Intel Takes Lead In SV Diversity Push (What Will Happen To CPU Design)

[imported_ats]

You're joking now, right? One of the least diverse industries in the modern world, and you're claiming it's a meritocracy? Wow. On what level, exactly? Women are being systematically discriminated against from school age and upwards with regards to technical and scientific ability and future prospects. This is, luckily, changing due to a series of initiatives targeting this, but claiming that women in general today aren't discouraged from pursuing tech careers, or that they don't have to perform better than (as opposed to equally well as) their male counterparts, is simply not true. Posturing to avoid being sued (due to the ridiculous lawsuit culture in the US) is not the same as actually making any effort to level the playing field, and that you mistake it for that is quite shocking. Yes, of course wrongly implemented diversity programmes can have adverse effects, as can any badly implemented workplace policy. Strangely, though, these programmes have a very, very solid track record of improving things.

Diversity within the tech industry, esp the actual technical parts (aka not social media startups), is primarily related to the actual diversity of the of the pipeline. So for a company like Intel that is primarily EE based, the limit to diversity is the number of qualified EE engineers entering the workforce. That number is anything but diverse and has been like that for at least 2+ decades(my actual experience), and likely 5+ decades.

In the specific sub fields of EE that matter to a company like Intel the diversity in the pipeline can be even worse. And in my personal experience there isn't anything like a bias against women in the interview or the job promotion process. If anything, women applying for jobs almost always will get favorable interview reports and be offered. The primary problem is that in the fields related to semiconductors the applicant pool is simply not gender diverse nor is it really diverse outside of Asians and Caucasians.

So simply put as long as the pipeline is incredible non-diverse, it is fallacy to expect the actual employment numbers to be anything but non-diverse. AKA it is primarily and almost totally an egg problem.

 

[ctsoth]

Diversity within the tech industry, esp the actual technical parts (aka not social media startups), is primarily related to the actual diversity of the of the pipeline. So for a company like Intel that is primarily EE based, the limit to diversity is the number of qualified EE engineers entering the workforce. That number is anything but diverse and has been like that for at least 2+ decades(my actual experience), and likely 5+ decades.

In the specific sub fields of EE that matter to a company like Intel the diversity in the pipeline can be even worse. And in my personal experience there isn't anything like a bias against women in the interview or the job promotion process. If anything, women applying for jobs almost always will get favorable interview reports and be offered. The primary problem is that in the fields related to semiconductors the applicant pool is simply not gender diverse nor is it really diverse outside of Asians and Caucasians.

So simply put as long as the pipeline is incredible non-diverse, it is fallacy to expect the actual employment numbers to be anything but non-diverse. AKA it is primarily and almost totally an egg problem.

I work in a ~99% male industry. In my opinion, for my industry women are just as skilled as men, and in some ways the average woman has certain traits that actually make her better suited to the job than average men. To increase diversity in any industry, you have to foster interest in young men and women. It takes time, even a generation or more. I expect in the next 25 years the male to female ration from 99/1 to maybe 4/1, if the industry does a good job of marketing to women.

The problem? Women aren't interested in my industry. In this case, any sort of mandate would be laughable, especially if governmental. Okay, we gotta hire women, lets look at the applicant pool..... None. Which leads to, sadly, what I call diversity hires. No training or education in the industry, no use to productivity, but useful in snagging government contracts and for working with businesses that require diversity metrics. Wouldn't you be offended to be a diversity hire? I think it is stupidly offensive, not to me, to the person being hired. I would be furious to know that I was hired just so somebody could meet a quota that would allow them to snag a contract.

IDC already pointed out the real risk, discriminatory lawsuits in the event of termination.

 

[Daedalus685]

These programs are not about (at least at intelligent companies) putting mandated numbers of particular minorities into positions of technical skill.

They are about making the field you do business in more attractive to those highly intelligent groups that currently choose not to follow that career.

This program will surely include partnerships with schools to address the pipeline issues. That is the whole point of programs like these, some are just terrible at it.

 

[ctsoth]

These programs are not about (at least at intelligent companies) putting mandated numbers of particular minorities into positions of technical skill.

They are about making the field you do business in more attractive to those highly intelligent groups that currently choose not to follow that career.

This program will surely include partnerships with schools to address the pipeline issues. That is the whole point of programs like these, some are just terrible at it.

Definitely. My only goal was to highlight a problem with such initiatives.

 

[Valantar]

Definitely. My only goal was to highlight a problem with such initiatives.

But wouldn't you agree that a slightly problematic approach to making the world a better place is better than leaving it shitty? A problematic initiative can be improved, a problematic reality needs an initiative to improve. In other words, the sooner, the better.

 

[ctsoth]

But wouldn't you agree that a slightly problematic approach to making the world a better place is better than leaving it shitty? A problematic initiative can be improved, a problematic reality needs an initiative to improve. In other words, the sooner, the better.

If the problems of an approach outweigh the benefits, it doesn't improve anything. All that matters is the scale.

 

[imported_ats]

But wouldn't you agree that a slightly problematic approach to making the world a better place is better than leaving it shitty? A problematic initiative can be improved, a problematic reality needs an initiative to improve. In other words, the sooner, the better.

The problem is that a slightly problematic approach can actually lead to a world that is a worse place. If an approach is at odds with reality and logic then it will most definitely create a backlash. That backlash can set things back far worse than they already were.

If you are worried about diversity in tech, then the appropriate area to focus on is the pipeline issue. From the data available, the vast majority of tech companies in the bay area are at or above pipeline diversity in general.

There seems to be two forces largely at work on the diversity advocacy side: one that acknowledges the actual realities and issues and one that wants a result regardless of the actual realities and issues. Attacking the culture of meritocracy that generally exists in SV is simply going to be counter productive and that is largely what the later is doing. If you're total applicant pipeline is 20% non-Caucasian/Asian then it will be hard for the industry as a whole to by >20% non-Caucasian/Asian. If the gender bias in the pipeline is ~80% male, it will be hard for the industry to be <20% male.

Putting effectively hiring quotas on top of that will be wholly counter-productive. For one, it will create a massive perception problem. Second, it will most likely create a rather massive backlash.

So once again, if you want to fix the perceived diversity issue in SV, the only logical and viable strategy, both short term and long term is to find ways to fix the various pipeline issues. If the pipeline issues are not fixed than any short term and short sighted solutions that are implemented will be for not.

 

[Pheesh]

FYI Intel's diversity effort is geared to get fair representation of the qualified candidate demographics at all technical and experience levels- it's not measured against the general population. i.e. X % of female tech workers in the industry are at X level within their organizations, but Intel has Y% at this particular level. They will try to improve where they are underrepresented.

Separately there are also efforts to improve the pipeline of diverse qualified candidates.

 

[senseamp]

You're joking now, right? One of the least diverse industries in the modern world, and you're claiming it's a meritocracy? Wow. On what level, exactly? Women are being systematically discriminated against from school age and upwards with regards to technical and scientific ability and future prospects. This is, luckily, changing due to a series of initiatives targeting this, but claiming that women in general today aren't discouraged from pursuing tech careers, or that they don't have to perform better than (as opposed to equally well as) their male counterparts, is simply not true. Posturing to avoid being sued (due to the ridiculous lawsuit culture in the US) is not the same as actually making any effort to level the playing field, and that you mistake it for that is quite shocking. Yes, of course wrongly implemented diversity programmes can have adverse effects, as can any badly implemented workplace policy. Strangely, though, these programmes have a very, very solid track record of improving things.

The usual CYA aside, it's a pretty level playing field here in Silicon Valley though, if you got the skills, from what I've seen. Women in management and upper management. The diversity issue starts long before it gets to Silicon Valley. By the time you get to engineering school freshman year, it's already very skewed towards White and Asian males. In my EE classes it would be 2 or 3 women for every 50-100 men. There isn't much you can do downstream if those are the numbers going into engineering programs.
Companies pick from college graduates, you can't expect them to do much better if those are the demographics at the start of engineering school.
In other countries with different cultures, or within US subcultures like Asian-Americans or Jewish-Americans, it's a much more balanced mix, so you see a lot more women pursuing high value add technical fields. And that's reflected in Silicon Valley companies from my experience.

 

[Blastman]

Given the societal and cultural biases against women in any highly educated field, it's astounding how great an impact they've had on our current wealth of knowledge and technical innovations

They weren't biases, they were common sense knowledge that men were better than women in certain tasks and fields of endeavor. It's the modern Marxist-feminist nonsense of gender equality in the last 50 years that clouds your bias against men and makes you think men and women are equal in all areas, when they are demonstratively not.

The fact is that women generally had very little impact on the knowledge base of most fields of endeavor in our universities, including areas like science, mathematics, engineering and philosophy. The vast majority of the corpus of the Western knowledge base in the last 700 years was built by men.

You might perhaps have heard of Ada Lovelace?

When feminists spout history about female accomplishments in science, engineering, and inventions, they almost always overstate their accomplishments and forget to mention, or downplay, that these women were in almost all cases working with other men on the endeavor who had a part in the science or invention. The feminist narrative in our universities is a sham and they spout nonsense after nonsense while being held to virtually no academic standards.

How many patents did Ada Lovelace file? Would that be 0? Compare that to &#8230;

Thomas Edison

Edison was a prolific inventor, holding 1,093 US patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. More significant than the number of Edison's patents was the widespread impact of his inventions: electric light and power utilities, sound recording, and motion pictures all established major new industries world-wide. Edison's inventions contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. These included a stock ticker, a mechanical vote recorder, a battery for an electric car, electrical power, recorded music and motion pictures.

There are no female equivalents of Thomas Edison -- not even remotely close.

While it's true that the fields of ICT and engieneering have "always" been male-dominated, making the mistake of thinking this is due to some innate male superiority in these fields is just plain ignorant.

Intellectual equality between the sexes is nonsense.

Studies have shown that men are better at dealing with abstract information -- better visual-spatial capabilities. This translates into men being better problem solvers, particularly in the sciences like mathematics and engineering. The superior male ability to solve problems means that in the real world it is generally men who develop the vast majority of the knowledge base -- they solve the problems and come up with the ideas that develop new knowledge. 99.99% of all math theory, like algebra and calculus was developed by men. The field of math would virtually look no different today if you removed women's contribution to the field. 99% of all inventions from the transistor to the pneumatic drill -- invented by men. 99%+ of physics and engineering developed by men.

When all genders (and social backgrounds, for that matter) are given equal access to good education and work experience, are shielded from discrimination (be it positive or negative), and actually rewarded based on merit rather than (conscious or unconscious) bias, the result is almost always a net gain.

Inevitably these promotions of women in STEM fields leads to affirmative action programs where human resource managers put their fingers on the scales to hire women in disproportionate numbers compared to their qualifications. Take a couple of the auto companies &#8230;

wardsauto

" &#8230; He says since 1988, Chrysler's policy has been to make half of its engineering hires minorities or women. At GM 57% of job offers made to engineering students last fall went to minorities and women &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;."

Do you really imagine that 57% of the qualified applicants are women and minorities? Yup, and I have a bridge to sell.

These hiring affirmative action programs (read -- hiring discrimination programs against men) at GM have been going on since the 1980's. When you build a company on the hiring and promoting of people for political reasons, rather than excellence and the ability to get the job done -- remember the GM bankruptcy? -- that is what happens. You end up not competing with companies that don't do this type of hiring/promoting, or level of it. If a company starts using gender or ethnicity to press the scales one way in their hiring and promoting practices, then is it using less merit in these -- there is no way around this stubborn fact. The "benefited" groups will be employees that are not as qualified for the job as others, and inevitably, everyone loses as these less qualified people (the favored groups) are put into positions where they fail or perform poorly. This leads to poorer products, a company that makes less money, and maybe even eventually fails. Companies like GM needs to abandon their affirmative action programs to compete with companies and countries that have hiring systems based on more competitive standards.

There are a couple of other factors that contribute to men generally excelling in some fields. First, men are more passionate about some fields of endeavor than women, and passion = interest = excellence. In my university days I frequently would stay up all night working on various computer problems with a couple of friends. I've never seen a woman in some field of endeavor in the sciences that they would give up so much sleep just to solve problems because they had such and interest and passion in that area. They may exist -- but they are rare.

And speaking of GM's affirmative action programs -- how many women do you see moding engines, swapping camshafts, installing after-market brakes, shocks, exhaust systems, or installing tripped-up stereo systems? Basically nil. How about women building motorbikes or restoring automobiles from the ground up? Almost nil. How many women do you see that have a real passion/interest for things in engineering/design, such that in their spare time they have hobbies where they build and engineer things? Rare again. Go to just about any auto forum and it's generally 95%+ males or more doing the posting. This shows who has a passion/interest in the auto industry. Go to a technical auto-forum where they are discussing things like camshafts, transmissions, performance modifications, and the gender of the posters will likely be in the area of 99.0%+ male. If men = women in all respects, then where are all the women that have a passion and interest for these things? Something is terribly wrong with the feminist gender equality picture.

It's quite evident that men have more passion than women for things that have to do with the intricacies of engineering and automobiles, simply put -- building things. It's what men like to do. So if women in general show no real interest and passion in engineering/design fields in general, and in the computer industry, how do you expect women to excel in these fields? Women don't have an interest in and cultivate the disciplines of engineering as men do and therefore are not as suitable as men for these tasks just on that basis alone -- even ignoring the intellectual differences.

If Intel hires a bunch of women, who in general demonstrate no real interest and passion for engineering/design, it's a recipe for mediocrity. You end up with a bunch of 9-5 women employees, who go home at the end of the day and think about shopping, their next pair of shoes, or what makeup to buy for the next day. Women rarely have any hobbies or extracurricular activities that will relate to their job in an engineering/design capacity.

Secondly, men have a wider distribution in abilities on things like IQ scores. In other words, more men will be distributed higher than women, and the farther out at the high end one goes there will be disproportionately more men.

newsbbc

"&#8230; There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees. At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman. &#8230;"

The higher up the IQ scale one moves, the higher ratio of men over women.

humanevents " &#8230; In one Johns Hopkins University study of gifted pre-adolescent students, boys outperformed girls among the top scoring students on math by 13-to-1&#8230;."

The IMO (International Math Olympiad) is dominated by males year after year. It's an international math competition for 20 year old&#8217;s and under and with no post secondary education. Another good example of where the ability of men to solve mathematical problems is better than women and helps in programming and engineering skills.

 

[videogames101]

As someone in a EE program right now, women have just as easy of a time if not easier than men getting interviews/jobs. However - there are like 5 women in a program of hundreds of students. If you want more women in this industry, it has to start at the university level or lower.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Long, poorly lettered, rant.

If nothing else, this thread will be a great source for my mute button.

 

[alyarb]

I just think it's a little weird to hear that they are playing along with this politicized idea and even coming out to say that it is a factor that drives their payroll.

It's not intel's problem to solve. It's our weird infotainment oriented society, with less of an emphasis on info and more so on tainment.

 

[Daedalus685]

P&N nonsense

P&N is over there <---

I can't fathom that someone could seriously be this sexist in 2015. Edit: in light of sleeping on it, others are right that using mysogonistic to describe ignorance like that isn't correct. Mind numbing it may be, he never said anything that requires hatred of women for him to believe. There are lots of deranged folk that word should be reserved for.

"Men sure have it so tough. It sure sucked being one of three men in physics and having to constantly hear that I didn't belong, that i wasn't as smart as the women, that I should just get back to the kitchen. It was really tough when the guidance counselor told me to pic a more manly profession like HR but I went into physics anyway just to deal with hate and poorly framed sexual come-ons for 4 years that got worse in grad school." -Said no male scientist ever

Note: I am sorry for joining this non CPU discussion...

 

[videogames101]

P&N is over there <---

I can't fathom that someone could seriously be this misogynistic in 2015.

"Men sure have it so tough. It sure sucked being one of three men in physics and having to constantly hear that I didn't belong, that i wasn't as smart as the women, that I should just get back to the kitchen. It was really tough when the guidance counselor told me to pic a more manly profession like HR but I went into physics anyway just to deal with hate and poorly framed sexual come-ons for 4 years that got worse in grad school." -Said no male scientist ever

Note: I am sorry for joining this non CPU discussion...

What world are you living in, do you treat women in physics that way? I've never seen or heard such a thing at my university.

 

[Daedalus685]

What world are you living in, do you treat women in physics that way? I've never seen or heard such a thing at my university.

Of course I don't, but you hear stories like that frequently enough from women in the field. It may not be utterly common but happening once is too much. It was all over the news last summer that almost a quarter of women in the field have suffered sexual assault during work, and 2/3 harassment (like the name calling in my little satire bit there). Far more than in men.

Of the 3 women that graduated with me 2 have their PHd. If the men had that ratio we'd be swimming in Physicists. For folks to claim them inferior is beyond asinine.

If I had to go through half of what the women in my class did I would have run home and dropped out in an instant. Admittedly that was a decade ago. I have heard that the schools crack down on that sort of thing a bit more now. But there were so few women in my program it was impossible to notice day to day unless you talked to them about it.

 

[xthetenth]

Do really imagine that 57% of the qualified applicants are women and minorities? Yup, and I have a bridge to sell.

Hint: immigrants on work visas who'll take lower pay. Coincidentally women are represented differently when you go outside American culture and actually within some smaller groups as well.

You then go on and on about how women aren't interested in that sort of thing in a culture where they're told early and often that math and engineering are for men. Amazing! Funnily enough there used to be a lot better representation of women among programmers and they did just fine. Then it shifted to being a thing for men and women stopped doing it.

Incidentally regarding Edison, you might want to pick someone who actually did the work he patented next time, just saying. I mean heck, men got basically all the educational resources so they're wildly overrepresented.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Heavens forbid people actually expect their society to live up to the values it professes, and have the gall to want opportunity to be spread out so we don't massively underutilize the talents of people who aren't socioeconomic elites just so some people can keep feeling like special snowflakes.

What an awful world we'd have if the pool of talented labor had its size increased.

I know. I feel bad for being one of the 0.1% on ATOT

 

[sandorski]

I have to wonder if such a program could cause problems though. Not in they Hiring the wrong people, but the culture becomes pre-occupied on non-essential issues. I suppose it may not affect anything if the HR department is separated enough from the Tech side so as to not change much on the Tech side, but if Management in all departments becomes focused on this policy I could imagine important issues falling between the cracks.

 

[dealcorn]

What world are you living in, do you treat women in physics that way? I've never seen or heard such a thing at my university.

My Aunt received her PhD in Chemistry from Case Western Reserve circa 1960. She was delayed almost three years because three years into her work her advisor owned up to the fact that he did not believe women should be granted doctoral degrees and was never going to let her complete the degree. Fortunately, she found another advisor.

She worked at a coatings company and was was never compensated properly for multiple inventions that supported almost all of the Companies top margin products. The company dominated the market for seaborn oil rigs coatings due to the clearly superior specifications of her formulations. I have no recollection of her pulling all nighters and she did not take her work home or collect antique paint cans.

How many people believe that Jackie Robinson was the first black talented enough to play professional baseball? If you base your judgment on the historic record, that is clearly the case.

 

[xthetenth]

I know. I feel bad for being one of the 0.1% on ATOT

It's an overly specific sounding phrase tbh, but not having access for disadvantaged classes is a preposterous waste of resources.

I owe a huge fraction of my pretty good career trajectory to the accident of birth, so that colors what I'm saying a bit.

 

[imported_ats]

P&N is over there <---

I can't fathom that someone could seriously be this misogynistic in 2015.

Let's try not to thrown around loaded and widely misused terms. Misogyny is the actual hatred of women. While there was certainly some ignorance and, yes, sexism in those comments, I can find no evidence of actual hatred in them.

Example of a misogynistic quote: "Women are witches who should be stoned" in a context of malice.
Example of a sexist quote: much of what blastman said.

By throwing around the words misogyny and misogynistic willy nilly one makes an actual mockery of actual real misogyny and/or actually devalues the meaning and impact of the accusation.

Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but it seems that people continuously throw around the words misogyny and misandry willy nilly in just about any discussion involving gender. Its at best unhelpful and at worse entirely counter productive.

 

[imported_ats]

She worked at a coatings company and was was never compensated properly for multiple inventions that supported almost all of the Companies top margin products. The company dominated the market for seaborn oil rigs coatings due to the clearly superior specifications of her formulations. I have no recollection of her pulling all nighters and she did not take her work home or collect antique paint cans.

Just to nit pick, this isn't a valid example. The vast majority of employees regardless of sex, race, et al are not properly compensated for their inventions or impacts on their companies. Using it as an example of sexism weakens ones argument.

 

[videogames101]

My Aunt received her PhD in Chemistry from Case Western Reserve circa 1960. She was delayed almost three years because three years into her work her advisor owned up to the fact that he did not believe women should be granted doctoral degrees and was never going to let her complete the degree. Fortunately, she found another advisor.

She worked at a coatings company and was was never compensated properly for multiple inventions that supported almost all of the Companies top margin products. The company dominated the market for seaborn oil rigs coatings due to the clearly superior specifications of her formulations. I have no recollection of her pulling all nighters and she did not take her work home or collect antique paint cans.

How many people believe that Jackie Robinson was the first black talented enough to play professional baseball? If you base your judgment on the historic record, that is clearly the case.

I'm basing my judgement on my experiences today, not in the 60's. I do acknowledge that our society is patriarchal in many ways. But job opportunity in tech fields is not one of them. At least in my personal experience.

 

[ctsoth]

P&N is over there <---

I can't fathom that someone could seriously be this misogynistic in 2015.

"Men sure have it so tough. It sure sucked being one of three men in physics and having to constantly hear that I didn't belong, that i wasn't as smart as the women, that I should just get back to the kitchen. It was really tough when the guidance counselor told me to pic a more manly profession like HR but I went into physics anyway just to deal with hate and poorly framed sexual come-ons for 4 years that got worse in grad school." -Said no male scientist ever

Note: I am sorry for joining this non CPU discussion...

I wish that everyone who has ever incorrectly phrased something as misogynistic would just explode. I Know it's a trendy thing to say but open a fracking DICTIONARY.