7 ms·

Sure, they do benefit everyone, but you missed the point I was making. The point is that they claim it is to level a playing field, but they're not actually doi

by dolni 5y ago

Sure, they do benefit everyone, but you missed the point I was making. The point is that they claim it is to level a playing field, but they're not actually doing that if those accommodations are open to everybody. Your comparison also comes off a bit disingenuous. They're talking about interview accommodations like "providing questions in advance" and "extended interview time".

tshaddox 5y ago
But again, who is harmed by extending these accommodations to everyone?
- dolni 5y ago
  Well, for one thing, if you have "normal" employees who can conduct a regular interview process, they might raise some red flags in how they conduct themselves in person that wouldn't be apparent in a remote setting. One example could be that an interviewee inappropriately stares at a woman or makes an inappropriate remark while on-campus. You wouldn't see that if the entire interview were conducted only via Google Docs.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Probably the worst reason given against. How many interviews pass or fail because of that situation vs failing because of running out of time? 0 Males and females will apply. Holding back women because you fear men will look the wrong way seems unfair and needless.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Wow really? I assume most of those types of people are probably able to be on best behaviour for a day. I imagine most of them can pass an interview and then be creepy later.
avianlyric 5y ago
Your making the assumption that the accommodations are meant to provide some sort of “advantage” to compensate for some other “disadvantage”. Like dealing with disabilities is some sort of arithmetic problem. Accommodations just provide optionality, and let’s people choose the approach that suites them best. Rather than assuming that you can fairly apply some rigid standardised test on people, and expect it to accurately measure individuals. There’s plenty of data, and some pretty basic stats, which show this doesn’t work. Proving extra time provides almost no advantage to anyone. Either you can answer the questions well, or you can’t. The amount of time it takes to do isn’t very relevant, so taking more time isn’t an advantage. Providing questions in advance also isn’t an advantage. Again you can either answer them well or not. If you’re worried about people cheating by passing the questions around, then only provide them an hour or two in advanced, or only once they’re onsite. If you’re interview process can be fooled by giving people more time, or advanced notice, then quite frankly it’s not a very good interview process.
- Jabbles 5y ago
  Do you have an example of a question or interview process that you think fits your description? I think a standard tech-company interview has a lot of time pressure, and providing more time would help many candidates considerably.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > I think a standard tech-company interview has a lot of time pressure, and providing more time would help many candidates considerably. ... and? A office that's accessable only by ladder has a lot of leg pressure, and providing wheelchair ramps would help many employees considerably too, regardless of whether they're wheelchair-bound.
    - dolni 5y ago
      That's a ridiculous comparison. Time pressure is directly tied to performance. Sometimes, stuff breaks and wouldn't it be great if it got fixed in half an hour instead of four hours? Projects sometimes have deadlines. You are not talking about an accommodation made for something unrelated to the job, here. This is some gold-level mental gymnastics.
_game_of_life 5y ago
I can speak to this as someone with a disability and social work degree. It's not a popular sentiment but IDGAF at this point. Yes, this will largely be abused by people who don't need it. Just look at how many students malinger for Adderall scripts or extra time on exams -- it's practically endemic at ivy leagues now. Disability parking permits are another one that have shocked me at how common abuse of them is in large cities like Toronto. Essentially anytime resources are constrained and an environment is high pressure, these services inevitably see widespread misuse. High priority low income housing is another area that genuinely shocked me. I had so many clients desperate for housing that they would falsely claim to be high-priority (victims of abuse or terminally ill) it was terrible to see. The unpopular truth is that these systems are vulnerable to fraud and it absolutely harms people who need them most. HOWEVER, what is the alternative? Would you suggest we medically validate and police applications? I've seen that approach taken and it's also a hot mess. It presents barriers not just for people defrauding the system, but the disabled that struggle to navigate the system as well. I don't know the solution to these issues and it's one of the reasons I got the fuck out of social work as soon as I could.

by dolni 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

But again, who is harmed by extending these accommodations to everyone?

dolni 5y ago
Well, for one thing, if you have "normal" employees who can conduct a regular interview process, they might raise some red flags in how they conduct themselves in person that wouldn't be apparent in a remote setting. One example could be that an interviewee inappropriately stares at a woman or makes an inappropriate remark while on-campus. You wouldn't see that if the entire interview were conducted only via Google Docs.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Probably the worst reason given against. How many interviews pass or fail because of that situation vs failing because of running out of time? 0 Males and females will apply. Holding back women because you fear men will look the wrong way seems unfair and needless.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Wow really? I assume most of those types of people are probably able to be on best behaviour for a day. I imagine most of them can pass an interview and then be creepy later.

avianlyric 5y ago

Your making the assumption that the accommodations are meant to provide some sort of “advantage” to compensate for some other “disadvantage”. Like dealing with disabilities is some sort of arithmetic problem. Accommodations just provide optionality, and let’s people choose the approach that suites them best. Rather than assuming that you can fairly apply some rigid standardised test on people, and expect it to accurately measure individuals. There’s plenty of data, and some pretty basic stats, which show this doesn’t work. Proving extra time provides almost no advantage to anyone. Either you can answer the questions well, or you can’t. The amount of time it takes to do isn’t very relevant, so taking more time isn’t an advantage. Providing questions in advance also isn’t an advantage. Again you can either answer them well or not. If you’re worried about people cheating by passing the questions around, then only provide them an hour or two in advanced, or only once they’re onsite. If you’re interview process can be fooled by giving people more time, or advanced notice, then quite frankly it’s not a very good interview process.

Jabbles 5y ago
Do you have an example of a question or interview process that you think fits your description? I think a standard tech-company interview has a lot of time pressure, and providing more time would help many candidates considerably.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > I think a standard tech-company interview has a lot of time pressure, and providing more time would help many candidates considerably. ... and? A office that's accessable only by ladder has a lot of leg pressure, and providing wheelchair ramps would help many employees considerably too, regardless of whether they're wheelchair-bound.
  - dolni 5y ago
    That's a ridiculous comparison. Time pressure is directly tied to performance. Sometimes, stuff breaks and wouldn't it be great if it got fixed in half an hour instead of four hours? Projects sometimes have deadlines. You are not talking about an accommodation made for something unrelated to the job, here. This is some gold-level mental gymnastics.

_game_of_life 5y ago

I can speak to this as someone with a disability and social work degree. It's not a popular sentiment but IDGAF at this point. Yes, this will largely be abused by people who don't need it. Just look at how many students malinger for Adderall scripts or extra time on exams -- it's practically endemic at ivy leagues now. Disability parking permits are another one that have shocked me at how common abuse of them is in large cities like Toronto. Essentially anytime resources are constrained and an environment is high pressure, these services inevitably see widespread misuse. High priority low income housing is another area that genuinely shocked me. I had so many clients desperate for housing that they would falsely claim to be high-priority (victims of abuse or terminally ill) it was terrible to see. The unpopular truth is that these systems are vulnerable to fraud and it absolutely harms people who need them most. HOWEVER, what is the alternative? Would you suggest we medically validate and police applications? I've seen that approach taken and it's also a hot mess. It presents barriers not just for people defrauding the system, but the disabled that struggle to navigate the system as well. I don't know the solution to these issues and it's one of the reasons I got the fuck out of social work as soon as I could.