Even if the population is divided into discrete tiers, the process is still rife with unfairness no matter how you dice it.
If you have 1,000 slots, 10,000 candidates in your tier, and 1,000 of them are women, you can hire any ratio of women to men that you like and all will be equally talented. Great, right? It's great for those that are hired; not so much for everyone else.
Say you make the gender ratio 50%. You hire 500 women and 500 men from the top tier. Every first-class company like Google or Facebook adopts this strategy. This means that the odds of being hired at a first-class company is 50% for women in the top tier, and only 5% for men in the top tier. For every interview a woman does, a man must do ten. Eventually all the slots in all first-class companies are filled up, leaving some top-tier men working for second class companies--but no top tier women are working for second class companies.
Right, but you're going to get this unfairness no matter what criteria you use, gender or otherwise.
Say you leave the gender ratio unspecified and instead decide based upon the interviewer's gut feeling. Then you'll bias the hiring process toward schmoozers with good social skills.
Or you decide based on which college the applicant went to. Then you bias it towards people who were willing to shell out for a prestigious piece of paper.
Or you decide based on whoever responds to your offer first. Then you bias it against people who have lives and better things to do with their time than refreshing their e-mail waiting for a callback.
Really, the only solution is to acknowledge that life's not fair, and people sometimes get things for completely arbitrary reasons. Which is really hard for a lot of people to do - it was hard for me - but you end up being a lot more successful when you don't think too hard about all the folks who get undeserved job offers and promotions and think more about how you can tilt the odds toward being one of the lucky ones instead.
I completely agree. I make this point, though, because the parent article begins,
“You only got that internship because you’re a woman.”
Note that this statement does not imply she is unqualified. She could be absolutely qualified (and probably is). However, in the ficticious tiering example above, the female applicant has 10x higher odds than a male applicant of getting a sought after job at a first-lass company, even though both are equally qualified. For this example, at least, the above statement is explainable (minus the "only" part, which is just mean) by the huge difference in probability between her and her friend. Her friend would have to apply to ten times more internships in order to land an equivalent gig.
If you have 1,000 slots, 10,000 candidates in your tier, and 1,000 of them are women, you can hire any ratio of women to men that you like and all will be equally talented. Great, right? It's great for those that are hired; not so much for everyone else.
Say you make the gender ratio 50%. You hire 500 women and 500 men from the top tier. Every first-class company like Google or Facebook adopts this strategy. This means that the odds of being hired at a first-class company is 50% for women in the top tier, and only 5% for men in the top tier. For every interview a woman does, a man must do ten. Eventually all the slots in all first-class companies are filled up, leaving some top-tier men working for second class companies--but no top tier women are working for second class companies.