Gender Bias in Tech Hiring

Say you’re looking to hire 20 people. So you pick the 20 best, and you end up with the 17 best men and the 3 best women. Of course you claim to be gender-blind and it just happens that you got 17 men and only 3 women, these things happen, it’s nobody’s fault.Now imagine if you were required to hire 50% men and 50% women. So you’d end up with the top 10 men, and the top 10 women. What that means is, you didn’t hire the 11th - 17th rated men, and instead did hire the 4th - 10th rated women.

I always thought it was a weird thing to say, though it does grab your attention which might be what it is going for. But as a man I always assume this means that I wouldn't have a good chance of being hired by the company. I don't buy arguments that women applicants are on average more qualified than male applicants, my prior is that applicants should be roughly equal. Presumably the company gets more male applicants, so to maintain a 50/50 ratio they must reject a significantly

Most attempts to eliminate bias in IT hiring have resulted in reducing odds of being hired for women (eliminating bias by eliminating clues to the gender of the applicant, I mean). So if you want more women, you have to give them preferential treatment. Also, the pool is limited, so you are competing with the other firms for the few women available.

The person they're asking said that they dedicated a extra resources to try and hire female candidates because the office was all males. That implies that they were hiring specifically for gender, not for any specific skillset.

We're hiring devs, designers, PM's, digital producers etc. working with recruitment companies, advertising in various places - meet ups, job boards etc etc.Recieved hundreds of CV's, run dozens of interviews.I can count on one hand the number of women that sent their CV through, and we interviewed two, hiring one.This isn't a tech thing - this goes back to children growing up in an environment where gender should make no difference to their desire or interest in STEM

Sorry I have to disagree with this. I abide by one rule: if the candidate is good, they get hired. I am not a sexist nor do I discriminate, nor am I guilty of putting women down in any way, shape, or form, especially since before my time so I fail to see how the burden is on my shoulders, and why I should hire someone purely based on their genitalia. I am in no way responsible for what happened before my time.The reality is both men and women suffer from different things, and it's ill to

In my company, it seems we are (slightly) biased toward female programmer/researcher candidates (that is, a female will get hired more eagerly, all else equal).

The problem is that this is discriminatory. If you are not hiring based solely on qualifications, and instead on gender, it is discriminating. If you were to switch the genders and say that you are only hiring men, it would be clearly sexist. However, if you do not accept well qualified men who would fit the job, it is seen as "breaking gender barriers". You should be hiring based on the applicant's experience, education, and how they fit in with company culture.If you are worried about a gen

the left insists there is bias against minorities and women in tech, however blind testing from interviewing.io proves that women do better when their sex is known. so if they keep insisting i propose we go incognito until they realize that there is bias against white men in the tech industry since they have a diversity officer.

I've encountered something similar. Basically two roles were open and I was on the interviewing team. We were told at the start that one of the roles would be for a woman. We got two CVs from women, and about 45 or so from guys. Not fair really but what can you do. It'd be insanity to challenge that, so just keep your head down and nod along.