9 ms·
> That’s more or less what John Carmack is trying to say here: The requirements aren’t being used internally as a strict pass/fail criteria before anyone is con
by ctvo 5y ago
> That’s more or less what John Carmack is trying to say here: The requirements aren’t being used internally as a strict pass/fail criteria before anyone is considered for the position.
Then remove them? It says “Minimum Requirements”. It’s already proven that women, minorities and others on the outside don’t apply when they don’t meet these qualifications. You thinking that recruiters know what they’re doing at these companies, then we can only conclude they’re doing it on purpose.
- dimitrios1 5y agoIncredibly cynical. What if we helped minorities, women, and others on the outside meet the qualifications instead of lowering the standards? And yes that also includes rewriting some of the qualifications to be more realistic, I am not discounting that. This comment is coming off as incendiary, judging by the quick clapback style of response to simply the first clause. I want to emphasis I also believe requirements should be rewritten to be more realistic and pertinent to the job. The solution in my view is to cater to the people who do take job requirements seriously (which to my understanding is the reason why women for example are excluded more) rather than just throw your hands up and say "job requirements are a joke"
- ctvo 5y agoHello. Rewriting the requirements to be more realistic is lowering the “standard”. No one, anywhere has said we shouldn’t be doing more. This conversation is around gatekeeping by listing unrealistic minimum requirements.
- whymauri 5y ago>instead of lowering the standards? If John Carmack doesn't meet the standards, then you probably shouldn't worry about 'lowering them.' As if making tech more accessible requires lowering any standards, anyways.
- addingnumbers 5y agoIf John Carmack doesn't meet the standards, then you probably SHOULD think about 'lowering them.'
- wizzwizz4 5y agoYou're saying the same thing. “shouldn't worry about” → “don't think there is a problem with”.
- addingnumbers 5y agoshould worry about -> do think there is a problem with shouldn't worry about -> don't think there is a problem with How are those the same?
- Macha 5y agoI think these can actually mean the same thing here, it depends if the thing you're passing judgement on is interpreted to be the requirements, or the act of lowering the requirements. You should worry about the requirements because they're bad and need fixing. You shouldn't worry about the consequences of lowering the requirements because you weren't enforcing them anyway.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- squeaky-clean 5y agoNo one said "should worry about" they said "should think about". "shouldn't worry about about 'lowering them.'" -> don't think there is a problem with lowering them. "probably SHOULD think about 'lowering them.'" -> should think about lowering them.
- addingnumbers 5y ago
- Macha 5y agoThe issue is that people in the industry have been trained to know that minimum requirements are bullshit and apply anyway. So if women and minorites are underrepresented behind the gate, and see the gate as far more impenetrable than the groups which have already made it in, then setting these requirements aspirationally is keeping them out. John Carmack is arguably one of the most qualified people in the industry for this role, and he doesn't meet the requirements. So it's not the case that there's piles of white men who _do_ meet the requirements that get it instead, and we just need to help minorities get to that level, it's that there's piles of white men that recognise the requirements are nonsense, so apply and get it without meeting them. Setting the requirements to what the recruiters actually require isn't lowering the bar as a result.
- throwaway316943 5y agoIt seems like it would be an much easier task to simply broadcast this knowledge to women and minorities than it would be to change the practices of every HR department, no?
- Macha 5y agoSure, and I've personally been in charity events for economically disadvantaged groups where that's been one of the more important pieces of advice we gave, so such approaches are ongoing, but still the studies indicate the message hasn't gotten through with current levels - so you'd need to either significantly scale up such efforts to reach more people at a personal enough level to convince them, or try another approach.
- lostcolony 5y agoIf that even works. Do white guys who apply say to themselves "those requirements are BS", and minorities say "I don't meet those requirements so I shouldn't apply"? Or is it white guys are more likely to not read them as closely? Or white guys are more likely to feel "I'm good enough to do it regardless of what it asks for"? Or something else? Because just telling minorities "the requirements are more suggestions than requirements" isn't going to help if it's any of those.
- jamiek88 5y agoIt’s not about lowering the standard it’s about clearly communicating them. Why do we need this doublespeak and a wink and a nod for these roles?
- matt-attack 5y agoAnd why are women and minorities unaware of the wink and a nod? What else are they not aware of? Are they not able to reason through the fact that the requirements must logically be not realistic? Are women known to not question authority to the same degree as men? Why not endeavor to fix that about women.
- watwut 5y agoIt is about who assumes rules will be bend for them. If you apply for role where you dont fit requirements, it can be interpreted as ambitions or arrogant or stupid.
- matt-attack 5y ago…or well-read.
- evandale 5y agoI don't understand why being seen as arrogant or stupid by a faceless HR robot in a company you don't work for should matter to a person. It feels like a confidence issue that somebody should look into resolving so that they can live a more fulfilling life.
- watwut 5y agoThis response is either dumb or manipulative. Likely both.
- mbbutler 5y agoYou're not lowering anything because the listed minimums aren't what is actually required. All you're doing is filtering for people who are willing to bullshit their way into a job.
- Zababa 5y ago> It’s already proven that women, minorities and others on the outside don’t apply when they don’t meet these qualifications. On the other hand, taking jobs that are a bit outside your comfort zone is how you grow. I agree that more realistic requirements would helps (especially if they're called "minimum"), but you also have to teach to people how to be ambitious.
- mannykannot 5y agoTelling people they have already failed is hardly likely to teach them to be ambitious.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoApplying for a job that I don't meet the minimum requirements for feels like somewhere between “fraud” and “stupidity”. They're literally called “minimum requirements”.
- pyrale 5y agoOn the other hand, it looks much better to call it "minimum requirements" than "fake reasons to refuse people we don't like".
- coliveira 5y agoExactly. When they create fake requirements the goal is exactly to weed out anyone they don't like. Because if they find someone of the "right" group they'll give the job anyway even if the requirements aren't met.
- a1369209993 5y agoWell, you're in good company, because describing them as "minimum requirements" when they clearly aren't also feels like somewhere between fraud and stupidity.
- pyrale 5y ago> jobs that are a bit outside your comfort zone There is usually little correlation between the job requirements and what you're actually going to do on the job.
- xenocratus 5y agoJust wanted to throw one reference out there: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/48/30303.full.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/48/30303.full.pdf I found it interesting to read, having gone down a small rabbit-hole after your comment :)
- thouitsme 5y agoInteresting indeed, thanks for sharing!
- rdiddly 5y agoI'm not in those groups but I also don't apply, because applying to jobs sucks ass, and I want to minimize the number of times I do it. So I make a judgment call every time - "How likely is it that this will be a waste of my time?" I screen them harder than they screen me. If I don't meet the stated requirements I don't waste time on it. I don't allow for the "real" requirements being different from what's stated, because I'm not going to waste time on guesswork, deciphering, or dealing with incompetence, lies or mere bullshit. Move on, move on. Responding to postings is a low-yield activity anyway. Jobs come from knowing people.
- dclowd9901 5y agoExtrapolating on this further, if it’s _proven_ that certain demographics won’t apply given this “mechanism”, a company could likely open themselves up to a very tenable lawsuit if they post a position with requirements they don’t really follow. It would be quite easy to make the argument the company is doing so to filter in white males.
- asveikau 5y agoIt strikes me that there is some kind of market effect to embellishing the requirements. If a company is honest about requirements in an environment where everybody else exaggerates, applicants who don't meet your more honest but lower requirements will think they're embellished, because everybody does that, and apply.
- josefx 5y agoMaybe they are using it as argument for wage negotiations. Kind of "you are clearly under qualified but we can still make use of your meager skills if you work twice as long for half the money". Don't quite remember if Facebook was part of that wage dumping agreement Google and Apple participated in.
- asveikau 5y agoI guess I've heard of another type of gaming of requirements: the H1B thing. The story here goes that they need to demonstrate they looked for someone with the same skills as somebody hired under an H1B. So they post job listings that are extremely specific to the person they hired, that no one can match. No idea if that's true. I heard it claimed by many. I guess it sounds kinda implausible for a large company, they would need to create possibly thousands of fake job listings.