3 ms·

So you're saying that meritocracy is good but neglected, and diversity often has more meritocracy as a consequence... Why not focus directly on meritocracy in

by tomp 8y ago

So you're saying that meritocracy is good but neglected, and diversity often has more meritocracy as a consequence... Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? In particular, the conversation in IT, which is probably among the most meritocratic fields (no certifications required, most learning material available for free online), is focused on employees, not executives, so I'd say it possible that focusing on diversity has no, or even negative, effect on meritocracy.

Barrin92 8y ago
>Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? Because it's not clear how you 'access' meritocracy directly. For example, if many talented people have not great access to the software industry because the barrier to entry is relatively high (which is still I think a reasonable assumption), then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, especially in the valley. There's lots of insider networking going on, the big companies hire overwhelmingly out of established institutions (I'd be surprised if Google has many employees without certifications) etc.. It's very good at marketing itself as meritocratic, hip and young, but it's rarely been my own experience at least.
- tomp 8y ago
  > then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. Exactly. Isn’t that already a big part of the “gender equality” efforts? We could do the same for meritocracy directly. > And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, I never said that. Just that’s it’s more meritocratic than most other (high-paying, professional) industries, because the barriers to entry are lower... I mean, when was the last time a college dropout self-taught doctor became a billionaire, or the last billion dollar hedge fund that was started in a garage?

by tomp 8y ago

Barrin92 8y ago

>Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? Because it's not clear how you 'access' meritocracy directly. For example, if many talented people have not great access to the software industry because the barrier to entry is relatively high (which is still I think a reasonable assumption), then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, especially in the valley. There's lots of insider networking going on, the big companies hire overwhelmingly out of established institutions (I'd be surprised if Google has many employees without certifications) etc.. It's very good at marketing itself as meritocratic, hip and young, but it's rarely been my own experience at least.

tomp 8y ago
> then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. Exactly. Isn’t that already a big part of the “gender equality” efforts? We could do the same for meritocracy directly. > And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, I never said that. Just that’s it’s more meritocratic than most other (high-paying, professional) industries, because the barriers to entry are lower... I mean, when was the last time a college dropout self-taught doctor became a billionaire, or the last billion dollar hedge fund that was started in a garage?