What's stopping someone from signing up for Jopwell when you don't fit their racial criteria? Surely once they find out that you're not the race they're looking for, they can't deny you services because of your race.
Regardless, diversity is an issue that the tech industry certainly does needs to tackle, and things like this are one way of going about it; I just feel like it's the wrong way. Denying opportunities to people based on race might achieve the goal, but it does it in a way that's only going to breed contempt. It also ignores that poverty, while vastly more common among the specified races, still does exist for some whites and asians.
I believe the metric we should be using for programs like these should be total family income, not the color of your parents skin. Is systematic racism a problem? Probably in some industries. But these days, recruiters at tech companies are not turning people down due to their opinions about their race.
"But these days, recruiters at tech companies are not turning people down due to their opinions about their race."
Not even github? They seemed to want to aggressively reduce the percentage of white males at their company, and bragged about their success in doing so.
That doesn't contradict grandparent. They could be doing so by increasing recruitment and hiring of non-whites and non-males. I expect that most people in this thread believe that's exactly what they're doing.
Frustrated by the people who are claiming that this piece or the company is racist/unexceptional, or that this man's success is due to exclusively hard work. They are missing a greater point that hard work and circumstance are both needed and one is significantly less useful without the other, and that there are structural social challenges that should be addressed.
It's also very possible to praise this, and everyone else's, achievement without: comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train, discounting luck, or discounting other struggles.
It's pretty easy to argue against that comic. Most of it is made-up anecdote. 2 of the 3 testable claims it makes are completely and nonsensically wrong, almost to the point of complete fabrication. The third testable claim I don't know how to google.
Poor Americans don't live in overcrowded homes. Only 3.3% of those homes have "severe physical problems" (what I'm interpreting the comic to mean), and they typically have 2 rooms/person.
I don't have stats on classes sizes - do you? I suspect the author of that comic didn't bother to google before writing it.
I'm not even going to try and refute the made-up anecdotes, e.g. dying father, parents who don't care about academics, and a boss who looks like a dog.
You seem like just the type of person I wanted to read that comic when I decided to put that in. You're fully missing the point (forest through the trees type of thing) with those stats; the unarguable part is that life circumstances often allow some people to snowball minor successes/advantages and prevent the same from happening to others.
Basically, that comic represents a very realistic, though maybe not statistically significant if it were to be taken literally, situation. It illustrates that results are not dictated by hard work and there is not equal opportunity. It is an attempt to help people empathize.
It's not saying that the guy on the left is a shit (though maybe unaware of his blessings), but rather that the woman on the right (anecdotally representing marginalized society) may be trapped no matter how hard she works. Sure she can beat it, but look at everything else she has to overcome to do so.
I'm sorry what? Your interpretation of the comic is that it's claiming that poor Americans all live in the worst 3.3% of homes and have dying dads and bosses who look like dogs?
The comic is saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. That is testable, and widely accepted as true. Are you saying it's false?
That's a really good comic. I grew up very privileged and it's easy to give in to some of the thoughts that are displayed. I know far too many of my peers who probably wouldn't see the irony in it if you chopped off the right half.
"comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train"
This kind of thing is all too common among those who advocate for ideologies which they believe would make the world a better place. They lose the audience, and undermine their own claimed goals. As someone that cares about social justice, I think shining a light on this (and other unfortunate parts of 'the movement') is one of the most important things to do at this point.
You just proved the point. You're arguing socioeconomic cirumstance (which I think should be helped out) over race. If you're solidly middle/upper class, shouldn't matter what colour you are.
The title is wrong. The title should be "How I ended up successful in tech through the hard work and perseverance of my mother and myself, with a side dish of good fortune."
actually, i would say yours is the narrow point, and it's also a POV whose reach you are looking to broaden. The negative aspect of your POV is that some of us get tired of hearing it over and over (and I'm not picking on you, just explaining the different attitude) Labelling our worldview negative is also a negativity.
My goal in reading hacker news is not helping contribute blasts of cold air in order to preserve every little snowflake; but every little snowflake is welcome, nay, invited even, to read sober analysis of what processes are really going on. That's real math, science, and engineering.
I had to laugh the other day when I saw an effort to promote STEAM. STEAM? It's STEM, but including the Arts! OMG. Did we leave anybody out?
No, I got that point and indeed I do agree with it. In truth, I was just commenting on the title with the point that most everything is by chance - most importantly our very existence as individuals. No negativity was intended.
He was privileged to be a black man since this drastically improved his odds of getting into Princeton. It's not anywhere near as much of an achievement as you are making it out to be.
As of 2006, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students in the top 25 schools are there only due to race.
So with high probability, it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton.
It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian.
(If anyone has more current numbers I'd love to see them. I've seen more recent numbers on state schools, which suggest 23% of blacks are only there due to race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when... But nothing at the ivy level.)
I don't think we need another litigation of Ivy admissions (and affirmative action), posted as commentary on a particular person's story. When you make statements like "it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton" and "It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian", you're inevitably putting that person down, and that's not right. Your unspoken assumption—that all other things are equal and history began the day they applied to Princeton—is facile to begin with, but particularly uncharitable when applied to someone's life.
Dang, the guy who wrote the article characterizes his success as luck. I'm agreeing with him and pointing out the fallaciousness of a claim that he's wrong. How is that off-topic?
Imagine someone cited the fact that I've worked for American companies as evidence of my skill and accomplishment. Under some circumstances, this very easily could be evidence of that. To work for American companies, some people need to bust their ass hard until 12th standard to get into IIT, get top marks at IIT, demonstrate kickass skills to companies 12,000 miles away and get one of them to sponsor the visa. That surely is an accomplishment.
But actually I just happened to be born on the right side of an arbitrary border.
And if someone were to cite my work for American companies as accomplishment, where I claimed it was merely luck, it would be perfectly valid to point out my US citizenship and how that helps me.
I feel like you are simply objecting to my mood affiliation, and perhaps trying to make HN seem more welcoming to people who wish we didn't point out true facts like this.
> He was privileged to be a black man since this drastically improved his odds of getting into Princeton.
His guidance counselor pretty much knew this and the article spelled it out...
> She thought that my math and science scores made me a good candidate, as did the fact that I was an African American male — something which we all know the engineering world is lacking.
>As of 2006, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students in the top 25 schools are there only due to race.
Thats a pretty bold claim that assumes
1. Any minority at Princeton falls neatly into that trend, and isn't simply an outlier.
2. Princeton & Ivies weigh SAT scores significantly as part of the admissions process.
3. Princeton & Ivies use raw objective performance as the primary basis for acceptance.
If 2 & 3 were true, you wouldn't see as much pressure for students to play 3 sports, 9 instruments, and have 300 other extra-currics to remain competitive for those spots. Anyone who believes that they just rank applicants by SAT scores and take the top N is a little bit delusional.
So 2/3-5/6 of black students at the top 25 schools are outliers? Or black students are wildly disproportionately likely to play 3 sports, 9 instruments and have 300 extra-currics?
I'd love to see data supporting this claim.
That sure goes against stereotypes, which suggest it's mainly Asian students who do that.
At the Ivies, you've got piles of white and Asian kids with perfect scores on the SAT, 4.0+ GPAs, etc. So you've got to do something to separate yourself from that herd in some way or another that catches the eye of somebody in the admissions office or otherwise ticks enough boxes on whatever rubric they are using this week.
Competition for some of these places is completely insane. I remember the campus newspaper publishing admissions statistics and it was something like 8-9% of applications were accepted, at one of the smaller and less well-known ones. Of those, you have a few dozen with the same last names as buildings on campus, a couple hundred international students paying every dime, and maybe another hundred recruited athletes. They could admit an entire class of high school valedictorians and salutatorians if they felt like it.
Readit News
Regardless, diversity is an issue that the tech industry certainly does needs to tackle, and things like this are one way of going about it; I just feel like it's the wrong way. Denying opportunities to people based on race might achieve the goal, but it does it in a way that's only going to breed contempt. It also ignores that poverty, while vastly more common among the specified races, still does exist for some whites and asians.
I believe the metric we should be using for programs like these should be total family income, not the color of your parents skin. Is systematic racism a problem? Probably in some industries. But these days, recruiters at tech companies are not turning people down due to their opinions about their race.
Not even github? They seemed to want to aggressively reduce the percentage of white males at their company, and bragged about their success in doing so.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
It's also very possible to praise this, and everyone else's, achievement without: comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train, discounting luck, or discounting other struggles.
Discussions like this remind me of this poignant comic on income inequality that is pretty much impossible to argue around: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
Poor Americans don't live in overcrowded homes. Only 3.3% of those homes have "severe physical problems" (what I'm interpreting the comic to mean), and they typically have 2 rooms/person.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
60% of poor children have parents who didn't work at all during the year. In contrast, 51% of Americans 18-64 whole did work full time year round.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...
I don't have stats on classes sizes - do you? I suspect the author of that comic didn't bother to google before writing it.
I'm not even going to try and refute the made-up anecdotes, e.g. dying father, parents who don't care about academics, and a boss who looks like a dog.
Basically, that comic represents a very realistic, though maybe not statistically significant if it were to be taken literally, situation. It illustrates that results are not dictated by hard work and there is not equal opportunity. It is an attempt to help people empathize.
It's not saying that the guy on the left is a shit (though maybe unaware of his blessings), but rather that the woman on the right (anecdotally representing marginalized society) may be trapped no matter how hard she works. Sure she can beat it, but look at everything else she has to overcome to do so.
The comic is saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. That is testable, and widely accepted as true. Are you saying it's false?
This kind of thing is all too common among those who advocate for ideologies which they believe would make the world a better place. They lose the audience, and undermine their own claimed goals. As someone that cares about social justice, I think shining a light on this (and other unfortunate parts of 'the movement') is one of the most important things to do at this point.
I think you missed the larger point - that we can be doing a better job as evangelists of the industry, and broadening it's reach.
Humour me, why do we care to do this? The more people that think programming is magic and stay away, the more money we make.
My goal in reading hacker news is not helping contribute blasts of cold air in order to preserve every little snowflake; but every little snowflake is welcome, nay, invited even, to read sober analysis of what processes are really going on. That's real math, science, and engineering.
I had to laugh the other day when I saw an effort to promote STEAM. STEAM? It's STEM, but including the Arts! OMG. Did we leave anybody out?
As of 2006, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students in the top 25 schools are there only due to race.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html
So with high probability, it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton.
It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian.
(If anyone has more current numbers I'd love to see them. I've seen more recent numbers on state schools, which suggest 23% of blacks are only there due to race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when... But nothing at the ivy level.)
I don't think we need another litigation of Ivy admissions (and affirmative action), posted as commentary on a particular person's story. When you make statements like "it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton" and "It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian", you're inevitably putting that person down, and that's not right. Your unspoken assumption—that all other things are equal and history began the day they applied to Princeton—is facile to begin with, but particularly uncharitable when applied to someone's life.
Imagine someone cited the fact that I've worked for American companies as evidence of my skill and accomplishment. Under some circumstances, this very easily could be evidence of that. To work for American companies, some people need to bust their ass hard until 12th standard to get into IIT, get top marks at IIT, demonstrate kickass skills to companies 12,000 miles away and get one of them to sponsor the visa. That surely is an accomplishment.
But actually I just happened to be born on the right side of an arbitrary border.
And if someone were to cite my work for American companies as accomplishment, where I claimed it was merely luck, it would be perfectly valid to point out my US citizenship and how that helps me.
I feel like you are simply objecting to my mood affiliation, and perhaps trying to make HN seem more welcoming to people who wish we didn't point out true facts like this.
His guidance counselor pretty much knew this and the article spelled it out...
> She thought that my math and science scores made me a good candidate, as did the fact that I was an African American male — something which we all know the engineering world is lacking.
> The strategy worked.
Thats a pretty bold claim that assumes
1. Any minority at Princeton falls neatly into that trend, and isn't simply an outlier.
2. Princeton & Ivies weigh SAT scores significantly as part of the admissions process.
3. Princeton & Ivies use raw objective performance as the primary basis for acceptance.
If 2 & 3 were true, you wouldn't see as much pressure for students to play 3 sports, 9 instruments, and have 300 other extra-currics to remain competitive for those spots. Anyone who believes that they just rank applicants by SAT scores and take the top N is a little bit delusional.
I'd love to see data supporting this claim.
That sure goes against stereotypes, which suggest it's mainly Asian students who do that.
Competition for some of these places is completely insane. I remember the campus newspaper publishing admissions statistics and it was something like 8-9% of applications were accepted, at one of the smaller and less well-known ones. Of those, you have a few dozen with the same last names as buildings on campus, a couple hundred international students paying every dime, and maybe another hundred recruited athletes. They could admit an entire class of high school valedictorians and salutatorians if they felt like it.
Otherwise, this seems gratuitously negative and irrelevant.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment