Chart of the Day: The declining female share of computer science degrees from 28% to 18%
AEIdeas
Update: I originally was only able to find data from the Department of Education website for bachelor degrees by field and gender back to 1993 and created the top chart above. Over the weekend, I was able to access historical college degree data back to 1970 and created the second chart above. The female share of computer science bachelor’s degrees actually peaked at 37.1% in 1984 before going into a steady decline for about the next quarter century and stabilizing at about 18% starting in 2008 at about half the share of the 1984 peak.
As I mentioned before below I’m skeptical of the efforts to invest resources in an attempt to “socially engineer” a significantly higher female share of computer science degrees that would reverse the long-term downward trend over the last 32 years that is displayed graphically above. Women are succeeding so successfully overall in higher education and in many STEM and STEM-related fields like medicine (females are now the majority of medical school students and graduates), pharmacy (62% of degrees), clinical psychology (79% of degrees), biology (60% 0f degrees), and veterinary medicine (80%, see chart above), that the significant decline of 50% in the female share of computer science degrees since 1984 would seem to be more likely the result of individual “revealed preferences,” voluntary choices and academic/career interests than of gender barriers to success.
For example, the female share of veterinary medicine degrees increased from 20% in the early 1970s when it was a male-dominated field to an 80% share in recent years to the point that the female-male ratio in veterinary medical schools is now 4-to-1.
Q1: If the female share of veterinary medicine degrees in a previously male-dominated field increased from a minority share in the mid-1980s to an 80% share in recent years at the same time that the female share of computer science degrees went from 37% to 18%, shouldn’t both of those trends be considered the direct result of individual preferences and voluntary choices?
Q2: If gender under-presentation is a concern when women are in the minority (like Computer Science), why isn’t it a concern when men are in the minority (Veterinary Medicine)?
=========================
Original Post:
Do a Google search for “Girls Code” and you’ll find nearly half a million results for girls coding clubs (Black Girls Code, Latina Girls Code, Girls Who Code), girls summer code camps and programs, and news reports of corporations contributing millions of dollars to girls code initiatives, etc. Do a more narrow search for “Girls Code Camp” and you’ll get more than 9,000 results. Then try “Boys Code Camp” and you’ll find fewer than ten results!
Despite the national obsession that more girls should code and major in Computer Science in college, the female share of Computer Science degrees has dropped from a high of 28.4% in 1994 and 1995 to a low of 17.7% in 2008 (and 2011), before increasing slightly to 18.7% in 2016 (most recent year available, see chart above). So the reality is that when female undergraduate college students, who earned 34.4% more bachelor’s degrees than their male counterparts in 2016, decide on their college major, they apparently are less interested in majoring in computer science than everybody else thinks they should.
Q: Is the declining share of female computer science bachelor’s degrees, despite the massive amount of resources, funding, attention and promotion of trying to get “girls to code,” evidence of a failed social engineering effort/experiment?
Perhaps gender activists could make the case that without the national obsession to increase the female share of computer science degrees there would have been an even greater decline in that share, and that therefore the stable female share of computer science degrees at 18% is a sign of success?? But I think you could make a stronger case that the significant ten percentage point decline in the female share of computer science degrees from 28% to 18%, despite the significant resources, funding and attention toward increasing female participation in computer science, is fairly strong evidence that the social engineering experiment to get “girls to code” has failed.
That is a fascinating result. I wonder why such a steep decline in female coders.
I wonder if men are being harassed or feel bias in other trades, but find coding work is merit-based and they have a shot at the game. Good coders get hired, and then employers worry later about making nice to regulators and PC police. So men are crowding into coding.
Also, I never heard a woman say she liked coding, or repairing automobiles, doing plumbing work, and so on.
I gather the top 100 chess players in the world are male, as determined by completely fair and above-board tournaments. Maybe there is a common link between coding and chess-playing.
I wonder how much of it has to do with industry standards. How many coders out there have a two year certificate?
Here is the coding certificate requirements for my local community college.
https://cms.montgomerycollege.edu/edu/department.aspx?id=29685
It is 18 to 20 credit hours.
Joe, I work in software engineering and there are a substantial number of women in the office with me. I assume they like coding or they wouldn’t keep at it. Thus, I conclude there are many women who like coding.
Could it be? Is it possible girls/women just aren’t interested in coding?
Nah, that couldn’t be it.
Could it?
I can think of a few plausible reasons women stay away from CompSci.
One is the “bro culture”. There have been a number of software startups criticizes for behaviors which women find intimidating or uncomfortable.
Another is just the intimidation factor of walking into a class or office of all men.
I get this. I’ve joined in some activities which put me in a room of 20 women and me. It was uncomfortable and I’m a oblivious guy. I can imagine it’s harder for women, or for some women.
Third, a better way to express it might be that women are just more interested in other things over coding. It’s not that they don’t like coding, it’s that they like (for example) teaching more. Why they like teaching more is a really interesting question. And there’s the converse question: why do men like coding over teaching (nursing/psychology/biology/social services/administration/etc/etc)?
Pete
“Third, a better way to express it might be that women are just more interested in other things over coding”
I’m betting that’s the main reason.
Could someone remind me why the world of computer sciences (or the world at large) would be improved if there were more women in the field? Are there coding techniques that are more feminine or masculine?
Asking why females don’t “code” –ie. originate computer programs for essentially mundane engineering vs. scientific purposes– is equivalent to asking why guys don’t join Book or Garden Clubs, mount Kaffeeklatches, own eighty pairs of shoes or closets full ephemerally fashionable put-ons.
With rare exceptions –Mary Cassatt, Emma Noether– women avoid
creative disciplines (think architecture, musical composition, math and physics)… the only “women warriors” on offer, aside from strapped-in button-pushers, are those who never lift a finger against physical opponents.
To wall-eyed, rumpfed market-mammies, we advise: Actions, deeds, speak louder than your foolish verbalizing. Show us your finished work, and if anyone finds it interesting or useful we may make a deal. Don’t worry, gals, you’re not on any deadline.
“…women avoid creative disciplines.”
Slow down Jackson, I’m not with you on that. It seems like more than half the books I see have female authors. Female directors are increasingly prominent in Hollywood. Women dominate in Chemistry and Biology, if you want creative scientific fields. And poke around Pinterest and you’ll see just how creative women can be.
These are my impressions, at least. I don’t have numbers to back them up.
“Perhaps gender activists could make the case that without the national obsession to increase the female share of computer science degrees there would have been an even greater decline in that share, and that therefore the stable female share of computer science degrees at 18% is a sign of success??”
Maybe people who are actually doing this define success at the individual level.
Finding one willing female for a current 10-person crew can be deemed a success. After one, it’s easier to get the second for some reason. Yeah, that’s only 2/12 or 17% and if one female is lost and replaced by a male 8%.
BTW, it is really, really hard to get new trades people of any gender. Even the electrical union here is begging for people (those are $30/hr jobs).
“Finding one willing female for a current 10-person crew can be deemed a success.”
Why?
To be clear- if you are looking specifically for a female, you are breaking the law.
From the US Equal Employment Opportunity website:
“The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.”
My last job included hiring and writing EEO timetables and guidelines so a local electrical contractor could bid on federal contracts over $10,000.00. Contractors are expected to try to employ females and minorities proven with documentation even if they don’t seek federal work.
My example above: 0% current, 8% year one and
16% year two was from an actual report. That’s a 16% improvement — don’t get hung up on a mythical 50%.
I still have my contracts to help employers find employees. The electrical job requires passing a 5-panel hair drug test (no detectable marijuana last six months).
I wish I knew the magic reason why females often don’t want to enter male-dominated fields because I could make a lot of money changing that.
I’m not going to get into a lengthy HR discussion here and start getting called names for free. I’m retired and don’t teach that class any more (last time 2014 or 2015).
“Contractors are expected to try to employ females and minorities…”
Expected by whom?
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.4&idno=41
From your link:
The Contractor shall not use the goals and timetables or affirmative action standards to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
This would appear to contradict your claim that contractors are expected to try to employ females and minorities, don’t you think?
Take it up with them.
I’m not interested in their thoughts. I asked you what you think. You do think, don’t you?
I don’t try to figure out laws and regulations. If you want me to help your business comply, I will for a price.
I didn’t ask you to figure them out. I asked you what you thought about them.
I’m curious, though- if you don’t try to figure laws and regulations out, how competent could you possibly be in advising a business in how to comply with them?
I don’t have to know why a 2″ x 4″ has to be on 16″ centers to explain the code, that 12 gauge copper wire can only carry 20 amps depending on length, or the diversity factor for gas pipe sizing is 1 for a one-family residence.
I also know things such as unsuccessful applicants and record-keeping count and not just the number of female and minority employees for federal-funding contracting purposes. I’ll leave my OSHA knowledge for later.
If you want to know why, ask the person who wrote the fegualtion or code. I’m simply the wrong person to ask as the end-user.
I don’t find trying to figure out some things worth my time, but I will point you in the right direction if you want to invest your time in further research.
“If you want to know why…”
I didn’t ask you why. To recap…
Me: “This would appear to contradict your claim that contractors are expected to try to employ females and minorities, don’t you think?”
I asked you what you thought about the contradiction between your claim and the link you provided.
Me: “I’m not interested in their thoughts. I asked you what you think.”
I told you I wasn’t interested in the thoughts of the regulation writers, I asked you what you think about the contradiction between your claim and the link you provided.
Me: “I didn’t ask you to figure them out. I asked you what you thought about them.”
Once again, I told you I was asking about what you thought, not how to figure anything out.
Why do you ignore direct questions (rhetorical, of course, I don’t expect an answer)? You do this all the time.
I’m answering the way I plan to answer on my thread. Are you listening?
I don’t waste my time thinking about it. It’s easy to burn a lot of time and money worrying or bitching about a law, rule, regulation instead of using that time to minimize risk exposure for non-compliance.
If you have a particular case of possible illegal discrimination from an actual existing business practice, give me the details and I’ll try to answer that using EEOC regulations in Michigan. If you don’t like the regulations, contact the EEOC.
“Are you listening?”
Yes, I’m listening. And I’m responding directly to what you write.
You might try yourself it sometime.
One more thing… the fact you write as though you have some particular expertise to share on things you say you don’t think about explains a lot.
You are just wanting to dream stuff up that may or may not happen because you have a hard-on for me and/or the government.
If you want to perform an actual business case study, we can do that. We need the who did what and when and what was actually said by each person to do so.
A lot of the times when actual details and current regulations are applied, any presumed contradiction disappears (or at least can’t be proven). That’s why case studies are used in teaching instead of simply reading the text.
Granted, the stupidity is often still there 🙂
“the fact you write as though you have some particular expertise to share on things you say you don’t think about explains a lot.”
One does not have to be the subject matter expert (SME) to lead an operation or process. I do know a great labor law lawyer to fill in my blanks if needed.
And, if you think about stuff too much, nothing gets done.
One of my pet peeve was workers who would not do what I considered simple things without being told.
It’s a fine line between making an expensive mistake because “I wasn’t sure,” and five people on a job not doing anything until a supervisor shows up.
Walt/Not Sure,
Jeez, you guys are like a bitter old married couple who know they should divorce but won’t because they don’t know what else to do other than fight with each other.
Seek a divorce. You are not right for each other.
Greg G, yeah. I quit reading or replying on any comment threads here on CD weeks ago except the ones I start or the OP’s post or threads.
I’m not apologizing for replies to my thread comments the blog owner does not delete, and I respect his right to do so.
Have a good night 🙂
The groups you cited all started within the last 4-7 years, and serve primarily middle school and high school girls, some elementary school girls. All the groups started out very small in their early years, and have scaled since. Assuming it would be “evidence of a failed experiment”, how is it that you think an uptick in CS major declaration would have otherwise shown up by 2016?
I recently attended a “hack-a-thon” at the University of Washington, which was put on by the Computer Science Dept. I was very surprised by the even split of males and females. Hmm.
I think when computing work is more a social interaction, then females are more likely to participate.
Alas, much of coding and decoding is a solitary pursuit, which aligns more with male DNA.
Maybe it’s all about the monies, that is, dudes will do whatever to make mo’ moolah, taking the most boring or crappiest jobs available for the dough. Maybe women you want better working conditions and life balance. maybe they don’t like the nerdy, smelly, geeky boys that I’ve seen in coding. Maybe they don’t like the 24 to 36 our coding sessions.
I’d also be interested in seeing the absolute numbers. For example, it could be that women are taking up a lower percentage of the jobs even as the absolute number has increased. perhaps the number of men entering the field has merely doubled or tripled or whatever the numbers need to make the 10 percentage-point drop work
A bunch of women signed up for computer science, got jobs and then passed the word that these jobs are not satisfying, no socializing, too solitary. They also can be very time-demanding.
Women by and large are not fascinated by the minutae of things, how things work. They also do not score high on obsessiveness, but men do. When the guys are sitting around talking, they will happily listen to one guy explain all about stock options or how he fixed the sump pump or home refinancing. They will debate the merits of Tesla or self-driving cars for an hour. Have you ever heard a group of women having such a conversation? I never have. Certain careers require such an obsessive attention to detail. I know female computer scientists and they still don’t want to talk shop.
This analysis is misguided, IMHO.
The efforts to raise the participation of women in computing started after the big drop in the early 2000s. You can say that these efforts have not been effective in reversing the drop, but it is inaccurate to say that the drop happens in spite of these efforts.
What’s the difference?
Greg G-
“Seek a divorce. You are not right for each other.”
I think you’re reading more into this than there really is. At this point, Walt is a curiosity, no more- no less.
The people I know with the sort of expertise that Walt claims to possess are almost always willing to discuss their opinions and answer questions about what they think.
Walt, on the other hand, regularly avoids questions from posters here (answering a question that wasn’t asked instead of the one that was doesn’t count as an answer) in favor of making statements about how he thinks things are. And, on occasion, I take a shot at getting an actual answer.
I’m not holding my breath waiting.
I’ve noticed the same. There were far more women in Computer Science when I was in college in the 1980’s than now. Groups like ACM have gone nuts in promoting women to the point it looks like a Social Justice Journal. They used to be focused on technology and the ethics of technology. I don’t think it’s working either. I’d like to see ACM to go back to it’s roots.
Who are the ones that are spending all their teen years on a computer, staying late up at night investigating programming and other technologies? It is mostly men on IRC and forums, women are more concerned about their social media than they are about spending time on a desktop PC or laptop all night learning about computers. Until that changes we are not going to see more women in computer related fields. The same goes for any male dominated profession or female dominated profession for that matter.
If a women wants to be a mechanic than she will have an interest in that field outside of work. This is the way it has always been with jobs. You show me a good mechanic that hates cars and you will prove me wrong.
Girls Who Code estimate women currently hold 24% of the jobs in computing—a level that held since 2011. They predict that percentage is likely to fall to 22% by 2025 if “no new efforts are made to create and sustain young women’s interest in computing, from junior high to university”
I will note famous female programmers Grace Hopper (who was key to the invention of COBOL) and Margaret Hamilton (who lead the team to develop Apollo flight software)
It all depends on who looks at the data – the social engineer will look and say “Well, the decline was during Bush and it slowed and perhaps increased during Obama” (and oh it was steady during Clinton) – others will say that there is a time lag – so sure, there was a decline during Bush, but the slow in decline and perhaps increase is all because of Bush policies and the decline during Bush is because of Clinton (and if you were to retort that correlation is not causation, you will get more arguments on why that is incorrect and so on and so on) … The idea that students choose to study what they like (and are perhaps good at it) is not an argument that seems to work.
“ The idea that students choose to study what they like (and are perhaps good at it) is not an argument that seems to work.”
Of course it isn’t. Can you imagine the chaos that would result if people were allowed to just study whatever they found interesting instead of being guided in their choices? Civilization as we know it would most likely collapse.
(/sarc)
Why are highly successful multi-national corporations such as this one spending money they are not forced to spend by a government regulation or law on programs such as this one?
Are they simply stupid or maybe they perceive a value in it?
http://about.att.com/story/2018/girls_who_code.html
Virtue signalling. Great value in being perceived as the “good guys”. $1 million is a tiny fraction of their advertising budget.
I agree brand management can add value to a company. I wonder if the $1 million investment adds more than $1 million to the company brand. If so, that is great. I only own three stocks that are not in mutual funds: AT & T, GM, and some bank I can’t think of at the moment.
One of the female attributes in the skilled trades I found was in people skills.
The guys came back and said everything was OK on the install with the customers. The females sometimes would pick up the customer was not 100% satisfied and suggest we might want to call them. It’s not good that the company does not know what the customer will tell their family and friends.
Different people often bring different skill-sets to a team.
Z:
“ It’s also because women use computer products, and diversity in production may result in products that may capture that market share.”
Or it may not. It seems that particular market share has already been captured. It’s also unlikely that most production and marketing decisions are made by those who do the producing.
We personally believe oil and shipping industries would benefit from the greater diversity in techniques and skills if more women chose careers in underwater welding.
Walt
“ I wonder if the $1 million investment adds more than $1 million to the company brand. ”
Goodwill is intangible and hard to put a price on. Those who make decisions at T must think so.
I remember hearing Dr. Heather Heying (wife of Dr. Bret Weinstein of Evergreen College) speculate that after the tech bubble, tech jobs became viewed as more so as a “high-risk, high reward” job which drove a lot of women away from the field.
“that the significant decline of 50% in the female share of computer science degrees since 1984 would seem to be more likely the result of individual “revealed preferences,” voluntary choices and academic/career interests than of gender barriers to success.”
That may be true. But why the preference?
It was possible to increase female HVAC enrollment simply by not letting females walk away from the display table at the high school career fair. Call them over. Engage in conversation about the trade. Show them the shiny cool technology with computerized controls and the lights and alarms the millennials love. Potential students do not know what is out there for them.
Maybe female computer science enrollment is down partially because colleges quit trying so hard to attract them. Someone’s pay has to be based on that metric for it to be a top priority.
The influence colleges have on helping students decide what they want to do is more important than a lot of people realize. Don’t let the barrier for programs be lack of effort.
“That may be true. But why the preference? ”
It’s genetic. Men and women are different in many important ways, and have different interests and talents.
If that’s the case, you must ask yourself what your purpose is in encouraging more women to enroll in CS courses, or any technical field of study for that matter.
It may be possible to increase female enrollment without changing the ratio of male/female degrees earned, which means you have just encouraged some number of young women to waste their valuable time and money pursuing something they eventually realize doesn’t interest them after all. I assume that’s not your intent.
Your suggestion to call females over to discuss a possible career choice they hadn’t previously considered reveals a belief that young women are less aware then young men of the world around them and the choices available to them. Otherwise, why wouldn’t an equal number be attracted to your jobs fair table?
Perhaps you believe women need an extra measure of guidance and encouragement to make good choices for themselves.
The influence colleges have on helping students decide what they want to do may be more dangerous than a lot of people realize.
“Perhaps you believe women need an extra measure of guidance and encouragement to make good choices for themselves.”
I don’t have the source here (Harvard Business School I think), but woman will not apply for employment unless they are 100% sure they can do the job but males only need to be 60% sure. That’s also why they work so well in teams when many men prefer to make their own choices.
Job descriptions have to be crystal-clear for female applicants. There are a bunch of little things that cost nothing to recruit a diverse workforce (women also want to know who they will work with beforehand and men just wait until the first day of work to find out).
Thank you for supporting my argument.
“If that’s the case, you must ask yourself what your purpose is in encouraging more women to enroll in CS courses, or any technical field of study for that matter. ”
Ron, there’s no question many people do not think diversity initiatives are value added. On the other hand, many very smart people who grow innovative companies in the 21st century disagree, and they have a lot of prestigious research to back them up.
Maybe the problem is a fixed-pie notion. Males are not necessarily illegally discriminated against over a female choice. I’m not ready for another HR hiring and EEO discussion tonight 🙂
“The influence colleges have on helping students decide what they want to do may be more dangerous than a lot of people realize.”
Yeah, my HVAC program was eliminated because the advisors steered undecided students to the new Auto/Diesel program to pay for their new $12 million building. I don’t think my dean liked me pointing that out in our meeting. I’m not sure I would use the word “dangerous” instead of ill-advised.
From Thomas Sowell, a smart guy who sees little proven, factual, or empirical value of diversity initiatives:
1. Demographic “diversity” is a notion often defended with fervor but seldom with facts.
2. What are the alleged “compelling” benefits of “diversity“? They are as invisible as the proverbial emperor’s new clothes. Yet everyone has to pretend to believe in those benefits, as they pretended to admire the naked emperor’s wardrobe.
3. If there is ever a contest for words that substitute for thought, “diversity” should be recognized as the undisputed world champion. You don’t need a speck of evidence, or a single step of logic, when you rhapsodize about the supposed benefits of diversity. The very idea of testing this wonderful, magical word against something as ugly as reality seems almost sordid.
4. Despite the fervor with which demographic ‘‘diversity’’ is proclaimed as a prime virtue — without a speck of evidence as to its supposed benefits — diversity of ideas gets no such respect.
No doubt diversity is a contentious issue 🙂 With five generations in the workplace, opinions will often vastly vary.
Many of the people who see inherent value in diversity and invest large amounts of their own money are younger than baby-boomers who used to run things.
Maybe they will change as they get older or maybe that value in fact exists in their world. There’s not much doubt the future is not going to look like the past.
“Many of the people who see inherent value in diversity and invest large amounts of their own money are younger than baby-boomers who used to run things. ”
You would think someone, sometime, would explain what that inherent value is. The people you mentioned are almost certainly responding to federal mandates.
I was hoping you had some idea what the value of diversity is, and could explain it to the rest of us since you’re obviously onboard with convincing women to enroll in computer science courses.
Walt
“ … and they have a lot of prestigious research to back them up.”
Let’s see it. You know if you can’t show something, you’ll be accused of talking out of your ass – again.
“Yeah, my HVAC program was eliminated because the advisors steered undecided students to the new Auto/Diesel program to pay for their new $12 million building.”
So it had nothing to do with advancing career opportunities and everything to do with financial incentives and making the diversity numbers. Thank you. That’s what I thought.
Let’s see it. You know if you can’t show something, you’ll be accused of talking out of your ass – again.
I don’t care if you believe me or not because this is a blog and not research writing. It’s your choice here what you read, believe, and wish to reply to just as I choose not to reply or read threads other than mine and the owner’s on CD.
“So it had nothing to do with advancing career opportunities and everything to do with financial incentives and making the diversity numbers”
Everything is always either nothing or everything with you. Don’t believe much in among many factors, do you? I don’t do too many always and nevers.
Walt
So ” … and they have a lot of prestigious research to back them up.”
– is just some pure bullshit you made up on the spur of the moment?
Seriously Walt, if you can’t support the pretend nonsense you write here, how do you expect to be taken seriously?
You seem desperate to be recognized as an expert on just about every subject discussed here, but nobody respects a bullshitter. If you’re going to say stuff, be prepared to back it up. It’s just common blog courtesy.
“Seriously Walt, if you can’t support the pretend nonsense you write here, how do you expect to be taken seriously?”
I don’t care how I am taken. Take it or leave it, Ron H. I do this to pass time and free. If you want cited research, I have credentials, references, and I charge 🙂
LOL You’re such a clown, Walt. You have no credibility because you just constantly make stuff up.
Here you go, Ron:
https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified
I’ll take the high road.
Walt, as I suspected, your HBR reference doesn’t support the statistical claim you parroted.
You wrote: “… but woman will not apply for employment unless they are 100% sure they can do the job but males only need to be 60% sure.”
The article you cited actually contradicts that claim, indicating only 12.4% of men and 9.7% of women didn’t apply for a job for lack of confidence in their own ability. The other reasons given by both men and women indicate they didn’t believe they would be hired in the first place.
So that’s one down, how about this one:
“On the other hand, many very smart people who grow innovative companies in the 21st century disagree, and they have a lot of prestigious research to back them up.”
Can you defend that one? Who are those very smart people , and where’s the “lots of prestigious research”?
If you want to compete in a diverse market, it is beneficial to have a diverse workforce.
How will homogeneous countries/societies/economies like Japan, Korea, and China, with a complete lack of diversity and homogeneous workers, ever be able to compete in a diverse world then?
“If a large market share was being overlooked by shortsighted or biased business owners, one would expect a diverse population of eager entrepreneurs to recognize that opportunity and jump in to benefit from that market failure.”
Is that anything like suggesting that businesses could cut their payroll expenses significantly by hiring only women, if women are truly paid less than men for doing the same work?
Because it sure sounds like it.
Not
It’s more like a suggestion that a group of people with one set of diversity attributes has no idea how to market to groups of people with different sets of diversity attributes, and therefore they miss out on sizable chunks of potential market share.
The recommended solution, of course, is to hire members of those groups of people with the same set of diversity attributes as those to whom the company wishes to market – preferably, for some reason – in the same proportion that diversity group represents in the general population
I have no idea where such nonsense comes from. If that was even a concern, it would seem to make more sense for a profit minded company to just hire consultants with the requisite diversity attributes to advise them on gaining market share in their target market.
How have then been able to compete so successfully, and be so profitable in the past though with such an undiverse labor force?
“Women are key to Alibaba’s success: Jack Ma”
Translation: “Yes, Not Sure, hiring women for less than we pay men increases our productivity substantially.
“Huawei: “We face a more dynamic business environment today than ever before, and internal demands are growing in complexity. We need to open up the organization to outside talent, and explore ways to unite the world’s most outstanding minds under a common purpose.”
Translation: “We plan to hire the best qualified people from around the world, regardless of their ethnicity or national origin.”
“Sony is committed to promoting activities to encourage Diversity in accordance with the attributes of various countries and regions, based on its free-spirited corporate climate.”
Translation: “We plan to open additional facilities world wide”
“Samsung: “Embracing diversity brings different experiences and perspectives that help us build a better tomorrow.”
Good sounding but meaningless code words and phrases designed to maintain good public relations. Fervor without facts.
Z:
“Expanding the talent pool can lead to an increase in productivity. ”
Absolutely. That’s why employers cast a wide net for potential applicants to improve their chances of hiring the best qualified and most productive employees.