5 ms·

Then don't call it minimum because it's a lie. All these secret code-language gatekeeping tricks in industry are awful. I'm happy to see one of the replies call

Then don't call it minimum because it's a lie. All these secret code-language gatekeeping tricks in industry are awful. I'm happy to see one of the replies calls it sex discrimination. If that's what it takes to stop employers lying on job ads, good on them.

shadilay 5y ago
It would be great if job ads were actually honest and gave a real minimum, maximum, and typical qualifications.
- vsareto 5y ago
  They should really just list the responsibilities and let people apply. Minimums and/or requirements are often not correct per the word definitions, but maximum and typical qualifications are probably fraught with even more ambiguity.
  - shadilay 5y ago
    Responsibilities is not a bad idea. Really anything that isn't as dishonest as it is now.
- aj3 5y ago
  Another cool idea is to list what are the proficiencies of existing team members.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  One of the minimum requirements that I have in a company is that their HR department understands the definition of the word minimum.
MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> I'm happy to see one of the replies calls it sex discrimination. I'm not seeing this reply. In what sense is it discriminatory?
- lisper 5y ago
  Because “advanced degree” is statistically a proxy for “white male”.
  - test_epsilon 5y ago
    That doesn't make it discriminatory.
  - motogpjimbo 5y ago
    So is "STEM degree". Perhaps we should stop recruiting anyone with a STEM background?
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    If you look at any graduate program in CS/Stats/Math today, you would think "PhD in CS" is a proxy for "Asian". Equality of opportunity doesn't result in equality of outcomes. Many of those Asian students have to climb countless immigration barriers and out-compete literally a billion people to come to the US. They arguably have _less_ opportunity than a white woman who's a US citizen. The idea that overstating requirements is somehow discriminatory is laughable. There is _nothing_ stopping women or whatever group is the oppressed group of the day from applying for a _job listing_. It's literally just submitting a resume, there's not even a big time investment associated with it. If there was discrimination in the resume screening that would be a different story, but you can't claim prima facie that having inflated job requirements is sexist.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- XelNika 5y ago
  I believe this is the reply in question: https://twitter.com/colinmbrandt/status/1409577979731058699 https://twitter.com/colinmbrandt/status/1409577979731058699 See for example: https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...

shadilay 5y ago

It would be great if job ads were actually honest and gave a real minimum, maximum, and typical qualifications.

vsareto 5y ago
They should really just list the responsibilities and let people apply. Minimums and/or requirements are often not correct per the word definitions, but maximum and typical qualifications are probably fraught with even more ambiguity.
- shadilay 5y ago
  Responsibilities is not a bad idea. Really anything that isn't as dishonest as it is now.
aj3 5y ago
Another cool idea is to list what are the proficiencies of existing team members.
ItsMonkk 5y ago
One of the minimum requirements that I have in a company is that their HR department understands the definition of the word minimum.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> I'm happy to see one of the replies calls it sex discrimination. I'm not seeing this reply. In what sense is it discriminatory?

lisper 5y ago
Because “advanced degree” is statistically a proxy for “white male”.
- test_epsilon 5y ago
  That doesn't make it discriminatory.
- motogpjimbo 5y ago
  So is "STEM degree". Perhaps we should stop recruiting anyone with a STEM background?
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  If you look at any graduate program in CS/Stats/Math today, you would think "PhD in CS" is a proxy for "Asian". Equality of opportunity doesn't result in equality of outcomes. Many of those Asian students have to climb countless immigration barriers and out-compete literally a billion people to come to the US. They arguably have _less_ opportunity than a white woman who's a US citizen. The idea that overstating requirements is somehow discriminatory is laughable. There is _nothing_ stopping women or whatever group is the oppressed group of the day from applying for a _job listing_. It's literally just submitting a resume, there's not even a big time investment associated with it. If there was discrimination in the resume screening that would be a different story, but you can't claim prima facie that having inflated job requirements is sexist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
XelNika 5y ago
I believe this is the reply in question: https://twitter.com/colinmbrandt/status/1409577979731058699 https://twitter.com/colinmbrandt/status/1409577979731058699 See for example: https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...