Comment by Riaz Haq on June 5, 2012 at 8:25am

Here's a Times of India story on Indian exaggeration of Indian professionals in US:

It's an Internet myth that has taken on a life of its own. No matter how often you slay this phony legend, it keeps popping up again like some hydra-headed beast.

But on Monday, the Indian government itself consecrated the oft-circulated fiction as fact in Parliament, possibly laying itself open to a breach of privilege. By relaying to Rajya Sabha members (as reported in The Times of India) a host of unsubstantiated and inflated figures about Indian professionals in US, the government also made a laughing stock of itself.

The figures provided by the Minister of State for Human Resource Development Purandeshwari included claims that 38 per cent of doctors in US are Indians, as are 36 per cent of NASA scientists and 34 per cent of Microsoft employees.

There is no survey that establishes these numbers, and absent a government clarification, it appears that the figures come from a shop-worn Internet chain mail that has been in circulation for many years. Spam has finally found its way into the Indian parliament dressed up as fact.

Attempts by this correspondent over the years to authenticate the figures have shown that it is exaggerated, and even false. Both Microsoft and NASA say they don't keep an ethnic headcount. While they acknowledge that a large number of their employees are of Indian origin, it is hardly in the 30-35 per cent range.

In a 2003 interview with this correspondent, Microsoft chief Bill Gates guessed that the number of Indians in the engineering sections of the company was perhaps in the region of 20 per cent, but he thought the overall figure was not true. NASA workers say the number of Indians in the organization is in the region of 4-5 per cent, but the 36 per cent figure is pure fiction.

The number of physicians of Indian-origin in the US is a little easier to estimate. The Association of American Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) has 42,000 members, in addition to around 15,000 medical students and residents. There were an estimated 850,000 doctors in the US in 2004. So, conflating the figures, no more than ten per cent of the physicians in US maybe of Indian-origin – and that includes Indian-Americans – assuming not everyone is registered with AAPI.

These numbers in themselves are remarkable considering Indians constitute less than one per cent of the US population. But in its enthusiasm to spin the image of the successful global Indian to its advantage, the government appears to have milked a long-discredited spam - an effort seen by some readers as the work of a lazy bureaucrat and an inept minister.

The story has attracted withering scrutiny and criticism on the Times of India's website, with most readers across the world trashing it. "The minister should be hauled up by the house for breach of privilege of parliament (by presenting false information based on hearsay). We Indians are undoubtedly one of the most successful ethnic groups in USA, be it in Medicine, Engineering, Entrepreneurship. BUT, that does not translate to those ridiculous numbers that have been presented....this is a circulating e-mail hoax," wrote in Soumya from USA, who said he worked at the NASA facility in Ames, California, and the number was nowhere near what was mentioned in the figures given to Parliament.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-03-12/us/27742502_...

Comment by Riaz Haq on March 6, 2015 at 10:13am

Here's WSJ on Silicon Valley VC gender bias trial:

A decade after hiring Ellen Pao as his technical chief of staff, prominent venture capitalist John Doerr faced her in court Tuesday, defending Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers against Pao’s claims of sex discrimination and retaliation.

In more than five hours of testimony, Doerr retraced Pao’s trajectory through Kleiner Perkins, from a staffer who described herself as his “surrogate daughter,” to a disgruntled junior partner who felt she was repeatedly snubbed for promotions and choice assignments.

With Pao’s mother watching from the front row, Doerr said he wanted Ajit Nazre, a Kleiner Perkins partner who engaged in a consensual affair with Pao in 2006 to be fired. The trial is taking place in San Francisco Superior Court.

Doerr said he ultimately agreed that Nazre not be fired because other partners wanted to keep him and because Pao and Nazre said they could work together.

“You relented,” Pao’s attorney, Alan Exelrod, said. “That was a factor,” Doerr said. But, he added, the firm told Nazre, “if he did this again he’d be terminated.”

Kleiner Perkins partners reduced Nazre’s bonus in 2007 as punishment for the affair. “But his biggest punishment was that I told him I’d lost confidence in his ability to be a leader of the firm, and he’d have to regain that confidence,” Doerr told Exelrod.

The following year, Nazre was promoted to senior partner, even though Doerr said he had reservations about Nazre’s trustworthiness. “I don’t remember how I voted, but the partnership voted, and [Partner Emeritus] Ray Lane was a strong supporter,” Doerr said.

Doerr hired Pao in 2005 as part of what Doerr called “Team JD,” which meant she helped him manage his time. Early on, he gave her advice on areas where the firm though she could improve. Pao tended to be dismissive and had conflicts with other partners, Doerr said, including with another female partner, Trae Vassallo.

Nonetheless, he praised her work. “You have contributed extensively and I’m delighted that you chose to join KPCB,” her first review said.

After a couple of years, Pao became less happy at the firm and talked to Doerr about leaving. She offered suggestions on ways that Kleiner Perkins could improve. “Honesty with partners,” was one suggestion, according to a document shown in court. “Quality in our work” was another.

In June 2007, Pao told Doerr about the affair with Nazre. She also complained that a third partner, Randy Komisar, had given her a book of poetry on Valentine’s Day and asked her out to dinner when his wife was out of town.

Doerr told Exelrod that it was common to give gifts at the firm and he didn’t ask why Pao would be upset about the book.

In 2009, he still thought highly enough of her that he thought the firm should work hard to keep her when she got an offer from a rival firm, Google Ventures GOOGL -1.08%.

She would be given “more carry, comparable income and be given more responsibility in a lesser firm, and if I were them I would seize the opportunity to hire her,” he wrote in an e-mail to partners Ray Lane and Ted Schlein.

Schlein offered Pao a position on the digital investing team and she decided to stay at Kleiner Perkins. But problems developed there too. Pao had urged Kleiner Perkins to invest in patent firm RPX, which it did. But the board seat, which Ms. Pao wanted, went to Komisar.

“Did you tell her that Randy needed a win?” Exelrod asked Doerr.

“I told her her job as a junior partner was to support the KP team and Randy and if she couldn’t do that she should do something else,” Doerr said.

“Didn’t you say he needed a win?” Exelrod asked.

“Randy and Kleiner needed a win. Everybody needs wins. I could use some wins,” said Doerr, with a smile.

Doerr said he introduced Pao to his family, met her family, coached her and hired coaches for her, including a speech coach so she could learn to communicate better with other partners and advance her ideas.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/03/03/as-pao-case-continues-john-d...

Comment