| 11:50 am on May 29, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Google published their own figures.
|But we’re the first to admit that Google is miles from where we want to be—and that being totally clear about the extent of the problem is a really important part of the solution. Getting to work on diversity at Google [googleblog.blogspot.com] |
The responsibilities and scrutiny of running a big business are massive, and Google, in this instance, has a thick skin, and people to take care of such matters. It's all part of a day's work for many at Google.
| 3:58 pm on May 29, 2014 (gmt 0)|
This report was aired yesterday as a PBS News exclusive interview. Google is the only one of the 'Silicon Valley' tech sites that responded with figures and they said it was because it was something they had been looking at internally for a time. They blamed the number on primarily people doing the hiring being younger than the average Corp. HR pools, less aware of the long term implications and more prone to hiring people referred from within the existing employee pool. They also said they were ashamed of the appearance of both sexism and racism in their hiring trends but decided to air the numbers because they hoped to spur similar introspection at other tech companies whose numbers they viewed as even more abysmal. [pbs.org...] - there are also updates (3) linked there.
| 4:37 am on May 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Diversity for the sake of diversity quite frankly is BS. The only thing that should matter is if you're the best qualified. Sex, race or anything else that is irrelevant to your job performance should never be a factor.
Stanford similarly revamped its computer science program to make it more widely attractive in 2008. Since then, female computer science enrollment has grown steeply, from 12.5 percent in 2008 to 21 percent in 2013.
If you were to use the 12.5 percent for comparison and only 83% jobs were going to the men it actually favors the women.
| 5:06 am on May 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
This could lead to what is the difference between diversity and affirmative action (that's USA based) and why it matters to whatever groupspeak/clique. And that... sad to say, might strain the polite decorum we enjoy at webmasterworld. So in that regard I hope we all consider our words. What I posted as "news" was something I had not seen from G before... and a bit of head scratching why it even mattered, particularly OUTSIDE the USA.
[edited by: tangor at 5:42 am (utc) on May 30, 2014]
| 5:41 am on May 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
30% Asian? Even for mid-coastal California, that is a very interesting proportion.
| 5:45 am on May 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The final numbers re: race I believe are world wide. G does have extensive Asian entities. I'm wondering what the 4% not defined might be.
| 10:35 am on May 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I'm wondering what the 4% not defined might be.
Mixed race? Refused to answer? Rounding errors?
Probably some combination of the above.
| 10:16 pm on May 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Probably some combination of the above. |
No doubt! I suspect they don't want to reveal the new Innuit data centers under construction in northern Alaska and Greenland. These are the "cool" data centers, of course. :)
| 12:41 am on May 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|I'm wondering what the 4% not defined might be. |
Droids, G does not have to pay them, and even if they do it's done in WD40.
| 5:16 am on Jun 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Diversity for the sake of diversity quite frankly is BS. The only thing that should matter is if you're the best qualified. Sex, race or anything else that is irrelevant to your job performance should never be a factor. |
I agree with this 100%. I don't care about your race, gender, "preferences", etc., I would hire the most qualified person, end of discussion.
| 11:43 am on Jun 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|would hire the most qualified person, end of discussion. |
forgive me, I am UP FRONT yanking your leg: "Hire at a politically correct wage, or what the industry pays." Pretty sure the latter, and for the lowest dollar (Franc, Deutschmark, yen, etc.) And then you look at how many "diversity:" will accept that. Just the other side of the hire coin... (been there, done that, didn't set out to do that).
| 4:36 pm on Jun 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I see that everyone pretty much agrees on the concept of hiring the best qualified candidate for an opening that you can get for the lowest wages that you can convince them to work for. I don't think many people honestly can disagree with this concept. The issue that is causing the disproportions reported might not exist if openings were "open" or actually available for the best qualified candidates to apply for. Since they stated that the majority of these employees were hired via referrals from existing employees, that was not the case.
And the "insiders club" continues.
|...and more prone to hiring people referred from within the existing employee pool. |
| 3:06 am on Jun 8, 2014 (gmt 0)|
why do we care, why does it matter, hire who you want, pay them what you choose.
everyone else STFU and get off the sidelines! :-)