I agree with some of the things listed here, and I disagree with others.
Many of these articles are just pointing fingers at things and saying that they are bad. Some of these are correctly doing so, and others are not.
Much of this seems to stem from a world view of "that's not fair, it needs to change." That's just not how the world is, or will ever be. Maybe in a fairly tale land that exists well after all of us are propped up and displayed in a museum.
One such article "The Top 10 (%)" seemingly makes the claim "while Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, are publicly committed to improving diversity, the [hiring process paints] a much different picture, and processes will need to undergo drastic changes in order to make a difference."
This article links claims that the following are unfair practices:
- Preferring to hire people from top schools
- Hiring people from top companies
- Giving bonus/stock awards for referrals
- Asking relevant subject questions about the subject of the job
- Asking to prove your abilities in industry
Objecting to any of this makes no sense to me, if someone could please inform me as to how this makes sense I would greatly appreciate it.
I think that the top two in the unfair practice list are pretty obviously re-enforcing systemic discrimination. It's much less likely that minorities make it into those top schools. Top schools link into top jobs...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/minorities-a...
Rewarding referrals with bonuses/stock, and referrals in general, could hinder diversity of the current employees know a non-diverse group of people.
The last two items seem tricky because you do need to know the candidate can do the job. The problems here could arise if the tests are biased (it is common for this to happen unintentionally), if the person giving the test is biased, or if the testee is experiencing stereotype threat.
2 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 12.8 ms ] threadMany of these articles are just pointing fingers at things and saying that they are bad. Some of these are correctly doing so, and others are not.
Much of this seems to stem from a world view of "that's not fair, it needs to change." That's just not how the world is, or will ever be. Maybe in a fairly tale land that exists well after all of us are propped up and displayed in a museum.
One such article "The Top 10 (%)" seemingly makes the claim "while Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, are publicly committed to improving diversity, the [hiring process paints] a much different picture, and processes will need to undergo drastic changes in order to make a difference."
This article links claims that the following are unfair practices:
Objecting to any of this makes no sense to me, if someone could please inform me as to how this makes sense I would greatly appreciate it.Rewarding referrals with bonuses/stock, and referrals in general, could hinder diversity of the current employees know a non-diverse group of people.
The last two items seem tricky because you do need to know the candidate can do the job. The problems here could arise if the tests are biased (it is common for this to happen unintentionally), if the person giving the test is biased, or if the testee is experiencing stereotype threat.