9 ms·

Incredibly cynical. What if we helped minorities, women, and others on the outside meet the qualifications instead of lowering the standards? And yes that also

Incredibly 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 ago
Hello. 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 ago
  If John Carmack doesn't meet the standards, then you probably SHOULD think about 'lowering them.'
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    You're saying the same thing. “shouldn't worry about” → “don't think there is a problem with”.
    - addingnumbers 5y ago
      should 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        No 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
        "If the smoke alarm goes off, you shouldn't worry about evacuating the building." Is this an acceptable way to convey that you should evacuate the building without worrying?
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > "If the smoke alarm goes off, you shouldn't worry about evacuating the building." > acceptable It's a gratuitously ambiguous way to convey that you should evacuate the building without worrying.
    - 5y ago
  - dimitrios1 5y ago
    Please read the entirety of my comment before teeing off on just the first clause.
    - addingnumbers 5y ago
      The second sentence was even more ambiguous than the first one
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Macha 5y ago
The 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Sure, 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 ago
      If 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 ago
It’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 ago
  And 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 ago
    It 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        This response is either dumb or manipulative. Likely both.
mbbutler 5y ago
You'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.

ctvo 5y ago

Hello. 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 ago
If John Carmack doesn't meet the standards, then you probably SHOULD think about 'lowering them.'
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  You're saying the same thing. “shouldn't worry about” → “don't think there is a problem with”.
  - addingnumbers 5y ago
    should 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 ago
      I 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 ago
      No 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
        "If the smoke alarm goes off, you shouldn't worry about evacuating the building." Is this an acceptable way to convey that you should evacuate the building without worrying?
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > "If the smoke alarm goes off, you shouldn't worry about evacuating the building." > acceptable It's a gratuitously ambiguous way to convey that you should evacuate the building without worrying.
  - 5y ago
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  Please read the entirety of my comment before teeing off on just the first clause.
  - addingnumbers 5y ago
    The second sentence was even more ambiguous than the first one
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Macha 5y ago

The 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Sure, 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 ago
    If 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 ago

It’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 ago
And 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      This response is either dumb or manipulative. Likely both.

mbbutler 5y ago

You'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.