April 1, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Eric M Russell (3/31/2014)
There was a time when a hopeful IT career seeker had to knock on the glass door of a white male dominated corporation to land a job, and he (forget about she) needed a CIS masters degree and $300 suit to have any chance of success. Those days are long past, and have been passed for at least two decades. If you know anything about software or database development, then the corporate world will roll out the red carpet; they don't give a damn who you are, so long as you know how to solve their IT problems and don't have a criminal record.
I don't think those days are past. I've seen a lot of people struggling to find jobs because they aren't "one of us" where what "us" is depends on the prejudices of the corporation or of the personnal manager of of the recruiting manager and it seems to got steadily worse, not better, since the 60s. Certainly I have seen a far lower portion of women in IT in recent times than I say when I started out. Although some of that is due to increased stupidity in the educational establishment - the good old "girls should study "domestic science" and "home economics" instead of physics and economics nonsense seems to be more common now that people have been trying to stamp it out than it was before - I'm pretty sure that more of it is due to prejudice and to unjustified sexual discrimination.
Tom
April 1, 2014 at 2:07 pm
GoofyGuy (3/31/2014)
I wonder if we might encourage people to enter technology professions, not on the basis of their race or gender, but on the basis of their socioeconomic status?Race and gender classifications seem rather dated and inaccurate to me.
None of the X in T groups is attempting to encourage people to enter tech professions on the basis of race or gender. That would be utterly stupid. The X in T groups have two objectives: (i) to eliminate the practise of X group being discouraged from working in T, and (ii) to eliminate unjustifiable (and illegal in civilised countries) discrimination by recruiters against the employment of people from X group. And generally objective (i) has higher priority that objective (ii), because if (i) is nit achieved than (ii) makes little difference.
The only sensible discriminants are on ability and capacity (including interpersonal as well as technical skills and the ability to learn and possession of useful knowledge). A group whose objective is to reduce discrimination (whether in the education system or on the part of recruiters) on other grounds will have my support.
Socioeconomic status is a weasel phrase. If you mean econnomic status, say it outright, don't try to obscure the issue by adding that horrible prefix "socio". THe "socio" bit might be all about justifying some prejudice of one group against others, it's effectively saying "lets base it on the class system" (as was done for employment opportunities in for example Russia, in the USA, and in the UK in most or perhaps all of the 20th century) or it might be just indicating that in the societies being considered economic status depended on class (as it did in Russia and the USA, but not in Britain). Since neither ecomomic status nor class is a valid basis for discrimination concerning employment opportunities, socioeconomic status fails twice, while economic status fails only once.
Tom
April 1, 2014 at 2:36 pm
TomThomson wrote:
None of the X in T groups is attempting to encourage people to enter tech professions on the basis of race or gender. That would be utterly stupid.
I won't pass judgment on the 'that would be utterly stupid' part, Tom - but so far as the facts of the matter go, I think you might want to visit the Women in Technology[/url] website. One of that organisation's goals is to encourage women ('woman' being a gender, last I checked) to enter the field of technology.
The X in T groups have two objectives: (i) to eliminate the practise of X group being discouraged from working in T, and (ii) to eliminate unjustifiable (and illegal in civilised countries) discrimination by recruiters against the employment of people from X group. And generally objective (i) has higher priority that objective (ii), because if (i) is nit achieved than (ii) makes little difference.
Using the Women in Technology website as an example, search for the word 'discrimination'.
Get any hits?
WIT isn't in the business of suing employers for alleged discriminatory practices. That's the job of the Attorneys General of the state and federal governments. WIT is a professional association, it's gender-oriented, and it aims to help women enter and advance in the IT profession.
Am I opposed to what it does? No, certainly not. But my preference - as I've stated previously - would be for professional associations to concentrate less on gender and race criteria, and more on poorer members of society - female, male, black, brown, white - who would benefit from this kind of engagement.
A group whose objective is to reduce discrimination (whether in the education system or on the part of recruiters) on other grounds will have my support.
Ditto. But I'm considerably more concerned about income inequality than I am about discrimination.
Socioeconomic status is a weasel phrase. If you mean econnomic status, say it outright, don't try to obscure the issue by adding that horrible prefix "socio".
No-one is trying to obscure anything, Tom; I'm using a word that is widely accepted and understood, and I am using it deliberately and accurately. Economic and sociological factors (education, income, occupation) contribute to income inequality and impoverishment. Professional IT associations, I think, could do more in terms of outreach to the poorer and more needy amongst us, regardless of their race or gender.
Take care. It's always interesting to read your posts here. Thanks.
April 1, 2014 at 3:14 pm
skeleton567 (3/31/2014)
hen I interviewed for my first programmer job, my socioeconomic status (farm kid raised to earn $1.00 per ACRE weeding soybean fields) was not an issue, pro or con. They were interested in how well I could learn and do the job in IT. When I subsequently interviewed applicants for IT jobs, I was interested in their ATTITUDE first, their ability to think clearly and logically, and how well I thought they could be mentored and developed into productive employees.
That's all good - the way things should be. Unfortunately, it isn't always like that. I don't think discrimination on economic status was ever common in IT/CS recruitment (although there have always been idiots who advocate it they have never had any real influence), but discrimination on skin color, accent or gender used to be common, still is too common, and needs to be discouraged.
You see, I never had the luxury of ANY formal IT education either until AFTER I had achieved my first programming position. but my successful 42-year career, including 11 years of management, had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with socioeconomic status. Nobody cut me any slack because I was a poor farm kid.
At the time you got your first job, very few people had any formal IT or CS education. Refusing to consider people without such education would have been a disaster for employers that genuinely needed to hire people, because there were fewer people with such education than there were positions to work in that area. At least I imagine you got your first IT job that long ago - I certainly did, and you at least 19 months older than me. But yes, I'm sure your successful career had no more to do with socioeconomic staus than mine had, and I think it would be a disaster if employers took economic status into account when recruiting (or maybe it already is - there are certainly employers who won't employ people who are too poor, although I don't think there are any who cut people slack for being poor)/
Tom
April 1, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Goofy, please understand that the concept of socioeconomic status has been around for decades and is a legitimate sociological term ( Sociology was actually my degree field ). Just because the term includes 'economic' does not mean it is only about money.
There is far more to aiding the needy than just placing them in a technical job with a salary.
While I applaud your concern about the plight of women, and the poor and underprivileged, if you worked for me we would have a definite understanding that your immediate goal is get the best results from my IT organization, and you are free to pursue your admirable personal goals outside your job function through your church and social organizations. And if you can't make the choice, I will be happy to assist you. I don't mean to sound crass by that, it's just the way life is, as someone said earlier.
And I'll further state that I don't think the vast majority of the economically depressed population is necessarily suited to technical occupations. That's where the 'socio...' comes in. And I don't have a feeling that you understand that.
Listening to you today, I'm not at all sure that your major interest is the overall welfare of your IT organization. Maybe you should become a social worker.
I have been thinking that instead of considering SOCIOECONOMIC status, maybe we need to go back to doing it the way my first IT boss did. Called me to his office, ran me through a battery of aptitude testing, and decided I had what it took. I'd never even SEEN a computer before that day, but he believed in me based on my ability, not how much money I had.
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) )
April 1, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Tom, you make good and valid observations about the supply of technical people when I (we?) started in IT. My college had a small computer, but it was buried in a basement and only a few GUYS (shhh) had access to it. I think there were only about three places in the country that had CS programs that were not really independent of the other sciences.
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) )
April 1, 2014 at 3:34 pm
skeleton567 (3/31/2014)
I think WIT and other such sideline organizations are truly asking for a DIFFERENT 'yardstick', as you wisely point out.
Do you have any evidence for that? If so, please produce it. If not, stop posting discriminatory prejudiced bullshit.
Tom
April 1, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Wow, just...WOW
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) )
April 1, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Goofy, please understand that the concept of socioeconomic status has been around for decades and is a legitimate sociological term.
I think you've confused my words on that topic with those of my friend Tom. You might re-read our exchange.
There is far more to aiding the needy than just placing them in a technical job with a salary.
Ronald Reagan once said the best social welfare programme is a job. I agree. (But I never voted for the man.)
While I applaud your concern about the plight of women, and the poor and underprivileged, if you worked for me we would have a definite understanding that your immediate goal is get the best results from my IT organization ...
We're talking about voluntary professional IT associations, which are outside whichever IT organisation you may have managed. You seem rather confused about that.
... and you are free to pursue your admirable personal goals outside your job function through your church and social organizations. And if you can't make the choice, I will be happy to assist you. I don't mean to sound crass by that, it's just the way life is, as someone said earlier.
Again, WIT and similar groups are voluntary and external. So far as your making choices for me, well ...
thanks but no thanks. I've done well enough on my own.
And I'll further state that I don't think the vast majority of the economically depressed population is necessarily suited to technical occupations. That's where the 'socio...' comes in. And I don't have a feeling that you understand that.
You're right - I don't understand that at all. Why wouldn't someone be unsuited to a technical occupation, simply because s/he came from poor circumstances? Do explain. I'm really looking forward to it.
Listening to you today, I'm not at all sure that your major interest is the overall welfare of your IT organization. Maybe you should become a social worker.
No, I think I'm doing just fine as an IT manager, thanks.
April 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm
jcrawf02 (4/1/2014)
Personal facts: I am white, male, not quite 40, and I went to those discussions because I felt they were important and wanted to be part of that discussion so that I could think about my own actions.
Out of curiosity, in what way did you think about and change your own actions, as a result of going to the conferences?
April 1, 2014 at 7:02 pm
As you guys seem to have an aversion to the quotation tabs, I'm not sure who said what.
Goofy, please understand that the concept of socioeconomic status has been around for decades and is a legitimate sociological term.I think you've confused my words on that topic with those of my friend Tom. You might re-read our exchange.
Yes, It was I (oh shit - in American English should that be "me" not "I"?) who attacked the use of that term, and you w[/quote]ho used it.
..........
Listening to you today, I'm not at all sure that your major interest is the overall welfare of your IT organization. Maybe you should become a social worker.
No, I think I'm doing just fine as an IT manager, thanks.
I personally think that the average social worker (in the uk, anyway) is an incompetent fool so trapped by idiotic dogma that they can do nothing useful. So I thing it is excessively offensive to suggest that someone should become a social worker. But then, in my experience, the average IT manager isn't all that much brighter.
Someone has failed to understand that absence of invalid discrimination and prejudice is actuall very good for the company/organisation/enterprise. It is extremely common for people who don't understand that to claim that those who do are attempting to impose invalid discrimination in favour of anyone whom they are trying to protect against invalid discrimination. That's been very visible in the debate here. I think both of you have been guilty of that, but I can't be sure because your failure to use the quote tags makes it almost impossible to work out who said what, and frankly I can't be bothered to try to decipher who said what when you are too lazy to use the features provided to enable you to make it clear.
Tom
April 2, 2014 at 9:16 am
Tom, you and skeleton567 seem to take a certain degree of pleasure in abusing other people by way of name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
I'm done with you both.
April 2, 2014 at 11:42 am
And when something DOES affect you directly, it's easy to lose your objectivity.:-)
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) )
April 2, 2014 at 11:45 am
Cody K (4/1/2014)
jcrawf02 (4/1/2014)
Personal facts: I am white, male, not quite 40, and I went to those discussions because I felt they were important and wanted to be part of that discussion so that I could think about my own actions.Out of curiosity, in what way did you think about and change your own actions, as a result of going to the conferences?
My wife's relatives include several children that at the time were mid-high school. As we sat around the table on Turkey Day or Christmas or whatever, different topics would come up, and sometimes questions or discussions are directed at the nephew versus the niece. That is usually based on what my perception of their interests is, not what their interests actually are. That's part of the WIT discussion that I took away, that even peripheral interaction with young women can shape what they think they are capable of, and dismissing them even unintentionally has a lasting impact.
It also changed how I interacted with my female colleagues at work, who even though I know are technical, I am trying to be more present and aware of how my behaviour changes when working with them versus with my few male colleagues.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
April 3, 2014 at 5:47 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (3/31/2014)
... There are entirely too many jerks in this business that still think women aren't as competent, and don't deserve the same opportunities, regardless of their skills ...
They always will. That's why the groups are needed.
This is definitely the case, I've met a few. It's usually not just women they hold this opinion of either.
Ironically enough, they themselves were utterly cr*p. I'm sure there are unreconstructed bigots that are vaguely capable, just saying I've never met one, that's all.
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 94 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply