3 ms·

TL;DR distinguish yourself on your capabilities, not your race/gender/ethnicity etc... I'm a white American male that went to a CUNY college (city university o

TL;DR distinguish yourself on your capabilities, not your race/gender/ethnicity etc... I'm a white American male that went to a CUNY college (city university of NY), which is not so highly regarded by the big 4. I graduated with a 4.0, summa cum laude, phi beta kappa, with distinguished honors in CS and psychology. In 2012 a close friend of mine was a hiring manager in Google, and he passed my resume to a recruiter. When he went back to check on the status of it later, he found that the recruiter had thrown out the resume. After some arm twisting he got me an interview. I answered everything correctly, but was told I would not be getting the job. Since that time I've been with a few startups as an Android engineer. I love my jobs, and work my butt off. On 3 occasions I've been at Google's NYC office consulting with members of the Android team. I've made sure to make an impression on the community. For the past 3 years I've been getting a bi-monthly email from Google and Facebook recruiters asking me to come interview. I haven't, and probably never will; I like the startup scene way to much. I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist. Their job is to get the best engineer for the job. Initial impressions are hard to gauge, and without validation (education, trusted references, etc...) you can end up making a big mistake (I would know, having hired quite a few duds over the years). I understand that not all people are in a position to distinguish themselves initially. Life isn't fair. Trying to make it fair for one demographic will likely end up making things unfair for another. There's nothing wrong with not getting your first job at a big 4. Hit the pavement running, do a kick ass job wherever you are, and you'll get noticed.

maxucho 10y ago
Respectfully, I think you may have missed the point of the article. In the committee hiring process that Facebook uses, it would seem that every candidate was actually not being judged purely on their capabilities. So telling folks to "distinguish yourself on your capabilities," while generally good advice, doesn't actually help if the process doesn't reward that. If instead, as the recruiters in the article suggest, pedigree of college and other factors are being prioritized, then that's a problem. Criteria like this disproportionately disadvantages URM candidates in particular, which is how Facebook ends up with only 1% black and 3% latino tech workers, even after prioritizing diversity at the recruiter level. > I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist. I recommend you read up a bit on [individual vs. systemic racism](1). An important point to note is that even if individual actors don't exhibit what you consider to be racism, the system that they make up can itself be racist. This is a really important point that often gets lost in discussions like this on HN, especially since the largely-white largely-male population here is unlikely to ever directly feel the effects of systemic racism. > Trying to make it fair for one demographic will likely end up making things unfair for another. Just to be clear, I think what you are trying to say is that adjusting for bias against URM candidates will inherently lead to bias or disadvantages to white folks. I would question any notion of "fairness" that relies on another group being treated unfairly. To borrow a common expression, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. (1): http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism

maxucho 10y ago

Respectfully, I think you may have missed the point of the article. In the committee hiring process that Facebook uses, it would seem that every candidate was actually not being judged purely on their capabilities. So telling folks to "distinguish yourself on your capabilities," while generally good advice, doesn't actually help if the process doesn't reward that. If instead, as the recruiters in the article suggest, pedigree of college and other factors are being prioritized, then that's a problem. Criteria like this disproportionately disadvantages URM candidates in particular, which is how Facebook ends up with only 1% black and 3% latino tech workers, even after prioritizing diversity at the recruiter level. > I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist. I recommend you read up a bit on [individual vs. systemic racism](1). An important point to note is that even if individual actors don't exhibit what you consider to be racism, the system that they make up can itself be racist. This is a really important point that often gets lost in discussions like this on HN, especially since the largely-white largely-male population here is unlikely to ever directly feel the effects of systemic racism. > Trying to make it fair for one demographic will likely end up making things unfair for another. Just to be clear, I think what you are trying to say is that adjusting for bias against URM candidates will inherently lead to bias or disadvantages to white folks. I would question any notion of "fairness" that relies on another group being treated unfairly. To borrow a common expression, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. (1): http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism