4 ms·

It tells us something might be broken. Could be their applicant pool, and/or could be the way implicit biases creep in. The way you word it, however, says the

by mildbow 10y ago

It tells us something might be broken. Could be their applicant pool, and/or could be the way implicit biases creep in. The way you word it, however, says the problem is that they are "attracting 73% of Asians". If you want to work in the 21st century, get used to working with people who don't have your same exact background.

danieltillett 10y ago
The problem is they are not attracting enough non-Asians at the top of the funnel - something about their criteria is either driving away others, or is too attractive to Asians. Unless you believe that talent is disproportionally concentrated in Asian candidates (which they obviously don’t given who they actually hire), then it is telling you that the funnel is broken. The funny thing is if they did hire 73% Asians they would rightly be criticised for discriminating against non-Asians.
- mildbow 10y ago
  > which they obviously don’t given who they actually hire It's not obvious to everyone, that's why there is discussion/lawsuit. > if they did hire 73% Asians they would rightly be criticised for discriminating against non-Asians. Why would they rightly "be criticised for discriminating against non-Asians."? Anyway, what you are suggesting does happen when listing jobs (eg how startup jobs are marketed towards younger people). Doesn't mean that it's right or wrong in private companies. But to say it isn't wrong when you are taking government money is disingenuous.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    >It's not obvious to everyone, that's why there is discussion/lawsuit. It is obvious to Palantir. They are rightly recognising that talent is much more evenly spread despite attracting a disproportional number of Asian candidates at the top of the funnel. They are trying to fix a broken funnel by discriminating at the end of the process. I don’t think anyone would think the appropriate solution is to just hire 73% people of Asian decent because that is what the funnel provided.
    - mildbow 10y ago
      Feels like we are talking past each other :) Of course it's obvious to Palantir: they are the ones doing it. Of course it's not obvious to DOL: they are the ones with the lawsuit. Of course it obvious to anyone that demographics at various level of any funnel wont/cant be translated to the bottom. What's not obvious are the causes in this specific case.
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        I will agree that we seem to be talking past each other :) I don't know the cause of the broken funnel, but that does not stop me from being to identify that there is something broken with how Palantir are filling their funnel. I do think the DOL are looking at the wrong end. What Palantir needs to fix is how they are filling their pipeline so that they capture a much more representative cross section of the talent pool. I am pretty sure Palantir have not deliberately set out to do this, but there is something about their selection criteria, advertising, or outreach that is going wrong to end up with such a skewed funnel.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I do think the DOL are looking at the wrong end. Its illegal for Palantir to discriminate in the end DOL is looking at irrespective of whether or not they should be doing something at the other end.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        I am not sure it is illegal what Palantir is doing (the court case will determine this), but on the face of if 20% of the people you hire are of Asian decent this does not look unreasonable. If their funnel had 20% Asian candidates and they hired 20% I don't think the DOL would have intervened.
- huac 10y ago
  Maybe there are more people of Asian descent (including Asian-Americans) studying engineering in America. Maybe Palantir needs to hire engineers for engineering roles. I'll let you fill in the blanks
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Unless 73% of all people studying engineering are of Asian decent then the top of the funnel is broken. If the greater candidate pool is made up of 73% of people of Asian decent then the education system is broken.

by mildbow 10y ago

danieltillett 10y ago

The problem is they are not attracting enough non-Asians at the top of the funnel - something about their criteria is either driving away others, or is too attractive to Asians. Unless you believe that talent is disproportionally concentrated in Asian candidates (which they obviously don’t given who they actually hire), then it is telling you that the funnel is broken. The funny thing is if they did hire 73% Asians they would rightly be criticised for discriminating against non-Asians.

mildbow 10y ago
> which they obviously don’t given who they actually hire It's not obvious to everyone, that's why there is discussion/lawsuit. > if they did hire 73% Asians they would rightly be criticised for discriminating against non-Asians. Why would they rightly "be criticised for discriminating against non-Asians."? Anyway, what you are suggesting does happen when listing jobs (eg how startup jobs are marketed towards younger people). Doesn't mean that it's right or wrong in private companies. But to say it isn't wrong when you are taking government money is disingenuous.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  >It's not obvious to everyone, that's why there is discussion/lawsuit. It is obvious to Palantir. They are rightly recognising that talent is much more evenly spread despite attracting a disproportional number of Asian candidates at the top of the funnel. They are trying to fix a broken funnel by discriminating at the end of the process. I don’t think anyone would think the appropriate solution is to just hire 73% people of Asian decent because that is what the funnel provided.
  - mildbow 10y ago
    Feels like we are talking past each other :) Of course it's obvious to Palantir: they are the ones doing it. Of course it's not obvious to DOL: they are the ones with the lawsuit. Of course it obvious to anyone that demographics at various level of any funnel wont/cant be translated to the bottom. What's not obvious are the causes in this specific case.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      I will agree that we seem to be talking past each other :) I don't know the cause of the broken funnel, but that does not stop me from being to identify that there is something broken with how Palantir are filling their funnel. I do think the DOL are looking at the wrong end. What Palantir needs to fix is how they are filling their pipeline so that they capture a much more representative cross section of the talent pool. I am pretty sure Palantir have not deliberately set out to do this, but there is something about their selection criteria, advertising, or outreach that is going wrong to end up with such a skewed funnel.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I do think the DOL are looking at the wrong end. Its illegal for Palantir to discriminate in the end DOL is looking at irrespective of whether or not they should be doing something at the other end.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        I am not sure it is illegal what Palantir is doing (the court case will determine this), but on the face of if 20% of the people you hire are of Asian decent this does not look unreasonable. If their funnel had 20% Asian candidates and they hired 20% I don't think the DOL would have intervened.
huac 10y ago
Maybe there are more people of Asian descent (including Asian-Americans) studying engineering in America. Maybe Palantir needs to hire engineers for engineering roles. I'll let you fill in the blanks
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Unless 73% of all people studying engineering are of Asian decent then the top of the funnel is broken. If the greater candidate pool is made up of 73% of people of Asian decent then the education system is broken.