talented engineers are born and not made.
I think there's an element of this, but I also think people need to have the opportunities to see if that's where their talents may lie. And there's a lot of IT work where you need to be thorough and logical, but not necessarily a talented engineer - and also a lot of IT where you need to have some understanding of how people think. A fair bit of programming is around user interfaces, and you need to think about how people use things in reality, not what you would like them to do.
HTML can be dull, though to be fair, I only tweak bits rather than do anything major.
------
The unconscious bias training - well, I haven't been on the course myself, as I don't count as management, but I did quiz my director mercilessly about it when I heard he was coming over for it (he's usually based in another office,) and told him some of the things he had to look out for, and it sounds like they did cover the sort of things I'd expect them to. There's a good link from Google Ventures on - it's about an hour long, but worth finding the time. I think the starting point with unconscious bias has to be an awareness of it, and how everyone of us is affected by it, because you then can start asking yourself if you're judging people fairly, looking at what's been done and how, before you think about who has done it, so you don't end up with situations where, for example, an academic CV with a male name on will get people commenting, "great, he's had three papers published," but the same CV with a female name would get, "well, I'm not sure, she's only had three papers published." As you say, it's assumed women can't do it until it's proved they can, men are assumed to be able to do it until it's proved they can't (and not always then, I'd say,) women being promoted for what they've achieved, whereas men are promoted for their potential.
The training our managers had was only a couple of months or so ago, and I think there will be more to show round annual review time, but just the fact that they've been prepared to make quite a significant investment in it is a good sign to me, but we will have to wait and see. I think they need to follow up with more than just training managers - I think a lot of the problems women in IT experience with sexism and so on is at levels below management and with their male peers - they need to focus on the culture at all levels. Still, starting with managers, it is a start.
It's also quite a long time since our department hired anyone new, so I don't know if HR have changed things, such as hiring managers just get adapted CVs, candidate 1, candidate 2 and so on, with identifiable information taken out where possible, such as names, because then you have to focus on their qualifications and experience. (Mind you, my CV will have a load about things I've achieved for the women's association, such as events I've organised, so there's only so much you can hide without removing all the relevant information as well.)
If I had a daughter, I'd seriously consider sending her to a single sex secondary school (it would depend on what schools were available locally; a good mixed school is generally going to be a better bet than a poor single sex school, if that were the choice.) I went to a girls' school, and I think more of us did science A-levels (I wasn't one of them, mind you - I did languages and history, and my first degree is history - I went back and did CompSci for my masters.) I've mentioned in threads on the subject before that I've noticed that quite a few of the women interviewed on Radio 4's The Life Scientific seem to have been to single sex schools - but that may be my own biases noticing it when it's mentioned, I don't know, as I haven't done a detailed analysis. Sometimes I think I should contact R4 to ask, but I haven't bothered yet. Still, stats do show that girls are much more likely to take physics and further maths and so on to A-level and beyond if they have been in single sex education.
I think BestIsWest shows very fine judgement. 