4 ms·
Well this might be taking it a step too far. The first, obvious step would be simply to compare the actual hires (workers) with the available pool... almost nob
by tomp 6y ago
Well this might be taking it a step too far. The first, obvious step would be simply to compare the actual hires (workers) with the available pool... almost nobody actually does that. People keep claiming that e.g. Google is sexist because they hire so few women, without regard to the fact that their worker pool has about the same distribution as their hiring pool (CS graduates). The UK passed a law requiring companies to disclose average salaries by sex etc. with no regard on the actual job / education level / level of employment.
We can't even begin to talk about solutions if all the media / researchers / activists keep pushing misleading statistics.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago> The first, obvious step would be simply to compare the actual hires (workers) with the available pool... almost nobody actually does that. I absolutely agree! (And that's also why I said in my post that the percentage should be determined by the applicant pool.) There's a separate conversation to be had about why the applicant pool is skewed, but IMO that's well outside a given company's purview.