From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9ef0b1ff7be6dd43 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-27 11:06:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: prichtmyer@yahoo.com (Peter Richtmyer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Effect of Gender in Learning Ada - OT Date: 27 Apr 2003 11:06:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <1b585154.0304271006.561e41ef@posting.google.com> References: <1b585154.0304260737.154758a4@posting.google.com> <1051400505.19347.0@iapetus.uk.clara.net> <1051447321.38985.0@iapetus.uk.clara.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.1.176.75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051466785 3149 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2003 18:06:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 2003 18:06:25 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36654 Date: 2003-04-27T18:06:25+00:00 List-Id: Robin KAY wrote in message news:<1051447321.38985.0@iapetus.uk.clara.net>... > Given that the abilities of an average male and female candidate are > roughly equal, then a fair and non-discrimatory hiring process should > result in roughly equal numbers of male and female empolyees. A single > sex enviroment of any significant size is indicitive of something having > gone wrong. These topics are very complex... let me just expound a bit more. "Given that" - Above, do you mean "Assuming that" or "Since it has been proved that"? Is it hypothesis or fact? "Abilities" - to do what? Get good grades? Impress the hiring agents? Or to effectively produce as a good team member? I have seen lots of people with "abilities" to work, cramming 4 hours of so-so work into 8 hours, and being praised for what they do (really for how the "look"). Measurement is VERY difficult. Robin's first sentence above, instead of "equal numbers", should (IMHO) be "numbers proportionate to the applicant pool" or something to that effect. Though I still do not agree that every software group (or any group) must be proportionate to the applicant pool on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, (dis)ability, religous (un)affiliation and sexual preference. Isn't that the total package? Or did I leave out any criteria? Robin's last sentence above should (IMHO) have a "possibly" between "is" and "indicative". So many factors ... enough for now :-) Peter