3 ms·

> I would not give tech points in the category of meritocracy for that Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been abl

> I would not give tech points in the category of meritocracy for that Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? > and not indicative of where most people with less-than-prestigious backgrounds end up It's hard to tell how much this is an indictment of tech's process versus society at large. Anecdotally, I find a higher proportion of people from more prestigious backgrounds are more skilled at work. This should be unsurprising because people from those backgrounds have generally been given many advantages in life. In a former life I was an educator and was paid a lot of money to impart valuable skills to the children of rich families. If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. Again, I don't want to argue tech is some perfect meritocracy, just that I'm not aware that anyone's done better.

ghaff 5y ago
I read the parent/GP as simply saying that while tech doesn't have the same level of gatekeeping as white shoe law does or, for that matter, academia in general, if you have a decent GPA from Stanford things will be far easier than they will be for an equally skilled high school dropout with no connections. The challenge (which has no easy answer) is that it's far easier for companies to focus on the Stanford grads with decent GPAs than all the high school dropouts who upload a resume, especially if they don't have an obviously interesting portfolio/presence in open source communities.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Graduating from Stanford with a decent GPA is itself a useful signal and unsurprisingly things are therefore easier. It gives evidence that not only are you equally skilled as that high-school dropout (as given in the premise of this scenario), but that you have basic life, organizational, planning, and work with others skills to graduate from Stanford.
kodah 5y ago
> Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? Apologies, I was not trying to argue that you were presenting it was. That's my internal ideal: tech should be meritocratic and involve zero prestige. To me arguing whether tech is better or worse than any other industry is fairly futile. It's more important to say, "Should this field require a degree and prestige or not?" The answer in tech is, "no", so the fact that we have it and that it weighs so heavy is what makes it frustrating. It's like saying, "Once you're in it matters less!" In medicine or law, that's entirely different. At the end of the day, the process of interviewing and hiring is still bad (if not worse) so being better (or even drastically better) than other fields means very little. > If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. That's a fair point, prestigious people generally thrive in a meritocracy. Though, I think what this inevitably leads to is "invest more in education and opportunity" platitudes. The fact is, those things are a long way off from getting feasibly better. There are ways to bridge that gap, like offering free courses in algorithms and data structures for people from non-prestigious backgrounds, but I have a feeling the hiring requirements would just shift then.
- Hermitian909 5y ago
  > so being better (or even drastically better) than other fields means very little. I think this where we differ. I think this view is a bit disheartening to me because it feels like making the perfect the enemy of a good. I don't think completely removing prestige is a viable option for most companies without some replacement that no one has yet figured out, so I'm ok with applauding whatever steps can be made to make the system better. Thanks for so clearly sharing your perspective.
  - kodah 5y ago
    The push and pull of how you and I view these is intrinsic (in my view) to preventing the attitude of, "this is good enough". Put in a metaphor: someone has to make the industry feel like it's making progress and someone has to drag the industry kicking and screaming forward. Both are necessary for improvement. > Thanks for so clearly sharing your perspective. Always.
confidantlake 5y ago
I agree with you for the most part, but one field has done better. Athletics. Getting a job as an athlete is more about merit and less about connections than even tech. This is because it is much easier to measure talent than almost any industry. For running you only need a stopwatch.

ghaff 5y ago

I read the parent/GP as simply saying that while tech doesn't have the same level of gatekeeping as white shoe law does or, for that matter, academia in general, if you have a decent GPA from Stanford things will be far easier than they will be for an equally skilled high school dropout with no connections. The challenge (which has no easy answer) is that it's far easier for companies to focus on the Stanford grads with decent GPAs than all the high school dropouts who upload a resume, especially if they don't have an obviously interesting portfolio/presence in open source communities.

sokoloff 5y ago
Graduating from Stanford with a decent GPA is itself a useful signal and unsurprisingly things are therefore easier. It gives evidence that not only are you equally skilled as that high-school dropout (as given in the premise of this scenario), but that you have basic life, organizational, planning, and work with others skills to graduate from Stanford.

kodah 5y ago

> Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? Apologies, I was not trying to argue that you were presenting it was. That's my internal ideal: tech should be meritocratic and involve zero prestige. To me arguing whether tech is better or worse than any other industry is fairly futile. It's more important to say, "Should this field require a degree and prestige or not?" The answer in tech is, "no", so the fact that we have it and that it weighs so heavy is what makes it frustrating. It's like saying, "Once you're in it matters less!" In medicine or law, that's entirely different. At the end of the day, the process of interviewing and hiring is still bad (if not worse) so being better (or even drastically better) than other fields means very little. > If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. That's a fair point, prestigious people generally thrive in a meritocracy. Though, I think what this inevitably leads to is "invest more in education and opportunity" platitudes. The fact is, those things are a long way off from getting feasibly better. There are ways to bridge that gap, like offering free courses in algorithms and data structures for people from non-prestigious backgrounds, but I have a feeling the hiring requirements would just shift then.

Hermitian909 5y ago
> so being better (or even drastically better) than other fields means very little. I think this where we differ. I think this view is a bit disheartening to me because it feels like making the perfect the enemy of a good. I don't think completely removing prestige is a viable option for most companies without some replacement that no one has yet figured out, so I'm ok with applauding whatever steps can be made to make the system better. Thanks for so clearly sharing your perspective.
- kodah 5y ago
  The push and pull of how you and I view these is intrinsic (in my view) to preventing the attitude of, "this is good enough". Put in a metaphor: someone has to make the industry feel like it's making progress and someone has to drag the industry kicking and screaming forward. Both are necessary for improvement. > Thanks for so clearly sharing your perspective. Always.

confidantlake 5y ago

I agree with you for the most part, but one field has done better. Athletics. Getting a job as an athlete is more about merit and less about connections than even tech. This is because it is much easier to measure talent than almost any industry. For running you only need a stopwatch.