A discussion on gender quotas - how do they work. Someone please explain it to me.

is_that_so wrote: »

I was on engineering course where there were 4 women out of 80, not an uncommon scenario. The only area where there might be a better representation is in computer engineering courses but even there if you find beyond 30% you are doing well.

There were two women in a year of over 100 in my course. One left after first year and the other did very well for herself and was hired straight out of the course by a US multinational. Engineering just doesn't attract as many women, even when you argue about all the barriers in the way it still doesn't account for the disparities.

I’d be very happy as I’ve said to hire three males, three females, two females and one male or one male and two females as long as during the process of hiring I know I’m awarding the positions to the best candidates who have gone to the bother of presenting themselves for interview.

I’m not going to be of the mind to be adhering to perceived ‘gender balance’.. I’m of the mind to want to achieve ‘talent’ balance... so I’m not going to be heard... “sorry Dave, I cannot award you a position even though you might be more deserving and qualified than other candidates, we have ‘gender’ quotas which I need to meet”...

Fairness when hiring should be based on ability, experience and personality not gender.

I'm a female software dev and have always considered myself to be a feminist but i don't think the gender quotas are the right way to go.

When I was in college I was one of seven girls in a class of 120 and not all of those seven graduated so I don't see how every company enforcing a 50:50 ratio could possibly work with those numbers. It could also create some bitterness and tension if people feel women are only getting hired to hit a quota.

I think it would be great if more women did computing but I think the best way to achieve that is to get more kids coding, especially girls. If more girls go to college to do computing then more females will graduate and if the graduation rate hits a 50:50 ratio then the industry ratio will naturally adjust.

Personally, I would hate to feel like I was only hired as a diversity hire and not because I was seen as a valuable asset to the company.

Crock Rock wrote: »

Can someone please explain the logic behind these, maybe I'm missing something here. Am I missing a trick?

Say there are 10 jobs going in a certain sector.

There are 500 CVs submitted for these lucrative jobs.

The company is being forced to implement a minimum of 40% recruitment for women.

The jobs are gradually filled and the first 6 candidates to be selected are men with PhDs in the field in question, with 3-5 years of middle management in the area with more years on top of that as a junior worker.

There are 4 jobs remaining to be filled.

The company is sifting through CVs and sorting them based on qualifications and suitability for the role.

The 4 most qualified candidates chosen are 3 women and 1 man.

However, by hiring the 3 women and 1 man, they will only have 30% female candidates.

How is this dilemma solved?

Do they have to pass over the more qualified man to hire a less qualified woman to satisfy the 40% female employment ratio? I'm confused.

Do these gender quotas work the other way too? Would a company get a slap on the knuckles if they had 90% women and 10% men?

You’re not missing anything. What you are doing though, is purposely misrepresenting the idea of gender quotas and what they are aiming to achieve, by presenting a convoluted scenario which is not a realistic reflection of any hiring process I’m aware of. If the idea is to hire ten people, four of whom must be women, then you’re interviewing for ten positions, not filling the first six positions with men and then seeing who’s left over that you’ll be left to choose between four women and one man, or hiring three women and then being presented with the false dilemma of the last candidate being either a man or a woman.

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Listen I love women, my favourite people are me Ma and me Wife. But quotas are shown up for wha they are when women don’t apply to be bin “people” or building site labourers.

Ps isn’t is sad that most men are considered sexist despite valuing their Mothers and Spouses above literally everything.

How does that show up gender quotas for what they are? Do you imagine there are no women working in the construction industry or waste management? There are, plenty. There aren’t too many however are willing to apply for low paid jobs which present a risk to their health. What you’re doing is like pointing out there aren’t too many men who aspire to be rent boys. Who fcuking would?

DanyTargaryen wrote: »

I'm a female software dev and have always considered myself to be a feminist but i don't think the gender quotas are the right way to go.

When I was in college I was one of seven girls in a class of 120 and not all of those seven graduated so I don't see how every company enforcing a 50:50 ratio could possibly work with those numbers. It could also create some bitterness and tension if people feel women are only getting hired to hit a quota.

I think it would be great if more women did computing but I think the best way to achieve that is to get more kids coding, especially girls. If more girls go to college to do computing then more females will graduate and if the graduation rate hits a 50:50 ratio then the industry ratio will naturally adjust.

Personally, I would hate to feel like I was only hired as a diversity hire and not because I was seen as a valuable asset to the company.

The idea of gender quotas is incredibly simple. It’s about representation and role modelling. You’re not going to get children interested in coding if they’re not interested in coding in the first place, whether they’re either girls or boys. Hiring more women makes women more visible in the industry, and they are the role models for young girls (and indeed young boys) to look up to and aspire to.

Before gender quotas were even heard of, it was easy enough for me to put together a team of 13 devs and I’ll be honest with you, it was the guy who was the token diversity candidate because the guys I interviewed just didn’t come across well and I knew I wasn’t going to be able to work with them. I was putting together a team and I needed team players who would bring something different to the table, not the same old, same old that assumed by virtue of their gender they were better at their jobs and were a better fit for the team I was putting together. James Damore types basically. Even at the interview stage I knew I couldn’t be listening to their shìte if I had to be listening to that every day. I preferred people who were positive and committed and I chose the women I did not because of any gender quotas (which I think like any idea are good if it’s implemented properly, bad if it’s as you point out just a token hire just to show how diverse a company is), but some people are still of the opinion that the best person for the job is the one who is the most qualified. Far too often in my experience, the type of person who has that mindset isn’t a team player. They’re thinking they’d hire themselves, whereas the reasons they would hire themselves aren’t necessarily what potential employers are looking for.

They're BS, and it's sexist to both Male and Female.

Companies have to hire certain demographics to look good. So what if a company is all men, or all women, or all Asians. Who gives a ****.

If they happen to be the what possible group that company could hire, so be it.