4 ms·
Equal chances would also mean an equal chance to get hired if you actually apply. So why do you need extra adjustment beyond that? Simple turnover should approa
by the8472 10y ago
Equal chances would also mean an equal chance to get hired if you actually apply. So why do you need extra adjustment beyond that? Simple turnover should approach an equilibrium eventually.
- jakelazaroff 10y agoUnfortunately, there are also many examples that white men have a huge advantage in the hiring process solely because they're white men. This is easily shown by sending companies the same résumé with different names that signify gender or race. - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/st... - http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-... - http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-b...
- reader5000 10y agoActually your links (assuming replicability of the studies etc) just support the claim that "names that conform to the majority culture do better". They do not support your first sentence at all. It is perfectly possible for non-white people to have white names. Your implication that companies demonstrating preference for cultural/class conformity and familiarity is somehow unexpected or "unfortunate" doesn't follow.
- jakelazaroff 10y agoYes, that's the claim they support, but the "majority culture" that the names signify is "white and male" specifically. You seem to be saying that since people can be given any name there's no way to infer race and gender from a given name, which is ridiculous: of course there's a correlation between a name, race and gender. Look at the top 1000 names from 1995, the next birth year that will be graduating from college en masse. "Jessica" is the top name for girls, while it doesn't even appear in the top 1000 for boys. http://www.babynames.it/top100/1/year-1995.html http://www.babynames.it/top100/1/year-1995.html
- reader5000 10y agoYes exactly, there is nothing "unfortunate" about the implications of those studies. Also thanks for taking the time to statistically prove "Jessica" is a girl's name for some reason.
- bbctol 10y agoIt's unfortunate if you don't have a white man's name...
- reader5000 10y agoI agree, but I don't think it's any more unfortunate than not having a Chinese name in China, Indian name in India, etc. Humans are inherently risk averse, and cultural conformity is an upshot of that. To penalize or otherwise persecute "white males" for having and participating in a culture seems unjust.
- bbctol 10y agoSo you're saying we live in a culture that arbitrarily benefits white men, and thus it would be unjust to not arbitrarily benefit them.
- reader5000 10y agoI dont know what you think culture is, but to me culture is just how people generally behave in a particular area, so yes white men generally try to behave in a way that benefits them. Is this wrong?
- jakelazaroff 10y agoTo be clear: you are saying that it is not unjust to penalize women and people of color for no reason other than the fact that they're not white men, but it is unjust to penalize white men to compensate for that.
- 10y ago
- ori_b 10y agoThe answer to this is anonymized resumes.
- jakelazaroff 10y agoThat's only going to fix the first step in the hiring process. The larger issue this shows is that people are biased to believe that women and people of color are less qualified for STEM jobs.
- wnoise 10y ago1. Fixing the first step is important and necessary. 2. Exposure at the next level will normalize the idea that women and non-whites should be given serious consideration in hiring.