Talked to plaid, went through two long phone interviews before they told me they expected a take home project in addition to another phone screen and an in-person.
So sure, diversity as long as you’ve got a spare day or three to jump through their hoops. Doubt I’d see any parents or people over 30 in their diverse pool of people willing to work for free.
Edit: if this is your process please notify candidates at the outset.
The parent post presented an arguable opinion, i.e. the process is unreasonably arduous, which is potentially at odds with their stated values, and, perhaps more importantly, the process was not communicated well. Your reply was to insult them.
Communication is a two way street, I wouldn't immediately blame one party, although you would think they would mention the process from the outset.
'unreasonably arduous'- how would you define that. Really a few phone convos, a take home assignment and showing up for interview is unreasonably arduous for a diverse candidate?
This actually shows to me that the company is not willing to hire someone diverse without properly vetting them. Good for them.
It was an observation. I can't help if they were insulted.
The line is indeed blurry, but if it were to be drawn somewhere, I don't think it's unreasonable to draw it at being asked to create a small but complete instance of the work you are being hired for that may take anywhere from hours to days, as opposed to being asked to see existing examples.
It would be nice if there were some third party that companies could turn over the results of these interview project assignments to, which would allow release of that information to other companies upon authorization by the candidate.
The idea is that you interview at some place that asks for a substantial take-home interview project. You do it. Afterwards, the project requirements and your solution are turned over to third party.
Then the next place you interview wants a project, too. You can point them at the third party and authorize release of your info to them. They can then see what that first company asked for, see what you provided, and if it covers the same kind of things that their project does they might then accept it instead of making you do another one.
They aren't looking for the best though. They are looking for diverse.
GPA's are meaningless now. Grade inflation, etc.
Just like the adversity score that will be added to the SAT... making it meaningless...
IQ tests are going to replace GPAs for hiring in general.
For developers at least you don’t need any kind of artificial scoring. If they pass the phone screen, just bring them in and pair with them on a contrived problem - you will know very quick if they are a fit or not.
GPA is maybe only relevant if you are very junior or it is the only thing on your resume. No one is going to care at all about your GPA once you are more than a few years into your career
Why was my comment flagged. It is a real question. If anyone can identify as a gender then keeping stats on male/female doesn't matter. Also you should start a category for those that don't identify as a gender if you want to go that route. Also you should report how many transgender people you have.
I look forward to the day when people are judged for who they are, not for what they do to someone's arbitrary spreadsheet designed to make the numbers give them a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Can you elaborate on how you get from the stated goal to "numbers that make you feel warm and fuzzy"? I don't think it's a crazy leap, but it sounds like you're taking a very antagonistic stance, and are perhaps letting yourself fall into the trap of oversimplification as a result.
Disparate outcomes on a spreadsheet organised by categories like sex and race are assumed to indicate only the presence of oppression and therefore something to be fixed by controversial affirmative action policies and other discriminatory practices. Incremental progress towards artificial 50/50 ratios of biological characteristics are lauded as unambiguous social goods - these are the "warm and fuzzies" alluded to above. I'm not denying that oppression plays some role in disparate outcomes, but I object to it being presented, as it plainly is, as the only major factor. The reality is highly multivariate.
> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
It's good to see a company openly sharing concrete numbers on diversity even when it doesn't necessarily paint them in a flattering light. This speaks better (to me, at least) than companies which make fluffy noises on diversity but refuse to share actual figures.
> Building amazing products that power thousands of fintech apps requires us on the Plaid engineering team to empathize with the developers and end users who build and use these apps. To do that well, we need to have a team whose diversity reflects the millions of people Plaid supports.
This is the notion that apparently justifies the entire diversity and inclusion industrial complex - that your ability to empathize with somebody is dependant on sharing certain immutable characteristics, such as your sex or skin color. If the soft bigotry and regressivism of that stance isn't glaringly obvious to people I despair. Almost 60 years since MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech we've managed to invert its message, and calcify it into a lucrative and discriminatory corporate culture.
This seems like a mean-spirited leap. The quote says that they want to have a diverse team because their product's userbase is diverse, and you're saying they don't think people are capable of empathizing with people of a different skin color. Their intentions and/or implementations may not match their stated goal for all I know, but it seems like based on very little you've declared that this quote is racist.
I don't think it's a leap. It's the fundamental idea behind the corporate jargon. They didn't just say they want a diverse team because their users are diverse, they explicitly said that to empathize well with their diverse users they need a diverse team. I find that notion quite reprehensible, but it's parroted so much these days that most people now just accept it as somehow self-evident.
The scent of racism that underlies the whole “white and asian American men can’t possibly empathize with other cultures, foreign or domestic” idea seems to grow every day.
But it seems politically dangerous to even hint that you smell anything.
I think the simpler explanation is that the easiest way to have a diversity of thought is through a diverse workforce. We all have different lived experiences, I have many blind spots due to my upbringing. Can I learn these and overcome them? Of course, but it's a lot easier if someone with a different viewpoint is on my team or in my organization.
Diversity of thought isn't just important to cater to a diverse user base, it's important because approaches to problem solving and engineering doesn't have a singular solution.
It’s disappointing that this got flagged - has conversation become so polarized, so lacking any space for nuance, that we cant even have a discussion about this topic anymore?
29 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 73.8 ms ] threadSo sure, diversity as long as you’ve got a spare day or three to jump through their hoops. Doubt I’d see any parents or people over 30 in their diverse pool of people willing to work for free.
Edit: if this is your process please notify candidates at the outset.
Sounds like you just want them to hire a diverse candidate without making sure they are actually qualified for the job.
'unreasonably arduous'- how would you define that. Really a few phone convos, a take home assignment and showing up for interview is unreasonably arduous for a diverse candidate?
This actually shows to me that the company is not willing to hire someone diverse without properly vetting them. Good for them.
It was an observation. I can't help if they were insulted.
I don't see it as unpaid labor anymore than I would see the interview process itself as unpaid labor.
The idea is that you interview at some place that asks for a substantial take-home interview project. You do it. Afterwards, the project requirements and your solution are turned over to third party.
Then the next place you interview wants a project, too. You can point them at the third party and authorize release of your info to them. They can then see what that first company asked for, see what you provided, and if it covers the same kind of things that their project does they might then accept it instead of making you do another one.
Though, honestly, it seems like you could save everyone's time and get similar results screening for university GPA > 3.8.
GPA's are meaningless now. Grade inflation, etc. Just like the adversity score that will be added to the SAT... making it meaningless... IQ tests are going to replace GPAs for hiring in general.
If you allow your employees to self report their gender, then why don't all the 'men' just identify as a woman.
> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
This is the notion that apparently justifies the entire diversity and inclusion industrial complex - that your ability to empathize with somebody is dependant on sharing certain immutable characteristics, such as your sex or skin color. If the soft bigotry and regressivism of that stance isn't glaringly obvious to people I despair. Almost 60 years since MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech we've managed to invert its message, and calcify it into a lucrative and discriminatory corporate culture.
But it seems politically dangerous to even hint that you smell anything.
Diversity of thought isn't just important to cater to a diverse user base, it's important because approaches to problem solving and engineering doesn't have a singular solution.