Talking to kids about conspiracy theories

When I was a kid, I loved conspiracy theories. When you're growing up you learn just how inconsistent the world is, and it's very comforting to have an explanation other than "well, it's complicated." 

Thing is, kids are best equipped to handle the "it's complicated"s of the world. They don't have a framework for thinking about how things should be, and so while explaining the behaviors of adults in a "child-safe" way is very difficult, it's actually much easier to just talk to them about things as though they're an adult, but an adult who isn't very well-read and didn't go through many history or government classes. Talk to them as though they'll understand, but be prepared to take detours. Rambling long conversations that start with "why do I have to go to school" will naturally end up covering topics like economics, education, forces of government, maybe even how governments come to be in the first place. Don't worry about circling back around, or talking in a straight line. My dad used to do this, but the best part was that it always did circle back, and the circling back was always a crazy conspiracy theory. 

Not to say that they weren't true conspiracy theories - explanations of how the country got started, how companies got founded, the founding of religions, basically anything having to do with schedule 1 substances, and of course the crazy idea that the government listens to our phone conversations and reads our email. These were some of the more down-to-earth, realistic theories. As a hippie, he did occasionally tend to attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to incompetence, but those instances are far too many to list here (or anywhere.)

What this did for me as a kid was to give me a healthy dose of skepticism. First, I believed everything my dad said, but because that was often inconsistent with what I learned in school (my favorite was that we were teaching The Bhor Model in the 4th grade when it was so clearly didn't explain fine structure I mean what the hell) I started to realize that the narrative being sold by my school miiiiight not exactly be the cold, honest truth. I grew older, and after realizing that not absolutely everything my dad says is true  but that most of his ideas were based on what he had learned and experienced in his lifetime, I began to accept that everyone might be like that. In fact, it might be that most people can only speak to what they have actually experienced, and everything else is just hearsay. This was a big thing for me, and it's what allowed me to summarily brush off people when they said I couldn't do things. This lesson is hard to teach, and it requires you being comfortable that your kid might form their own opinion, and that you might have to be the example when it comes to being wrong. I think my dad wasn't really afraid of that.

I will say, it has made me a good student of history. For a large portion of my life, I couldn't really study history to save my life (or grades.) After realizing that history is full of conspiracies I started to pay attention - the revolutionaries, the shady back-room deals, the murders, the lies, and best of all the successful cover-ups that we're only just now uncovering. Kids love that stuff - the more complicated, the more twists in the story, the more drama you can tell them, the better. They love, and can follow drama. Children are better at following drama than most adults, even if they don't have the reading comprehension skills they need to have. Telling them a story about the JFK assassination, or the Louisiana Purchase is riveting. Planet Money has amazing podcasts that explain the recent banking crises, which will easily get kids into current events. Explaining the reasoning (and maybe some of the action) of the Civil War will awaken the political scientist in your 10-year old. 

I for one, tell my 10-year old all about conspiracy theories. Hopefully, he'll pick up the same skepticism I did. He frequently proudly announces when he's come to a conclusion opposite mine, and I'm proud of him for it (and then we get to argue.) I'll let you know if I catch him with a Dan Brown novel.

The educational implications of Swift

Apple announced a new programming language today, one that has massive implications for iOS developers around the world. 

Overlooked so far (I know, it hasn't been that long) are the educational implications of Swift. Swift playgrounds are an amazing innovation in introducing new developers to concepts of programming that are often overlooked, and not well understood by new developers.

Take for instance, the instant feedback, in-line feature of playgrounds. Knowing what a string interprets to is a big deal. Visualizing how code executes is a skill that new developers often have trouble developing. The idea that they should even attempt to visualize the execution of code given input is a new, difficult concept. Having something do that for you as part of the normal course of development is incredibly important, it reinforces habits that are ultimately the difference between someone who continues to code, or someone who looks on from the sidelines.

Knowing what a variable's value is at an arbitrary point in the code is huge- debuggers have been with us for some time, but are often too cumbersome to drop on a junior developer who is just learning how to do something as simple as file I/O. They're important, and developers learn to use them eventually, but having them right there with you at the start is an immense head start. 

Playgrounds reframe the notion of debuggers and interpreters, from "engineering tool" to "experimentation sandbox". Something new developers often have trouble with is the idea that they should absolutely play with the interpreter all day. Too many new developers try writing a line of code, running the entire program to see if it works. Why have interpreted languages at all? Reinforcing that the computer can think as fast, or faster than you, is a huge idea. Similarly, isolating small parts of the program you'd like to test becomes very apparent in the sandbox, and from that flows functional programming, unit tests, and general architecture. Being able to see the next step in the design of your program comes from understanding these ideas, and Playground puts them right there alongside the program you're writing.

Similarly, math and programming for developers who aren't computer science graduates seem hardly connected. Later, the math becomes apparent, but in the beginnings of your career you can get stuck where you don't understand the math and it becomes a barrier for you. Mathematics involved in programming are highly visual and intuitive, but stripped of their programming context they are dry to some, and do not seem useful. Being able to bring that into the context of seeing what happens to a variable's value over time, and seeing a graph of that information is incredible. Since programs result in something visual, why isn't the math that is crucial to understanding higher level concepts more closely interwoven into the development process? 


Swift is also amazing because iOS development, and Objective-C are Hard. Hard with a capital H. There is so much going on, that most developers can't get something usable up without several weeks of instruction. Because Swift can be written alongside Obj-C, junior developers can contribute to large-scale projects without needing months of bootstrapping, and new developers can get their projects out faster. This has ramifications that will echo down the line for some number of years, affecting new developers and the structure of teams alike. More iOS engineers means more coverage of apps that are needed by those not necessarily in the middle class. Apps will have shorter development timelines, meaning less apparent commercial viability is required to get your app to market. Diversification will thrive, and I think we'll see more children able to start making apps. 

Currently we'll have to wait all summer for this to come out to the general public. This sucks, because kids have ample time to get started on things in the summer. However, adults will have some time over this next year to develop some expertise in the language, and some curricula that is targeted at Swift. My advice is to get started now on developing these programs, have them ready by next summer. Similarly, programs for adults should target a Fall date to begin classes in Swift. Creating a developer community that is suffuse with programmers at all levels will help the community surrounding Swift to be as accessible as Python and Ruby. 

Python has playgrounds at the moment, they're similar but not quite as intuitive as an apple product. Check them out here: http://ipython.org/notebook.html

Live-coding in lecture

One of the many teaching methodologies we employ at Hackbright came up in some reading I was doing today. Something we experiment with is the Worked Examples style of lecture. Essentially, this has us do live-coding in class, as we work through example problems using some of the tools that will be demonstrated in the exercise. Although students report back that they find live code to be more difficult to follow, and the lectures more confusing in general, during the exercise I've noticed fewer questions that require me to go over material that was covered in lecture, and more clarifying questions. Furthermore, as students have more clarifying questions, they're more apt to experiment with the interpreter rather than ask the questions of instructors.

I believe this is because the way information is presented leads us to retain it, or discard it. When someone is learning new information, the amount of "effort" put forth during the absorption of knowledge is proportional to how much of it is retained. When individuals display a high proficiency in typing, but a low proficiency in writing, they also usually report that they "remember more" when taking hand-written notes. I think this is due to the degree of struggle, or "effort", being proportionate to the reward. 

How to hire a lady to do software engineering

I'm guessing you're reading this post because you've got a problem. Your problem is, you can't seem to hire any women. No matter how many events for women in tech you have, no matter how many women you get into the pipeline, you never end up with as many as you want getting through. You might be aware of other problems with your hiring process, maybe a friend you know wasn't able to make it through, despite being smart and capable. Maybe you give out a lot of offers, but despite them being generous offers, few are taken. Maybe you're interested in a candidate with a non-traditional background, but you know your interview process will grill them on things they are weakest at, robbing you of the talent you need. Maybe you just hate whiteboarding, which sounds like an enhanced interrogation technique. 

So what is there to do? After all, there's a shortage of talent, but no shortage of pretenders to software engineering. Candidates that can't code fizz buzz are rampant, and new grads from nearby colleges are whisked away quickly by Facebook or the Department Of Defense. You don't want to waste your company's resources on someone who proves down the line to be incapable of doing the work, 2 months of salary and a bunch of onboarding time down the drain. The question is, how can you tell the difference?

First, let's talk about the information you're actually after. What kind of information do you actually need to know, in order to know you want to hire someone?

What do you actually need?

For me, I need to know someone can learn fast (ie, is smart) and communicate well. No one starts a job knowing the whole tech stack, and many people start without the requisite language experience. Really just being able to pick things up without being told over and over again is a good indicator. I also need to know that they'll communicate well, and tell me when they don't know something. Pairing with someone can show me both of these things, and can give me another insight as well. I typically expect a developer to be able to research things and learn things by themselves, not just when I'm sitting there spoon-feeding them. So, giving the interviewee advance notice that you'll be pairing, and what technologies you'll be using gives them a chance to prepare. As a senior developer who mentors a lot of junior developers, it's much simpler for me to show up to help them if they have already prepared, and can demonstrate to me where they're stuck. 

An example:

I'm in contact with a potential developer named Jane. She's been developing in Python but mostly in Javascript for about a year. She's used Django before, as well as Flask. She's never worked on a super complex webapp, because she's mostly been in the front-end for awhile. I need someone to do some work in the back-end, so I don't know if Jane will be a good fit, but she's expressed strong interest in doing more server-side work. I've brought her in for a culture interview, and she gets along famously with the team. I've decided to bring her in for a pairing interview. 
The main things I want to test are her knowledge of server-side web development. In particular, we have a lot of asynchronous processes that run to integrate our application with other services. The nitty-gritty details aren't important, I want to test Jane's thinking style, and know whether or not she'll be able to understand and work on these kinds of problems.
I'll send Jane this email:

Hi Jane,

I wanted to drop you a line and see if you'd be interested in coming in to do a pairing interview. You got along so well with our team, they wanted me to bring you in for a second round. 

Because you've been mostly a front-end developer for awhile, I'd like to focus on your back-end skills. We'll be creating a small Flask app that serves JSON, but we'll also be using Celery to schedule data processing tasks. We'll be creating an app that allows a user to sign up with Facebook or Twitter. That user will then be put in a queue of users to be processed. We're going to try to find people they're connected with that also use our app, and then notify them that they have friends using the application. It will probably take us all day to get this done, so plan on a full day of coding with me. Also, take a look at Flask, Celery, the python-twitter module, and the python-fb module. Let me know if you have a preferred editor or any tools that will make you more effective.

I'd like to give you some time to prepare, so does a week from now sound good? I have Wednesday and Thursday next week available for this, or the week following on Tuesday.

Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions before then.

In this email, I made sure to do a number of things. First, I made sure she understood we were interested in her. Many candidates, especially women, have serious problems with impostor syndrome. They might be sure of their code, but aren't sure of themselves. They don't know where they stand, and this weakens their resolve. Starting from a place where they can feel confident will help them perform at their best.

Second, I was clear about what we'd be doing, and why. Many candidates that complete coding challenges or whiteboarding problems don't know what you're looking for. Other interviews with other companies, friends and colleagues are giving this person advice about what to accentuate and show you - this advice may or may not be correct. You might be looking for a front-end developer but not care about their UX skills, what you want to see is performant code. When they lay on thick with the transitions and sparkly colors but don't bother to optimize, you'll pass on someone who is normally good, but just got out of a process with another company who wanted clean lines, not clean code. In a normal workplace situation, you'd be able to give feedback and get what you want. Why not do it in an interview?

Third, I told her what to familiarize with, and I made it clear I expected her to prepare. Too many times we've been judged because we didn't know a command-line tool, a common module, or something someone has decided we absolutely need to know in order to program properly. Given the diversity of applications of a given language, how could we possibly have a canonical set of tools or modules? 

Preparation isn't something that will cause you to receive fake signals. In an actual job situation, you'd have time to prepare and research any given solution before you begin programming. This doesn't mean you never have to think on your feet, and during my 4-to-8 hour session with Jane, there will be many opportunities for me to make her think on her feet, and show me her just-in-time learning and problem-solving skills. Doing the search of the graph, for instance, or intelligently processing a queue of users will be great examples of her having to learn a new way of doing things. There are also enough things for her to learn that she probably won't end up finishing them all by the time we pair. It will give me a chance to know if she's a preparer or a procrastinator, and it allows me to do it in a friendly setting. 

Other Tactics

This example is one of many tactics to use. Contracting is also a valuable and useful solution to not knowing whether or not someone will fit in with the team, or be able to do the work. Depending on your company, you might have a backlog of bugfixes, support emails that require doing research in your codebase, or a mystery to solve due to an intermittent error. Exposing someone to your actual code, or watching someone solve a problem on a computer rather than an arbitrary environment will help you know whether they're a problem-solver, not a syntax-memorizer. If you want to use contracting as a means to interview someone, keep a developer environment set up for this purpose. Having something ready decreases that day-long setup process that most developer environments take to setup, and you don't want to pay someone to watch things install.

The main thing here is removal of as much intimidation as possible. You want a working environment where people trust one another, where we feel we can ask questions, both because we don't know, or because we've found a better solution. Fear, and problem-solving in the face of fear isn't a useful metric to judge any person by - how does it help to know how someone does under the worst possible circumstances? 

On Attracting Talent

Hiring is often approached at the 50,000 foot view. "Smart and scrappy" is great at that height, but in order to actually hire you have to connect on a human level. You have to zoom down 48,994 feet. Once you've said "I need the smartest people in the industry", you've applied a filter, and it's not the filter you believe you've applied. Most of the best programmers are humble. The more you understand about software engineering, the less likely you believe you're the "best". Overconfident engineers move fast and break things, yes, but they tend to break the build too. Women, as everyone's brought up, tend to have impostor syndrome. We don't think of ourselves as the best in the industry, nearly ever, despite the reality of the situation. If you'd like to attract more "A" level talent, be clear about what constitutes "A" level. Qualities, over qualifications. Ability over identity. Be clear about what kind of person you'd actually want to hire, and how much growth you'll want while they're in that role. Focus on what they'll do, not a checklist of skills. Being clear about what you'll actually accept is going to get you people who are honest about their talents. 

Another example

An example job posting for a mid-level web developer at a python shop that would appeal to most women I know is this:

We're looking for an engineer with 2 or more years of experience to draw on. This person needs to have the learning mindset, someone who wants to pick up new skills and research new ways of doing things often. 

You're expected to know these things:

  • What happens when you type "www.example.com" into a web browser.
  • Any scripting language, though some experience with Python would be good.
  • Enough Javascript to manipulate the DOM
  • Know the box model with respect to CSS, and understand HTML to the point where you could knock together a reasonable bootstrapped site.
  • Understand how to build a basic API with any web framework
  • Understand how to schedule tasks to do data processing, in any language.
  • Know some SQL, and know how to use any ORM. Know what an ORM is.


If you know at least 80% of that list, go ahead and apply. Our office is in San Francisco, on Market street. We use Python, Django, RabbitMQ, NGINX, Redis, Postgres, some Node.js, and a smattering of other technologies. Our team is comprised of a lot of young entrepreneurial types, as well as industry veterans. We have a lot of fun at work, and our culture runs heavy on the nerdy side. A picture of our office:

[put a picture here.]

Perks:

  • Market Salaries / Standard benefits
  • Catered Lunch *
  • Commuter stipend *
  • Equity
  • Bike parking on-site *
  • Gym memberships *
  • Lots of beer in the fridge
  • Tech talks / continuing education incentives *
  • Travel if you want to / Don't if you don't *
  • Work from home whenever *
  • Bring your dog to work on M / W / F *
  • Wellness stipend *
  • 2 months maternity / paternity leave *
  • Childcare subsidy *

That's a lot of perks, I marked the ones that women and married men tend to prioritize more than young bachelors. This posting talks about what you actually need to know and the proficiency level, rather than a laundry list of buzzwords. This will also get you fewer emails from recruiters, who tend to only be able to produce laundry-list candidates. Focusing on what it would actually be like to work there helps candidates that would fit in well actually be able to imagine themselves working there, which increases the chances they'll be able to do well in the interview. 

What you actually want is more people, who feel more empowered, to do more work. You want to output the best product or service you can, and so enabling someone from the very first time you talk to them is crucial. Hiring itself is emotional labor, because what you're doing is seeking to understand someone, not testing them. You're trying to bring someone into the fold, not put them through a trial by fire and then expect them to be able to trust you. Software engineering is probably 60% learning, and 40% problem solving. Learning requires vulnerability - don't force your talent to do 60% of their job away from you, because they can't be vulnerable around you. They won't learn what you need them to, and they won't ever really feel appreciated in their job. Having a process that begins by taking candidates and their time seriously sets a tone that the right candidates will match. Fits will be more obvious than ever, and your culture will improve. You'll also end up with the right mix of diversity that will help you innovate.

Contact me if you're in need of consulting on this. Hackbright Academy and Ashe Dryden (and her book) can also help you fill your pipeline with smart, scrappy ladies, and explain how to hire properly. 


Create a community the hard way

At Hackbright, we have a strong community. Our students, mentors, partner companies, even applicants we regretfully turn away are very involved, and contribute in a positive way. I've been asked, how did we get here? I've actually been thinking about it myself recently, and I've figured out how we did it. We used one guiding principle that maybe we weren't strictly aware of, but we've followed faithfully and over time, we've built an awesome group of people that continually surprise me.

Love is all you need

I'll get into details, so follow me here. 

Our main guiding principle is that we love them. Love them really, honestly, like they are family. 

It turns out, you can't actually get anything worthwhile without caring about it. Think back to every job you've had where you didn't care, where the seconds ticked by like minutes, and the minutes were hours. You probably found yourself resenting your boss, your customers, which in turn feeds the cycle of resentment.

Now think of a place you've been, some organization, where you cared. Maybe this was a school, or a church, or a volunteer organization. Maybe you were lucky enough to have been part of a company that cared about you, and you in turn cared about those around you. However, excepting perhaps in the case of a church, you probably wouldn't describe that feeling as "love". You might say, "I love my job" or "I love this company", but what you likely meant by that is "I really like this job".

This is a step further - this takes something from you, but gives immeasurably back. Being a part of a community with the right stuff, the stuff people will pour their hearts into, that requires actual love. 

This is not to say, happy-go-lucky hippy flower power time prevails all the time. This past class, "Hackbright" became a verb, which means "to cry on the floor of the bathroom". Emotions don't run that strong when you don't love something. Familial love doesn't come easy most of the time - think about the screaming fights you've had, and times when you've had to cut a family member off because that was the only way they could get better. Sometimes, you have to say something difficult to someone, and then they don't understand, and they hate you for it, and you have to wait until they come to an understanding on their own. 

But think about this - you'd do pretty much anything for your family. Anything to ensure they have a happy, healthy life. Anything to make them more comfortable, their lives easier, to make them better than they are. These actions are how you tell them you love them, not by saying "I love you", although verbal affirmation is an important action to take. 

So, how to create a community? Love them. Honestly, deeply love and care that they are able to do whatever it is they have their heart set on, and help them to do that. They will love you back, and they will love each other the same way. Do the love thing in your own way, we each have our own special-snowflake way of showing it.

The Business Case for Love

This totally works, by the way. We're not the only ones doing this. I can name some companies offhand that love their customers in an authentic way. Zappos, Rackspace, Keen.io. There are many more, but those are companies I can especially call out. They range from large to small. Famous to startup. The common factor is authenticity, and success. You can't fake this kind of thing, and if you try your customers will know. 

When your customers know you love them, they don't switch brands at the slightest slip-up. They don't leave because you're not perfect, because you're not the cheapest option. It's no longer a race to the bottom line with your customers when you have an actual relationship with them. Much like a real relationship, the other person doesn't leave because someone is slightly more attractive, or makes slightly more money than you. These things are superficial compared to the relationship you've built, and your competitors can't make a dent in that. 

They also are typically prepared to pay more - when you create a relationship, your customers see your product as unique, even if it's not. You're probably not the only person out there doing what you're doing, but relationships are unique. Your customers pay for a relationship, not a brand, not a product. 

Roadmap to Love

1. Understand that your customers are the reason you exist. You might be a startup or a global brand, but because these people like what you do, you get to keep doing it. Be thankful, be awed.

2. Internalize this message, and spread it around the organization. This is easiest if you're a startup, because you can be selective with who you hire. Look to Zappos if you're not a startup.

3. Show your customers you love them. Think about what you'd have to do to prove to someone that you love them, without saying it out loud. Show them with actions. Prove to them they're your favorite customer. 

Human support agents, email response times, caring that issues are resolved, following up. Selling things at a reasonable price. Ad campaigns that take your customer seriously, as though they are smart, human, and have dignity. Messaging that talks about who you actually are as a company, as a group, instead of pandering. Compassion when your customer messes things up. These things and more come out of that simple principle, so prove you love your customers, and they'll love you back.



How to have an Awesomely Inclusive and Radically Transparent Hackathon

We had a hackathon last weekend, and we managed approach organization and inclusivity from a perspective of transparency and empathy, which made the event rock pretty hard.  We did it with not a huge amount of radical change, but rather a few subtle changes that made all the difference, and I thought I’d talk about them in case someone else wanted to deal with the same things we did.

These aren’t simply box-ticks, they’re different approaches borne of different attitudes, so I’ll also go ahead and explain why we made the small changes we did, and what we were hoping to achieve.

Events need user experience design too - someone who’s going to think about how the audience feels is key to have on staff. For that, @aerialdomo(main organizer), @undeRStandig and @janardanyri were critical members of our planning group, they were key to understanding how our audience would experience the event, and interface with the organizers.

A Clear Narrative

We wanted to invite our attendees to participate in a narrative about the event we were having. We couldn’t have thought properly about how to do that without writing the actual narrative first, so we wrote this:

My friends and some people I recently met (mostly women) formed a team of 5-7. We got some hardware to develop with, and were encouraged to bring our own parts. We brought something from home, and added it to our project to make it unique. We didn’t know much about hardware, but there were extremely helpful mentors at the event. Everyone learned something from the mentors, and everyone contributed to the project. Then, we presented our product to the audience, and everyone cheered. We won a prize, which wasn’t a huge prize, but helped us feel recognized for our efforts. In the end, our team made plans to meet up a few more times to work on our project, since the supplies are shared and we want to continue learning more about working with hardware.

Writing a story like this, where the story is generic to all teams, but is a basic template, will allow you to design the schedule and guide your audience to participate in the story. For more examples of this, look at storyboarding a game. What you’re creating is an experience, not just an event. Write a story, and invite people to participate.

Getting everyone ready for what was going to happen next was the main job of the organizers, and it kept us busy throughout the event. Clear communication was our goal, which gave our attendees prep time for everything from talks to dinner. Some tips for creating a narrative:

  • Write the story of the event you want people to tell. A template allows you to understand what you need to do in order to create that experience.
  • Post a highly visible schedule. Include food, speakers, presentations, and availability of mentorship. Set expectations about what attendees are supposed to be doing. 
  • Incentivise following the narrative, be clear about how to obtain the incentives.

In our case attendees, who were self-identified beginners, were supposed to be using a box we had given them and well as their own supplies to create a physical object to show to the other participants. They understood this as the storyline, and participated. Because of this, 90% of teams presented. 100% of teams created hardware-based projects. 80% of our audience was female, and 60% reported that they had never programmed before.


Removal of Barriers

A huge part of the success of our event was removal of barriers. Essentially, we did more experience design by thinking about common objections people might have to signing up and participating. We did a lot of brainstorming around “well, what if someone doesn’t want to come because”, and then we did our best to remove those barriers. I’ve included some examples from our hackathon.

Our first, and biggest biggest barrier to hardware hackathons is the hardware itself - it’s expensive, and most people don’t know where to buy it, or what to buy. Even those who are apt to dive in and purchase something usually don’t know where to start or what to buy, so we did that legwork for them. We bought SparkFun’s Inventor’s Kit - they have “lab” discounts for bulk purchases. The kit comes with some amazing things, the biggest one being the book that comes with the device with lots of examples to build, and colorful, large, easy-to-read diagrams. It also comes with a wide enough range of sensors to push the imagination, while keeping them simple enough to be approachable.

The next barrier is that, unlike software, circuitry does not have as tight of a feedback loop, or comprehensible error messages. It’s difficult to dive in on your own, so we saw a potential attendee imagining sitting at the hackathon, unaware of what to do next or how they could contribute, and then opting not to embarrass themselves. We made it clear that mentors would be walking around at the event. We kept the mentorship recruitment in the same social media channels as the attendee advertisement, so that our attendees could see what we expected of the mentors. We also kept the ticket count of mentors visible, so that attendees could guess about the ratio of mentors to attendees. We helped them form a clear picture of what it would be like to be completely new to hardware hacking and participate in this event, which I think is responsible for the ratio of people who had no experience we got to come to the event, as well as display of amazing projects that got pushed to completion.


Experience Design

The other main thing we payed a lot of attention to was the design of the rest of the experience. In order to be inclusive of the most people, we tried to keep the event entertaining, with speakers and prizes and lots of audience participation. We also needed to keep it family-friendly, and free of explicit imagery or inappropriate behavior. Some factors that kept women engaged without excluding other attendees:

  • Cleanliness, and calls-to-action surrounding cleaning and organization from the attendees - this helped drive home the idea that this was a community event, not just some corporate stunt.
  • A code of conduct enforced in a way that appealed to empathy over public shaming
  • Specific encouragement of minors and family participation
  • Inclusion of noted advocates for hardware and learning, like Highway 1 and Julia Grace


Enforcement: Empathy over policy

We had a code of conduct that stated no sexual imagery in presentations, as the event was family friendly, and the inclusivity aspect was very important to us. However, we had a team that wanted to bring together two pieces of hardware that weren’t appropriate in a family-friendly setting. The project was interesting, and the team was enthusiastic and genuine. Rather than kick them out, we had a conversation with them about how we could allow them to continue with their plan, while respecting everyone at the event. We settled on having them not use the hardware out in the open, so that no one (especially minors) would stumble upon it. Next, we had them do any testing they needed to do in an area we blocked off for explicit content. Last, we made it clear that though they would still be eligible to win prizes and pitch their demo, they would have to do it off of the main stage, and after the other teams had pitched.

We might have had the demo pitched on the main stage and asked minors and those who might be offended to leave. We chose instead to have the team pitch the demo in an area where attendees would have to explicitly go. The difference is subtle, but important. It sets a tone - one where we’re not forcing you usher your children out of the room, or visibly work your way out of a crowd of 200 people because you don’t feel comfortable or just don’t feel like seeing explicit content at the moment. Instead, we invited adults to come see content of a mature nature in a different area, which set the tone of getting to see something interesting and fun. The idea is an explicit opt-in, versus an explicit opt-out. This is the difference between a vulgar joke in a comedy show, and a vulgar outburst in a restaurant. One is something people are prepared for, one they have consented to. The other is intrusive if you’re not ready, and weren’t expecting it.


Empathy and Transparency

We were able to have a great deal of fun with the hackathon, without worrying about whether or not we were being “politically correct” or not, by changing the conversation. We approached each decision we made by thinking about how our attendees would experience the event, and by appealing to empathy, rather than strict rules. By communicating what we were going for, the experience we were trying to create, our audience helped us achieve our goals. We were clear about our thinking process, rather than seeming to make exceptions for some people, but not others. Our community developed a great deal of trust for us as organizers, and have a new expectation about how events can be managed.

Our code of conduct is posted here - feel free to use it for your hackathon. 

We hope you can join us for the next one, as a mentor or an attendee, or even as a sponsor. We sold out this event, so we’d love to offer it again for everyone on the waitlist, and the new batches of students that will be coming through Hackbright Academy. Let us know if you’re interested in getting involved





Scarcity and Hackbright - the Top 5%

There are some major parts of Hackbright that deal with scarcity. Our business model (and we are a business) is based on it, and our company philosophy (and we do have one, one that's very important to us) is based around it as well. First, let's talk business.

There aren't enough developers. Not in Silicon Valley, although you can't sit in a cafe without hearing about code or devops. Not in the rest of the world, either. There are nonprofits that need help, terrible industries that need to be automated away (I'm looking at you, medical billing), and information that needs spreading to the bottom billion, so that they can be informed, and more powerful. This kind of thing sounds great, but in order for any of those jobs to get filled, there first have to be enough developers to go around. And there aren't.

There also aren't enough women in development. There are probably a million and a half ways to solve this issue, we're choosing one path. Increasing the number of female devs directly by training them is a great start to help with the issue, as well as solve the scarcity of developers. This brings us to supply and demand, and scarcity. 

We exist because companies can recruit from us. We provide enough high-quality candidates that companies come back to us time and time again. The reason our candidates are high quality is because we train them, yes, but also because we select them from a pool of smart people. Currently, we accept 5% of candidates that apply to Hackbright. Why? Wouldn't it make sense to take more? We're a for-profit company, the students pay us to attend. We're leaving money on the table by not accepting more - we could double our earnings by accepting 10%, right?

The problem here is complex. It's about keeping our quality high - as a company, and for our students. We try to do the right thing for quality first, profit second. Scaling out doesn't make sense if the experience gets worse, or if fewer of our students end up with jobs. The reason quality suffers is because of scarcity.

First, we're doing very emotional labor. Emotional labor is traditionally undervalued, and it's also regarded among the professional world as a limitless resource. If you're a caring person, you should be able to expand that caring to an infinite set of people, right? This is a fallacy - one person can't be the emotional pillar needed from a teacher to as many people as they're asked. Even given that there simply isn't time in the day to do that, we're ignoring the fact that helping someone through something difficult, like say, rewiring your brain to think like a computer scientist in 10 weeks, takes something out of you. It's rewarding, sure. It gives something to you that you can't buy or get otherwise. But it does drain. 

So the emotional labor is scarce - people who can both program, debug well, explain things well, and do the emotional labor are scarce, but the biggest scarcity is people willing to do that labor. This labor is traditionally reserved for significant others, friends, your children, your family. When doing this work, students often replace your friends and family, become as significant to you as your children. You have to be willing to do that to at least a limited extent, and most people aren't, or at least not for long. 

The next scarcity is space - simply having enough desks and pairing stations in a city like San Francisco is both expensive and hard to find. Keeping everyone together as a cohesive class unit is also tough. 30 is probably the maximum number of people that could function as a class, especially because being a part of the class is such an integral part of Hackbright in general. We can't just upsize the class, we'd have to create an entirely new instance of the class - with lead instructors, assistant instructors, a new group of mentors, et cetera. 

The last scarcity is absorption. The bay area needs more developers, but has a limited capacity to absorb new junior developers. Everyone who comes out of any intensive is essentially a "prepared beginner", who, through their own curiosity and drive, as well as a bit of help from a senior developer, can add functionality to software projects, run tests, debug, and make modifications. They're not yet capable of designing a project that scales, or spinning off an entire feature branch without much help. They do consume resources when they join a company, although the company gets a net gain. After about 3 months, all of our students are major contributors in whatever teams they join, but it does take that 3 months. We release 26-30 new candidates quarterly, and they've got to go somewhere - there are a finite number of jobs even for perfect candidates with the exact right stuff.

Read more »

Pedagogy and why we only accept women at Hackbright

I recently wrote a post regarding why we only accept women into Hackbright's engineering fellowship. It received some criticism, and I'm completely open to that criticism, as that post largely was about philosophy. Philosophy differs, and there's nothing anyone can write on the subject that won't have some debate, some disagreements, and some controversy. 

What I'm addressing in this post is pedagogy. The method or practice of teaching. I'm going to talk about women's performance in STEM education, and about the learning environment. What this post is NOT about is workplaces, or suitability, or what I can and can't do. It's also not about Hackbright's mission or philosophical goals. It's simply about the science and art of pedagogy, and what I've personally witnessed as a teacher of computer science.

Women learn differently than men. Human beings learn differently than each other. There are learning disabilities, aptitudes, magnet programs. There is a profound difference between what you, the reader, and what I experienced in school. Because of this, different programs must abound in their complexity and approach. A master teacher cannot reach every student, but a skilled teacher can vary their approach by the person for maximal effect and understanding. 

Currently, there is a problem in STEM education for women. Right now, it favors men. Largely this is because of subtle biases in how STEM material is taught, and because of how many women experience that material. I'm speaking of women as a group, but I'm talking tendencies and trends, not about women as a whole. I am sure everyone reading this can think of a counterexample.

There are many, many problems with STEM education, I will enumerate some of the more relevant ones to this post:

 1. Most classrooms are male-dominated, and men tend toward high degrees of competitive behavior display when in groups composed mostly of men. When women are present in this group, many women feel uncomfortable competing in a large group of men.

 2. While most people lack confidence getting into something for the first time, they often warm up to the problem by seeing role-models, or by joining a peer group that supports them. Women often have no role models readily available (especially in terms of mentorship) and have no peer group, in terms of other women.

 3. There are subtle biases from professors, directors, counselors and other faculty that often ostracizes women.

 Many of these are problems women will encounter in the job market, and in the rest of their career should they choose to go into software engineering. My main conjecture is that the learning environment is necessarily different than the real environment. In the learning environment, you will fail, and fail often. You will not understand things. You will become upset with how hard you have to struggle to get through things, and you will do it without the firm ground that prior understanding gives you. During this, is it really necessary to add biases, insecurity and fear of ridicule? Computer science is a discipline with a fast feedback loop, allowing you to try and try again until it works. As a student, you are limited only by how fast you can understand new concepts. Removing these limitations is paramount, and the limitations are largely defined by having a peer group that can accelerate you past your struggles.

 Studies show that women's classroom engagement goes up when women are in a single-sex classroom. They also show better test scores, lower dropout rates, better knowledge retention, better critical thinking skills application, more lateral thinking, better ability to engage in meta-cognition, and better ability to think overall. It also shows that students have better mental wellbeing during and after single-sex classroom education, have more self-confidence, and feel they know the material better. They hesitate less on the job, and they are better equipped to penetrate the obscure social cues associated with an industry. 

Self-confidence, and these mental health gains are significant. From The Australian Journal of Education on The Effects of Class Type on Student Achievement, Confidence and Participation in Mathematics,

"Despite some limitations in the data, the results indicated nonsignificant gender differences and a putative causal relationship between confidence and achievement. 

While the change in students' mathematics achievement over time, independent of confidence, was similar for all students, regardless of class type, there was a significant class-type intervention effect on students' confidence in learning and using mathematics, independent of achievement. 

 Moreover, for those students concerned, being placed in single-sex classes was associated with greater confidence which, in turn, significantly increased the likelihood of their subsequent participation in senior mainstream mathematics education. "

This doesn't even account for what I've seen. As a teacher, I use data to inform my technique, rather than trying to dictate how all education can be done in the general case. Informed by this research, and my previous experience with Girl Develop It I've noticed that women ask more questions, pair program with more engagement, show better retention of earlier concepts in later exercises, and most importantly enjoy the subject more. I'll get into this more in a later post, but when you love what you're learning, you understand it far deeper than things you don't. I think that last sentence is the least controversial thing I've ever said.

Why does Hackbright only accept women into the program?

Another blog post transcribed (thanks @rebecca_standig) from the same conversation about @Hackbright Academy. It also covers some hostility I get from people about our policies.

EDIT: changed "where all but about 80% of women" to "20%" - that was a mix-up on phrasing. 20% of women who start in comp sci degrees finish them.

Note: Hey Hacker News readers! I'll be publishing something on pedagogy in a bit. Stay tuned. 

So, why do you admit only women to Hackbright?

I've gotten this question really often via email, as well as at coffee shops and any time that I walk around the Mission or SOMA in my Hackbright Academy t-shirt. Often, people ask me why we only admit women. They say things like, "It's discriminatory. Aren't you trying to fight discrimination?" Or they say, "You can't just admit women. That's illegal." Or they threaten to sue me. People think that they're very clever.

The reason we only admit women is because as it stands, we put more women into software engineering in one semester than Stanford and Berkeley do every year. Women start a computer science degree at maybe 1/3 the rate as men. Then there's this freshmen drop-off, where all but about 20% of women end up changing their major, usually to something involving design or business. Sometimes, they go into electrical or mechanical engineering, but that's actually pretty rare. Usually they leave the field of engineering altogether.

I have a theory about why this is. During a computer science degree, most women don't have a lot of friends to turn to who are also doing a computer science degree. Most computer science education is heavy on theory and light on implementation. So, you learn a lot about computer science, but you don't really learn how to code. That is something that you have to do on your own. Since [these women] don't have friends that sort of expect that of them and know that that's what they're supposed to be doing, they don't spend a lot of time in it. If you don't spend time implementing theory, you'll never really understand it. The courses get harder and harder, and they haven't spent a lot of time with their friends talking about these kinds of things. They're surrounded by people who are not like them, and don’t openly talk about struggling to learn [difficult programming concepts]. This reinforces the idea that they don't belong there, and is a common fear. All the time, women tell me that they feel like they don't belong in computer science, or they don't belong in engineering, or they don't belong in a company as a programmer.

The reason for that is there aren't many women, and that begets even less women wanting to get into computer science.

So, what’s the solution?

So what do we do about that? First, we create a community. There are lots of communities for women. I know this because I'm a woman in tech, and I am inundated (especially as a leader of several general organizations for women in tech) with people telling me all about all of the different organizations. The problem is, I meet 4-5 women every week that have never heard of any of these organizations. So outreach is a problem.

The next problem is that it's intimidating even to join these big organizations because they're for people who profess that they are software engineers already. Sometimes, they're about being software engineering majors or computer science majors, and that helps. But they're campus-specific, so if you're in college that's great for you.

Most women who get into computer science that I interface with are doing so after they've already completed a degree in some other area, be it business, marketing, biology, chemistry, sometimes journalism. There are a number of things that drive people away from those fields and into software engineering, or just drive people away from software engineering initially into those fields and then they realize that this wasn't what they wanted.

These are the people that most often make really amazing software engineers, yet have no real path into software engineering. They're not already software engineers, so they don't feel like they can join these organizations, but they're also not going to college for software engineering, because they've already gone to college. It would be ridiculous to expect them to go and get another four year degree or a two year master's degree that they may be ill-equipped for. So these are the people we serve. They're a minority that needs a leg up. Just like having a foundation that helps Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans or Indian Americans get a leg up in an unfamiliar place, a place where you are underrepresented and generally marginalized.

That's why we serve only women.


So, what about the people who think you “have to” admit people?

We don't have to admit people. We're not a school that is accredited by the US Board of Education, nor are we a non-profit. We are a for-profit company, but we're a for-profit company with a mission.

That mission is to bring equality to computer science. Our strategy for doing so is the following: One, only let in people who will contribute to equality in computer science. Right now, the smallest subgroup of people in computer science is women. Other than, potentially, transsexual people. They're a small enough group, though, that if we were only to serve them, I think we'd go out of business. Women make up half the population on the planet, yet only about 6% of computer science engineering jobs.

The second thing that we aim to do is promote the idea that women are competent in the field. They are smart and useful, and just as smart and useful as men, and should be taken seriously. Rather than admit literally everyone who comes in, we admit the top 5% of our applicants. Now, these might have been people who would have gotten into computer science some other way, and that's great. But what it does by producing a candidate of a consistently high quality is further promote the idea that women are just as competitive as men in computer science. By putting out really excellent women into computer science, we reinforce a positive stereotype. Stereotypes are not all bad; positive stereotypes are great. We would love to reinforce a positive stereotype, which will help combat all of the subtle biases that work against women in computer science.

The last thing we do is make sure the insecurities and vulnerabilities that causes women to leave computer science in the first place are patched. We do some drills in the safety of Hackbright on whiteboarding, on salary negotiation. We do some generalized therapy, just by talking out insecurities and fears. We get very involved in their emotional wellbeing, because it matters a lot. The most productive software engineers aren’t afraid all the time, or down on themselves - they feel empowered. So, we do our part to empower our students.