably, they have retired or left California and moved to Colorado or Texas. They saw the H1B replacement program in progress 20 years ago. Housing became so expensive, employers were unwilling to pay jumbo salaries for jumbo rents and mortgages so they figured it's cheaper to hire people who are willing to house-share.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The same as the manager thays been there for 20 years does not count as mistreatment.
This could mean whites and Asians are less mobile, unable to leave their existing jobs even if they wanted to.
Maybe white and Asian males are more likely to have families to feed, and they can't just quit willy-nilly and bring uncertainty to their household's financial situation.
Maybe they know it's harder for them to find a new job, for they are not one of the categories that firms are seeking to fulfill "diversity" goals, nor are they superstars with the skills/experience to have recruiters/headhunters chasing them instead of other way around.
Furthermore, for Asians, they may very well be including H1Bs who are stuck with their employer.
Accuses white men of "the inherent racism and sexism" and then proceeds to call them "little white male snowflakes".
I guess it's ok to be a sexist and a racist as long as you're racist and sexist against white men.
Yes, I wouldn't doubt that the standards have dropped precipitously since then.
When I attended, there was this huge push to make students more well-rounded; not only did this entail a slew of "humanities" requirements (FFS, I chose MIT for a reason!), but it also meant that admissions officers wanted to select people who were already well-rounded rather than freakishly specialized in topics of, you know, technology.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, the Dean of Admissions, Marilee Jones, was caught having lied about her own qualifications (she didn't even have an undergraduate degree), and she had spent a great deal of time during her 28-year career at MIT trying to assert that it wasn't necessary for prospective students to be perfect.
Hey, what do you know!? It turns out that she started working at MIT in 1979, and probably came to power not long after you left.
I bet she had a great deal to do with the dumbing-down of MIT's student body (yes, I realize that includes me; though I probably shouldn't have been admitted, even I found others' admissions suspect). And, this is not just my opinion; I had discussions with the old guard; members of the faculties of theoretical topics (say, of Pure Maths) found MIT's student body to be less capable than it should be.
However, I also blame the faculty of the more practical (read: profitable) fields; Course 6 (EE/CS) was filled with influence from "industry"—MIT eventually stopped teaching Scheme in favor of Python, because, you know, that's what Google wanted—companies wanted employees who were ready to work. Worse yet, it seemed like the professors were increasingly refugees from "industry", touting their "experience" as though it meant something useful to our studies. Well, it didn't. They were awful at communicating the theory that we actually needed to master (maybe we didn't; so many students just memorized most things), and that's when they could speak English well enough to understand them; sometimes, it was better to stay back in the dorm and just read textbooks.
In turn, this probably had an effect on the kinds of students who not only excelled at MIT, but who excelled at being admitted into MIT: As my time went on, it became obvious that I was surrounded by cutthroat ladder-climbers who had nothing but dollar signs in their eyes: A certificate from MIT was a ticket to the gravy train; there was no passion for any subject; there was no sense of intellectual adventure! A pre-frosh girl became upset with me when I didn't want to entertain her questions about which "major" would be most lucrative. (Now, for the record, I have no problem with assessing profitability; the point is that MIT seemed to be no longer primarily a gathering place for those who found passion in technological or scientific understanding.)
Long story short, it's useful for people to think that I'm a member of the Ubermensch on account of my affiliation with MIT, but the sad truth of the matter is that I don't feel much pride at all; in fact, it kind of rustles my jimmies to think that I maybe got cheated out of some mythical MIT experience, especially when it was so exorbitantly expensive (but hey! At least the gravy train has taken care of that, amirite?).
Give it a rest. The guy wrote that because he's trying to fit into the culture now on campus. Playing the fool.
If we are going to hire and promote based on external characteristics now then good luck when the project fails because you didn't hire the best talent, only those that looked a certain way. It's just discrimination in another form.
And you are just as big a racist and sexist as anyone here. Read your own words.
My Ex is a very competent programmer/manager and I know a number of very competent female programmers. Good female developers put in the same number of hours as men married men and maybe even more. Harassment from male engineers is almost non-existent with one exception.
Institutional stupidity and harassment towards women occasionally happens. There still are some senior managers that will promote a man over a woman and some companies are clueless when it comes to pregnancy or bathroom availability.
The biggest problem by far that I have seen is harassment by other women. And I've seen it at every single company I've worked at. Women will back stab each other and withhold key information. Secretaries are passive aggressive to female engineers, will refuse or be late with simple but critical tasks to other women, short change other women in petty ways like giving them the noisy office, saving $20 on a flight by choosing the flight with 2 extra stops,etc. If a woman gives the same instruction a man would give a woman in the exact same way the woman receiving the order will be resentful. Woman have to be friends and show they are a team or some bullshit like that and then make their orders requests. And women are expected to put up with this crap and not make a big thing about it. This last point is the exception. If the secretary was passive aggressive to a male engineer he could complain and at least get a sympathetic hearing of his complaint. If a woman complains then the problem is the women in the office not getting along.
This marxist response to valid criticism of modern social justice shows why it's so hard to maximize organizational talent: These insecure losers have managed to make skin color and sex more relevant to worthiness than ability and accomplishment under the guise of fighting against such bigoted discrimination. There are, however, quite a few people who actually see this hypocrisy for what it is as the western world has starting moving away from such damaging ideology.
This particular SJW Rabbit Hole is going to grow deeper and deeper as we try to resolve "injustices" through anything other than market forces.
There is already an Exodus from California underway as they try to legislate away hurt feelings. I was in San Francisco not to long ago, and what used to be a great city is now approaching third-world status with people defecating in the streets.
Benefits like this need to be abused or we'll never be rid of them. I'd much much rather get rid of every single benefit and have that money put into my salary than have the company decide what "benefits" I really want/need.
Men are told that not only must they be productive enough to get the girl, but they must do so while sporting rippling biceps and abs so tight you could wash clothes on them.
Don't give me this bullshit about men not having unrealistic aesthetic standards to which they must aspire. If anything women are special in that they have only the aesthetic standards.
If Blacks, Latinos, and Women don't want to work in tech, what's the big deal? Why do we need to socially engineer that industry? Why don't we have the same concerns about primary teachers or nursing?
First it was the CIS-het-white-males, then it was the gay men (they are *men* after all), and now it's the Asians (apparently the are not people of enough color).
Ask yourself when the oppression hierarchy is coming for you!
Ageism is rampant. There are lawsuits about offshoring based on age. I'd like to see how that works within the given data.
but I know why most of the women in my area of expertise tend to leave the workforce....they get married and have kids. Its that simple.
This is with STEM, where if you leave regardless of gender it's going to be tough coming back because you are going to be out of date/rusty/lack of relevant experience/ ect. It's not easy to just jump back into the same programming job after 3-5 years of being out of the loop.
Not that most of the ones I know wanted to go back even after 3-5 years when the kids got old enough, some of the women I knew were pretty hard line workaholics too, but once they got the freedom of not having to work and being a mom, they completely switched attitudes and went all suzie homemaker and stay out of the market until the kids are graduated or in late high school.
For office jobs, this is why most women tend to gravitate towards jobs like sales, recruiters, accountants and office assistants, because they can pick up and go, there is literally no ramp up time for the technical skills required.
I guess they kinda like to take care of their kids... There must be something wrong with women these days. Why would you quit a career to raise kids!?!?!
Most women I've known put money far above men's looks. If I had to use a point system, I'd assign it as such:
Earning power/potential: 60 pts.
Protecting and caring: 30 pts.
Looks/muscles: 10 pts.
True, the muscle part could be seen as "protecting and caring". I'm rather large in general such that perhaps that part mostly took care of itself despite me NOT resembling a super-hero. A man small or slight in stature may need muscles or karate skills to make up that portion of the report card.
Women want to be able to walk down the street at night with their guy and feel safe. There are different ways to achieve that. Some men fake it well with pure attitude.
Table-ized A.I.
We're all mistreated and we mistreat each other.
First - there's the serious mistreatment. I.T. is treated like a pariah at many companies. We are an expense, and we are an expense that many companies have a difficult time grasping. "We send the plumber away after he fixes the toilet, why do we have this guy on the payroll after he fixed my printing issue?" Bean counters especially hate us, because the things we support and provide to the users are expensive. I don't care who the computer is for, I.T. is blamed for it being purchased for it needing support. This is very much a "shoot the messenger" problem. I've seen companies that get rid of their support people, and I've seen it hurt them in the end. I've seen executive assistants - the guard dog types - really hate on I.T. because their master had a computer problem that wasn't immediately fixed and you're expensive.
Second - there's the peer to peer mistreatment. We're I.T., we eat our own. We are continuously cruel towards one another, especially if we like you. Holding back and treating you like a customer means we really don't want you around or we consider you a volatile liability. It's something I've found as pretty much a universal culture among competent technical people. We like practical jokes, well placed insults, and picking at each others issues. We're like a bunch of junior high kids, never mind we're in our 30's and 40's. Most of the people I've seen have a problem with mistreatment seem to only have the problem after they become accepted as part of the group. Some people just don't know how to fit into the culture. This isn't a race or gender thing, I've seen acceptance and breakdowns in about every combination of race and gender you can imagine. We're geeks, competence is currency, if someone is placed in an I.T. area due to affirmative action or nepotism they aren't going to become part of the pack. If you can't pull your own weight they're not going to feel sorry for you, they're going to eat you for lunch. Most successful technical environments I've been in have been meritocracies with the exceptions of rule by the person signing the checks, in which case even those setups are virtual meritocracies where you have the alpha-geek and the guy who can over rule the alpha geek.
Third - the serious real discrimination. Most real discrimination I've seen comes from H.R. departments and busy-bodies. Forced diversity is discrimination. I've been in really good self-governing technical departments. Usually the more offensive and wolf-packish they are, the better they are. I have on occasion had the pack destroyed due to concern from busy-bodies who don't understand that mode of operation intentionally changing seating arrangements, injecting people who aren't exactly up to par, and intentionally injecting people with polar opposite personalities into the team (who don't even technically qualify for the job) just to break up the wolf pack. I saw the intentional pack breakup happen by an injection that increased the size of the team 25%. Productivity fell by 40% as the old wolf-pack had to drag anchors through the work day. FYI, in the situation I'm talking about - the rudest, crudest, and the leader of the pack was female, she was awesome, she told the dirtiest jokes I've ever heard and had a photographic memory, able to recall data at will that I had to look up. We had both Hispanics and Blacks on the team that were part of the pack. The intentional breakup had nothing to do with race or gender - they wanted to break up what they saw as a homogenized personality type. The injected individuals consisted of a white female, a white male who was tech savy in an engineering sense but was mild mannered and couldn't handle high pressure rapid fixes of in a monitored queue environment. He was the type who would spend a day or two getting at a problem the rest of us knew how to plow through. The third was a black female that could barely operate Outlook. In the end their attempt at diversification actually percentage wise increased the white percentage, it increased the female percentage as well, but it destroyed productivity.
I think the culture of tech fields can generate these feelings even when the cause is a bit different.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The Pakistani guy at my office smells, and the way he talks makes me feel really uncomfortable. Of course if I ever uttered any of this in meatspace, I'd be publicly branded as "culturally insensitive". It's not that I don't appreciate Pakistani culture, it's just that the guy really does smell something fierce. He's a nice enough fellow but I mean, come on, take a bath once in a while. And use soap. I can't imagine where he came from, what conditions he lived in, but he's here now. He's got a house, and the house has a shower in it. Use it, damn you! It's not a question of culture, just plain basic hygiene. And the way he talks? I'm not talking about his accent of course, I'm talking about the way he mumbles, and he coughs and slurps every other sentence, it drives me crazy. And cover your damn mouth if you're going to cough all the time. Am I culturally insensitive? I don't know. Probably. What's it to you anyway? Why do you even care what goes on inside my head?
Boy, this comment section is ugly. All the affirmative action policies and these supposed "diversity quotas" that the white people here are railing against -- sorry, is that an generalization? Oh, I'm sure you're not looking at it from that perspective, you're just interested in fairness, right? Yeah, it would be great if everything was a meritocracy, but when was it ever that way? Are you living in a dream world? There are a million reasons why people get jobs that are unrelated to their actual abilities OR identity politics. You're way more likely to find a HR department rife with cronyism and nepotism than one who actually picks the best person for the job. If you want to rail against unfair hiring practices, START THERE. Taking out your nerd rage on some desperate minorities (who don't even stay at that position for long anyway, according to the article) is short-sighted and moronic. You are falling for one of the classic traps of capitalism, in which workers are pitted against each other in an unnecessarily competitive environment. We'll tear each other down rather than banding together to benefit everyone at our level or in our fields. In any case, those supposed policies and quotas have never helped me get a job. I'm technically in the same boat as all the other angry people here, but I know who the real enemy is.
I guess it's ok to be a sexist and a racist as long as you're racist and sexist against white men.
Please tell us what it's like having lived under a rock for the last 10 years.
Actually walked away from a friend permanently when she tried to "explain" to me that it's perfectly acceptable for women to be sexist against men, because of "male privilege". And for anyone to be racist against whites because of "white privilege". What they didn't seem to understand that "white privilege" and "male privilege" are an extremely academic, disputed and very slight effect, whereas they were advocating outright targetting of white men because of that, which is an extreme "privilege" they're claiming, because of a perceived slight one. When it comes down to it, everyone has privilege of some kind. Those that really don't are in a rough place, and have more to worry about than that (and they usually don't live in the 1st world).
You hire Leshadiqua to fill your njigger quota, and first warm day in the Spring she says "why I be working when I couldz be sittin' on de porch" and then quits on you.
Every survey supports that statement too. Women want money. Not only money... but mostly money.
Women are very open about the fact that number one on the list of criteria for marriage is the size of a man's paycheck. Google is your friend. There have been dozens (if not hundreds) of similar studies around the world.
Women are not even remotely sweet little creatures in this respect.
Men marry down. Women don't.
Male doctors marry nurses. Female doctors statistically don't
Male pilots marry flight attendants. Female pilots statistically don't
Male restauranteurs marry waitstaff. Female ones statistically don't
Male bosses marry their secretaries. Female bosses statistically don't
So much for equality...
Mostly, men are expected to keep their boring jobs even after they have their first kid. In fact, especially after they have their first kid.
And, make no mistake: most jobs are boring. Having a kid just gives you a good excuse to leave a job that you'd rather leave anyway.
I've seen plenty of developers kept around after it was obvious that they weren't good, but the female ones seem to be kept around MUCH longer than the male ones. Years longer. I can only assume this is tolerated more because of the goal to maintain a "diverse" workspace. It seems like that would eventually have a negative impact on one's self esteem and they would leave voluntarily.
Actually walked away from a friend permanently when she tried to "explain" to me that it's perfectly acceptable for women to be sexist against men,
Awwwww! You lost your invisible friend over an imaginary argument. Poor thing!
I guess it's ok to be a sexist and a racist as long as you're racist and sexist against white men.
Please tell us what it's like having lived under a rock for the last 10 years.
You don't get much sunlight, but it's pretty comfy. I hope I can afford a new rock some day, but I think I'll get an organic one.
I hear you anon. It does get tiring listening to the "minorities" complain when you know the only thing holding the whole show together is single white males for the vast majority of cases. Won't they all be in for a shock when they finally succeed in getting rid of us all.
If they were maximizing talent, they'd choose those most fitted for the role. However, those things are skewed for a variety of factors (some of them genetic) towards the very groups you are accusing of advantage. If you truly want to get past the "advantages don't exist" perspective, you'll have to actually come to terms with the fact that genetic advantages exist (with the important caveat that there is more inter-race disparity than intra-race disparity). If you are willing to "get it", we can begin to talk about ways to balance a society that can deal with these disparities in a way that isn't overtly racist.
I would think this would include not trying to balance membership in specific types of labor with those for whom it is not as well suited. As such, we would expect the numbers in any given labor field to reflect a sampling of the groups of people for whom their talents and interests match up well with the labor division.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Think of a fictional book or movie script about a person wanting to enter a company. For party political reasons or part of an undercover media investigation.
What tools would a fictional work place have to try and prevent such issues?
Hire only on merit. Interview every person considered. Can they talk, think, can they think and respond to different questions expected in the work place. Read their resume. Look at what education they have. What they did when not having to study. Did they study in their free time? Take other subjects? Did they join groups? Protest?
Hobbies? Interests? Travel? Try social media and the internet to look back over the resume.
Once a fictional company in a movie has some cash flow, would an investigator to walk the story an applicant told?
Did the person study well? Get good grades? Study alone? Pass exams well? Or did they always need support from their fellow students and have issues getting work in on time or to a good standard?
Did they need the support of others just to get good grades?
Did the person learn to study and pass well or learn how to get lots of help and pass?
Did the person attend protests? Political? Did they want a good job and good grades or talk a lot about working conditions?
Understand who they where friends with over the years. Lawyers? Artists? People into workers rights? Journalists? People into political issues?
What happens in a plot when a poor person is just given a "good" free education and then expects the same feelings of good to flow over into the fictional work place?
Like in a fictional book or movie with a plot complex issues are interesting to think about.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Always look into the source, and remember that polls are bullshit (dependent on sample and wording of the questions, almost never provided). The Kapor Center may be non-profit, but they are not objective. They have an axe to grind and this "survey" just happens to match their interests.
I've seen this happen for decades: this is nothing new.
It seems to come down to getting the job done. Some can. Some cannot. When you are in the "cannot" category, what can you do with your failure other than get help by claiming to have a socially acceptable weakness that was exploited, and thus you are both blameless and a victim. Let's see your next gig: do you find perfection and prove you are elite and can do it? I bet you can't. I bet you fail there, too.
It ain't pretty, but being sucky means you should have done something else with your miserable existence. Why do you fuck up the world the rest of us live an thrive in? Do your fucking job and reap the rewards. Otherwise, get out of the way, take on that Liberal Arts degree somewhere else.
So this is what happens when those hopeless student politics types who think the world owes them everything because they have wealthy parents grows up? Where apart from your imagination are people really getting jobs just because they are in a minority and not because they can also do that job? The magical Kingdom of Prester John? Why continue the trivial and stupid student politics fight against the marxist student club or whatever it was you used to waste time arguing with.
You have a fucking President who tells kids to grab women by the pussy - those marxists and "SJW" types are not running the world and are far more powerless than you imagine yourself to be and there will be far less of them than you seem to imagine.
It's a truism that every post about any form of bigotry will have a comments section filled with examples of said bigotry. So it comes as no surprise that a thread about racism and sexism will be filled with racist and sexist comments. That so many of said comments have gotten upvoted shows how and why the modderation on this site is broken.
Well it's not like white men didn't have it coming to them.
Obama fit that perfectly.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Do we have actual studies that indicate women in tech are treated worse than in other fields? It seems to be accepted but is it true? It certainly matches the stereotype of the socially clueless STEM brain, but that isn't evidence. And any truth to that stereotype applies to female STEM brains as well, so perhaps they perceive the same or similar treatment differently? That isn't to say programmers should be jerks anymore than a lawyer in a firm should, but training people to be sensitive to what might offend is only half the problem. People can be offended by anything so some training on how to be less easily offended would do all of us some good as well. A simple question "when you said X what did you mean? I heard you to mean Y is that right?". Solves so many issues.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Childish arguments are my favorite too
Trump told kids to grab women by the pussy?
That's corporealist, you pig!
When I solve some complex issue for a developer, I give them books with page numbers to study. They rarely follow through. Common issues are Oracle flashback, pl/SQL and roles, and Linux password resets. Rarely does anyone follow through.
You tell me. They're the ones majoring in social justice instead of employable majors. Of course, they don't exist in a vacuum: Educational institutions have whole departments indoctrinating them with this nonsense. Too much protesting and not enough studying make jack and jill unemployable dullards.
Trump's presidency hasn't made these people go away. If anything, it's made them louder and more obnoxious. They should take it as a lesson in how crybullying can backfire. His 'grab 'em by the pussy' comment isn't any worse than the 'boys are stupid throw rocks at them' style 'justice' from feminists. They're just mad they lost a bit of their mostly unopposed control over the dialogue. Too bad. I have no sympathy for hypocrites.
It's not the KKK Fedora Hat Association that's crybullying in the streets and on college campuses.
No I can't tell you - you are the one in the cesspool not able to see what it outside and under some sort of impression that Marxism is somehow a force to be reckoned with instead of a toothless paper tiger.
I haven't seen this sort of stuff since I was working as staff at a University and the little rich boys playing politics would turn up to disrupt classes and complain about how minority groups got some resources in the University instead of being forced to fail - are you in that sort of environment? Are you one of those deluded political wonks or just stuck listening to them? Normally tech environments weed out such types who are at University to play and not work hard enough to pass something difficult.