4 ms·
Just because race or gender has no factor in whether a candidate is qualified does not mean that qualified candidates are equally represented among races and/or
by nightski 10y ago
Just because race or gender has no factor in whether a candidate is qualified does not mean that qualified candidates are equally represented among races and/or genders.
- kevingadd 10y agoYes, but the GP suggested that weighting based on race or gender is a problem, which implies that qualified candidates are unequally represented. Why would this be so? Is there evidence to support it? They also suggested that the white percentage needs to be 'boosted', because there are too many asians? Why would that be? What are the correct numbers?
- tuna-piano 10y agoI think it's pretty clear that qualified candidates are not equally represented. There are probably a lot of reasons for this, socioeconomic, educational, etc. But take a look at the SAT scores by race, or chosen academic majors in college. I'm on mobile with bad internet so I can't link to actual figures now. And my (sarcastic) logic for white percentage boosting is the same as Microsoft's black percentage boosting goal. Asians are significantly over represented at Microsoft (and most of the big tech cos) vs our US population. Microsoft wants to increase the black/Hispanic employee percentage to get more in line with the US distribution. They should also want to do the same with whites, which leaves the Asians set to be decreased significantly.
- kevingadd 10y agoI see, that makes sense. If you're certain that qualified candidates are not equally represented, are you certain that lowering the asian percentage and raising the white percentage wouldn't lower the overall skill level of the Microsoft workforce? How do you suggest to counteract this effect?