Doing gender discriminations to "counter" gender discriminations is neither a good or effective way. It's lazy, and only causes more harm.
There's plenty of research into "industry causes of gender bias." This is one of the solutions. You're basically claiming that because this doesn't completely solve the gender divide, it's lazy and worthless. Well, sorry, but that's not how the world works. This is one of many small steps into getting more women interested in programming, which then eliminates the glass ceilings and discrimination.
How you and the others in this thread don't see this is just baffling.
The definition of "Outreach", is an method that are used to fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means, to the purpose of reaching groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education). This doesn't do that. Mozilla mentor program for example is one that does. Compare and see the difference.
women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive. Any research of this has proven this point. When the Sweden government body tried it, it was found to be ineffective, counter-productive (created more separation between sexes), and declared illegal in the last years. Sadly, given the current gender politics, little money has been spent to answer why it failed, as it is easier to simply ignore the fact that it failed.
So to reiterate, This is not one of the solutions, its a illusion of an solution that do harm rather than good. It is worthless, because it do not work and causes harm. It is lazy, because other groups has shown (like Mozilla) how to do it right. In the real world, thats how progress work. You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.
What is baffling is how people keep disregarding any sense of scientific method. Just because a previous theory is thought to be working, one should not be ignorant to new information.
Check.
> to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education).
Check.
It does both things. It fills the gap of an affordable, welcoming resource for women who have an interest in programming, and it reaches women who would otherwise not be aware of a resource that is friendly toward them. You just don't like that it's reaching out to a specific group that you happen to not belong to.
> women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive.
Hacker School isn't excluding men. It's merely saying they will help women with expenses while attending the school. It's not giving women an express lane through the application process.
> You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.
Do you have any source to prove this is a step backwards? Because one of the largest and most resourceful tech companies in the world happens to disagree with you, so you're going to need a little more to back yourself up than, "Nuh uh!"
And please don't throw around "scientific method" as though it applies here. You're not bringing in any new information. You're just stating your own opinion and then acting as though it's fact.
A grant system is intended to convince people to join a program which they are aware of, but for economical reasons would not choose.
One could argue that by creating "buzz", it has a secondary effect that causes outreach. Secondary effects however are not reliable, and using actually outreach to create outreach is to me a much better way than hoping that buzz create outreach.
What they are doing, ironically, is the least engineering thing to do. Fixing one of the side effects, which may cause worse side effects, instead of analyzing and fixing the problem.
