> Just to be clear - the pay gap mostly disappears once you control for field, position, and experience.
That doesn't mean anything, because controlling for position means you're factoring out huge disparities--although I will not argue that they necessarily benefit men over women; it is more complex than that--in terms of how performance is evaluated, who gets promoted, and who is offered opportunities for high-quality work experience.
The problem in today's corporate America isn't that people deliberately offer better opportunities and favorable treatment to preferred racial or gender categories (although sometimes they do) but that all this happens subconsciously the whole system is set up so that only a small set of people (the generationally well-connected) have a serious chance of getting a fair shake. The system simultaneously has 85% of its decision makers believing they are executing a meritocracy while, in fact, working to drive predetermined and usually anti-meritocratic results.
> Whereas men will plough through and do it anyway. (Mainly because they have no other choice - men would choose otherwise if women would let them)
Sadly, those men who bear down and suffer because women won't "let them" choose other careers are going to end up ill-treated no matter what they do. The winning strategy for them would be to go overseas, but that's another topic.
I don't think it's intrinsic that (as you said) "Women choose partners, at least in part, based on their ability to provide resources." A hundred years ago, it was considered intrinsic that men were innately violent and needed experience with deadly conflict (hence, each generation "deserving" to "get" a war) or they would rot. We really know very little about what is intrinsic in us; we do, however, know that in the real world we have to deal with generations of toxic socialization.
You're absolutely right, of course. I only note this: smart men are likely to seek more lucrative fields if they're informed about the actual odds. Having a high IQ doesn't mean all that much if you haven't got data.
Software plays on male quixotry, yes, but it's able to do so because the average 22-year-old man has friends of the same age group and has never dated anyone older than 22 (because, honestly, he can't... he has nothing to offer women 25+ and they aren't interested). Women, who usually have dated (or at least have friends who have dated) men in their late 20s and possibly 30s, are exposed to high-quality information about which careers actually deliver on their promises; men are not. Men might get advice from their parents, but that's going to be 30 years out of date, in a country where the career game has gone from Easy Mode to Psychopath Mode in a generation.
Do you know how offensive it is to compare an ethnic group (in fact, numerous ethnic groups) to the ultrarich hyperconsumptive ghouls who run the world?
People can choose not to be ultrarich. People can choose not to be ghouls. People who get the opportunity to run the world can either decline or step up and actually do a good job, unlike the shitbags currently in charge.
To make a comparison between (a) a group defined by ancestry and linguistic heritage, and (b) a group in which a person must deliberately choose membership, and must commit harmful acts in order to remain a part... is just insane.
The old money kids don't have to use the open-plan offices, and they usually either get choice roles (not regular SWE work, but GoogleX stuff) or directly put on the management track (since they're almost never coding for more than 2-4 years out of school). They get put in as proteges of high-level people and what they do on a day-to-day basis doesn't matter; it's more like a college major than a career, something to say they did.
You're right that they don't need to work. They do it to legitimize themselves. And, of course, to make sure any genuine opportunities go to their social class and not the rest of us.
Her portrayal of the wealthy was downright kind (which makes sense, because at a party you won't really get to know them) compared to the actual behavior of such people.
I've worked for and with them. Sure, a few of them are decent people, just like anyone else--and a bit embarrassed by the wealth they have. Usually, they try to get away from it--they have a desire to prove themselves, so they go into academia or the military or seminary and try to reinvent themselves, hiding their origins entirely. (Fred Trump, who became a pilot, is another example.) That might be 20 percent, the ones who deliberately leave the world of the wealthy, the world of unearned opportunity, the same way poors leave small towns in which there is no opportunity. The other 80 percent, the ones who like being in that sphere, are depraved fucking ghouls, and there are really no exceptions because their world is itself ghoulish.
> Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. You're arguing semantics because "it's different" in the US, which may be superfically true, but not meaningfully so.
This. The idea that we were founded by the industrious poor of Europe doesn't really hold out. People came to the New World with all sorts of different motivations, and from all social classes. The rich who came over to get super-rich got super-rich and their descendants are now the elite. The poors who came over to work in the coal mines stayed poor and their descendants now work at Wal-Mart. And the one-sixth of this country whose ancestors were brought over against their will are still treated horribly because their skin color makes it evident (or at least likely).
Not only is social mobility rare, but there's a mean-reversion. Class doesn't prevent you from attaining wealth, but it makes it harder to keep it; there are so many forces in play that most people aren't even aware of, but that exist to keep long-term upward mobility at a minimum. You can get a PhD and work at a FAANG, and you're still going to lose in project allocation and in promotion battles to 23-year-olds whose fathers and grandfathers the VPs are afraid of.
I was an engineer at a FAANG. The effects of pre-existing, generational social class are as strong there as anywhere else.
If you grew up old money, you get tapped for the best projects and will make Staff by 25, Principal by 30. If you don't have the technical abilities, they'll make you a manager. On the other hand, if you come from the rabble, you stay in the rabble--you get assigned regular grunt work and performance reviews actually matter to your future.
> Her life seems intense to me, and I don’t understand how she’s here at this party looking lively. I personally can work on my research a few hours a day before I need to go nap or watch some youtube videos. Is she fundamentally different from me in some profound way? Does she just have more energy resources? Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity?
The thing to understand about these people is that they're institutions. The people under them do the work, and they make a full-time job of making themselves look good. Which doesn't mean they don't work at it, but it's a different kind of work and it's less taxing. With deep work, you start to decline after 4-5 hours per day. Schmoozers can play their game all day; it's just not as mentally difficult.
And yes, they are very good at making themselves appear to be people whose shit doesn't stink. Spoiler alert: it actually smells like everyone else's.
> I wonder how much of this is intentional behavior by tech companies. They want to select for workers that will tolerate their bullshit and are willing to receive some level of abuse.
It is. That said, I don't think tech execs are sexist or racist so much as they are classist and money-obsessed. They don't necessarily want a crappy culture; they just don't care.
> Or are we really to believe that all these huge corporations full of incredibly brilliant and skilled individuals are somehow too dumb and ignorant to figure out how to fix these problems?
The huge corporations may be "full of" brilliant people, but the people at the top are the same schmoozing or generationally-connected mediocrities that have always run things, and they're the only ones whose input matters. Having a team of people in your basement with a 150 average IQ doesn't mean you're magically going to make better decisions, not if you never listen to them.
> I'm increasingly cynical that it's ever possible to meaningfully improve human systems or that it's even worth trying.
It clearly is possible, because human systems do get better or worse over time, both on the small scale and the large. Scandinavian countries have better societies than the U.S.; the U.S. is still miles ahead, in this regard, of true autocracies (e.g. Putin's Russia). The vast differences in quality of human systems make it very clear that they can be improved (or degraded). It's just incredibly difficult.
I think of it like voting. Even when everything works and elections are fair, voting isn't really about making the decision. That's not why you do it, because mathematically, you probably won't cast a deciding vote ever in your life. Voting is about holding accountable those who do make the decisions, and at that, it often works very well--black neighborhoods saw improvements in public services after civil rights legislation made it easier for them to vote. Ultimately, of course, you're right: it's still up to forces out of your control whether you win or lose.
I imagine the above is why, although it certainly doesn't require a Western theocentric faith, religiosity (note that I make no claims about whether religion is or is not true) is associated with well-adjustment: it's one of the only ways we have come up with to hold an internal locus of control in a world where, quite frankly, almost everything that happens to us in the objective material world is out of our control.
The truth is that corporate capitalism wasn't built for people like us, people of conscience. It was built by obscenely wealthy ghouls to direct all of society's resources toward themselves. That's it. They will allow technical progress if they believe they stand to benefit; they will oppose it if they think they'll lose. "Meritocracy" is a sham, and corporations aren't built to last... they're built to extract wealth and then wither as invested resources are reallocated. A private company will never be a utopia because it's literally designed to be the opposite (perhaps not a "dystopia" in the classic sense, but one in the realistic sense whereby every dystopia is someone's utopia).
Trying to build a "good" company within corporate capitalism is like building a house on sand. It's not impossible, but it's extremely difficult. You're going to be competing with ruthless bastards and gargantuan institutions that could destroy you just for fun. You're playing a game where evil people win because it's designed that way. The only long-term solution is to destroy corporate capitalism forever.
Are women maltreated in technology? Yes. Capitalism is classist more than anything else and if you weren't born into generational wealth and connections, you're going to get fucked one way or another. Are women maltreated more than men? Eh, it's less clear, but the evidence on pay seems to suggest so. Still, I don't think that's all of why there's a dearth of women in technology. There are two really big factors that don't get a lot of volume behind them because they're politically incorrect (but keep in mind that I'm a leftist and mostly a feminist and I'm still saying this).
One: more women than men leave tech because they can. For every machine learning researcher getting paid $600k to be a basically a professor-in-residence, there are 250 losers doing Scrum. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's a horrible career; the bullshit and toxicity burn you out after 10 years. Men are socialized to believe that (a) making money is their main value both to society and to the people who will depend on them, and that (b) the market will treat them fairly because "meritocracy". We learn that (b) is false in early middle age, if not before, but can't really say it too loudly because we don't want to be tagged as bitter. It's a lot more socially acceptable for a woman to downshift her career to launch a small business than for a man. There's no intrinsic reason why it should be considered usual for men in heterosexual relationships to earn more than women, but emasculating and odd for the reverse to be the case, but you'd have to undo decades of socialization in billions of people to erase that prejudice. For now, it persists, and the common view is that a woman who leaves tech is brave for no longer putting up with the toxicity; a man who leaves tech is a wimp who couldn't hack it.
Two: smart women are more likely to go into medicine, law, and general management. Why? Look-ahead. A 22-year-old heterosexual woman has dated--or at least has friends who have dated--a few 25-year-old men, and maybe one or two in their early 30s. They see where the various paths lead. They see where most techies end up by age 30, and it ain't pretty... and they realize they don't want to go there. because they're smart. The 32-year-old doctor might still have a tough life--insurance companies are the pits, and residents don't make a lot of money--but at least he doesn't have to interview for his own fucking job every morning or deal with user stories and product managers.
You could be right, insofar as in the 1990s, "selling out" was a discrete event and there was no denying that one had given creative control up. In the 2020s, the PR departments are so good at making their efforts look like things that happened organically that the difference between genuine success and packaging has blurred.
You should aim for a research environment where you don't have to justify your existence to some "product manager" every 24 hours. Take it from me as an old person: if you work in stupid environments in stupid ways on stupid stuff... what happens is exactly what you'd think would happen.
Really excited about Compilers. I've heard it's very good. Haven't decided on a specialization yet; I'm still in that phase where everything looks interesting. TBH, there are ~20 courses that appeal to me, although if I still feel like I want to press on after 10, I'll probably look into pursuing a PhD.
I'm guessing the OP is bashing OMSCS based on Reddit comments from people who tried a course, found it difficult (because, hello, it's actual graduate school at a real university), gave up, and are now spreading negativity on the internets about something they only gave a half-assed try.
Sure, there are negatives of learning at-scale. Grades are going to be exam-driven (noisier) because papers/independent projects don't scale as easily, which means there's a chance that you do everything right and get a B. Sure, some of the videos are a couple years out of date. Overall, though, I've taken two GT OMSCS courses and so far the quality has been very high... and the professors, in my experience, are also constantly trying to make the experience better and more flexible.