>> If the percentage of female computer science graduates (as a strong proxy for the available candidate population) is 18%
Perhaps employers can expand the search to those with degrees in statistics, mathematics, physics, econometrics?
What I've seen time and time again is that when people dont want to hire, they come up with excuse after excuse. When they really want to hire [a VP's brother-in-low, or whatever], even the flimsiest of cases suddenly get made for the hire.
Is the pipeline in other degrees any better? And more importantly, why is it even a suggestions to look for other degrees when searching for candiate just to fill out diversity quota?
Just to be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with looking for candidates from those areas, companies should, and already did source candidates from more than CS degrees. But the company should do that because those candidates were qualified, not because they have to hire to sastify a demographic composition requirements for the company
Wall Street hires people from all kinds of degrees all the time (though not for the purpose of diversity). I’ve worked with fund managers who majored in Japanese history, astrophysics, a lawyer who clerked for SCOTUS, and even a former professional card counter who dropped out of college.
I thought the tech industry had pioneered the idea that a degree shouldn’t be the yard stick that all potential hires are judged against. And yet every time there’s a discussion about diversity in tech it’s the first excuse brought up. Suddenly a CS degree is a necessity.
Not many people get degrees in fund management, but aren't actively managed funds being increasingly seen as just dart throwing anyway?
If fund managers are on average no more lucky than just following the market then it'd stand to reason it doesn't matter what their degrees are in because they had no real skill to begin with.
My own experience of finance has been that jobs are handed out in ways and for reasons that would seem extremely lax to someone from the tech world.
>> Perhaps employers can expand the search to those with degrees in statistics, mathematics, physics, econometrics?
Why do you assume there won't be a similar (or worse) gender bias in those fields too? And if you expand the search in some way or loosen the requirements, then you can't do it only for women, that wouldn't be legal. That's why there is a real pipeline problem that needs to be addressed by getting more women into STEM.
Instead of getting economists and statisticians involved, why not just encourage companies to fund the educations of demographics of workers they're trying to recruit?
Not only is there a financial incentive (if you get people new to the field, you can pay them less until they get a new job or sufficient raises, and this is a benefit for both parties due to the lessened educational cost), it also creates loyalty out of almost nothing.
If not university classes or a bootcamp-like setup, apprenticeships would probably work amazingly for the purpose.
Perhaps employers can expand the search to those with degrees in statistics, mathematics, physics, econometrics?
What I've seen time and time again is that when people dont want to hire, they come up with excuse after excuse. When they really want to hire [a VP's brother-in-low, or whatever], even the flimsiest of cases suddenly get made for the hire.
I'd say, we should look think bigger.