[xyzzyz]

> I am all in favour of reducing the industry’s reliance on fancy name schools for hiring.

Soon after the industry seriously stops doing this, the fancy name schools will quickly get female-dominated, and whatever the industry starts using as a signal of candidate quality that hadn't been male-dominated before, will start to be.

When proposing new policies, always solve for equilibrium, don't ignore second order effects, and never assume the world is steady state system.

[majos]

> Soon after the industry seriously stops doing this, the fancy name schools will quickly get female-dominated

Why would this happen? Is your thinking that men will respond to the lower incentive of a fancy school degree by pursuing other options, but women won't? If so, why?

[xyzzyz]

Pretty much, yes. You are asking why would the response to this incentive affect people of different gender differently. I don’t have any clear answer to this question, other than pointing out that in the current system, we already have an existing imbalance, so there is already a difference in how incentives affect different people, and unless we determine the exact mechanism here, random changes are unlikely to change it.

By the way, this is called Campbell’s law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law

[Pharaoh2]

Presumably because the gap exists in the current system, and the current system is optimized for the current scoring function. Changing the scoring function will cause the system to rebalance into a new steady state.

Although, there is no clear reason why the new steady state would not be female dominant or evenly split, but if I were to take a bet, I would bet that the new scoring function will still hold existing bias because the problem starts much earlier.

[wolco]

I would think the opposite. More males are in trade schools programming than females. Females make up a higher percentage number of college students compared to males.

[nostrademons]

I think that was his point - "the fancy name schools will get female-dominated".

[DoofusOfDeath]

> When proposing new policies, always solve for equilibrium, don't ignore second order effects, and never assume the world is steady state system.

I've thought along similar lines, but it was never clear to me if such a policy really performs "better" in real-world, politicized policy issues.

Do you know of any supporting examples?