How do you measure talent while recruiting? The person with the most accomplished resume or who can answer your technical questions most aptly? Both are only proxies, albeit usually pretty good ones, for measuring talent. Perhaps that interviewee was nervous or maybe they're really really bright, but just haven't been programming as long as some of their counterparts.
Tracy Chou of Quora wrote a really insightful post about being a female software engineer: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Chou/Women-in-Software-Engineerin.... It really opened my eyes to some of the reasons why maybe there aren't more women who even get started in the field - even if there isn't outright prejudice, women in engineering still face a lot of challenges that men simply don't. Sure, you can argue that you should give the most talented person the job, but keep in mind that the methods we use for measuring talent are hugely subject to circumstance. For example, I'll bet the average age when most female engineers start programming is higher, so they simply haven't been programming as long. It is rather naive to believe that talent is the primary indicator of whether someone gets a job or gets into a particular school - success is just as much a product of circumstance, getting the necessary opportunities, and other external conditions as it is of one's own inherent talent and work-ethic. And let's face it, women in software engineering face a wholly different set of circumstances than their male counterparts, so let's stop pretending that it's just about talent.
It's probably true that the average age at which female engineers start programming is higher, and they haven't been programming as long. You are correct that this is not a matter of talent. It's a matter of experience. However, given that all other attributes are equal, why should anyone pick a less experienced person over a more experienced one? The circumstances that lead to that don't matter.
By making the "women in tech" conversation about anything other than talent, you are immediately creating another "affirmative action" situation.
Why should female applicants get a hand-out over more qualified male applicants? That doesn't do a damn thing other than even out some cosmetic "gender gap."
If I am passionate about programming, having done it from an early age, and I lose a position to a person who just discovered he/she could make a pretty penny at this "computer stuff," well, that really pisses me off.
I'm not advocating affirmative action or anything even remotely resembling that. In fact, I'm not offering any kind of solution at all. Just responding to having my eyes opened a little bit by a first-hand account of the struggles a woman in engineering faces.
I don't advocate affirmative action, but I acknowledge some of the reasoning/merit behind it. For example, I got into my dream school. Sure, I worked my ass off, and sure I wouldn't have been happy if someone else got in instead of me in part because of their race/gender/socio-economic status, but I also know that deep down, I'm really lucky/fortunate. I'm from a low-income family, but had tons of support/opportunities that a lot of other equally-deserving, equally-qualified people simply didn't. If affirmative action worked in a perfect world where out of two equally-qualified candidates, the upper hand went to the one who overcame more obstacles, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. Again, I'm not espousing choosing an applicant solely based on race/gender/socio-economic status, but if you turn a blind eye to an applicant's circumstances, your methods of evaluating candidates is extremely flawed.
Tracy Chou of Quora wrote a really insightful post about being a female software engineer: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Chou/Women-in-Software-Engineerin.... It really opened my eyes to some of the reasons why maybe there aren't more women who even get started in the field - even if there isn't outright prejudice, women in engineering still face a lot of challenges that men simply don't. Sure, you can argue that you should give the most talented person the job, but keep in mind that the methods we use for measuring talent are hugely subject to circumstance. For example, I'll bet the average age when most female engineers start programming is higher, so they simply haven't been programming as long. It is rather naive to believe that talent is the primary indicator of whether someone gets a job or gets into a particular school - success is just as much a product of circumstance, getting the necessary opportunities, and other external conditions as it is of one's own inherent talent and work-ethic. And let's face it, women in software engineering face a wholly different set of circumstances than their male counterparts, so let's stop pretending that it's just about talent.