4 ms·

Not true when the problem is outreach, eg companies that rely too much on existing employees' alumni and social networks to recruit. I know of some people from

by ridaj 5y ago

Not true when the problem is outreach, eg companies that rely too much on existing employees' alumni and social networks to recruit. I know of some people from historically underrepresented backgrounds who'd never have been hired where they are now without active outreach on the recruiters' part, and they were definitely in the top decile

sizzle 5y ago
If these individuals were top decile, why weren’t they gunning it for top companies/salaries to begin with? Why do they need to be reached out to if they have the talent? It has been a STEM job seekers market for a while now.
- ridaj 5y ago
  Lack of knowledge and humility? People look at some of the top companies, lionized as they are for their exclusive hiring process, and don't see themselves as belonging there. All the more so as they don't know anybody there. Meanwhile Jo big-school dude knows, hey my buddy went in and I know based on four years as roommates that I'm smarter than he is, it can't be that hard.
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
You're right that if your search is incomplete the sort of thing you describe can happen. In my industry (academia) search is complete. Everyone looking for a job knows all the job postings. That said, I think the problem is that overall there aren't enough qualified under-represented minorities to get up to proportional representation. If there were, it would be a very confusing market failure. What's really going on is two things: 1) You can't be both under-privileged and as capable as everyone else on average. Being poor, abused, discriminated against, etc. affects our ability to do things like be really smart and get good at software engineering. 2) For those who are under-represented but not on average under-privileged (e.g. women in mathematics), we are seeing the result of a difference in preferences between men and women. Blue Team elites really don't want to admit that there are systematic differences in who prefers what that correlate with things like gender and race, but it is obviously the case. It's not rampant sexism relative to biology that explains why there are few women in e.g. mathematics, it's because women prefer to do other things on average. And there's nothing wrong with that, and we as a liberal society need to accept it. Of course, this is absolutely not to claim that women can't be just as good at maths.

by ridaj 5y ago

sizzle 5y ago

If these individuals were top decile, why weren’t they gunning it for top companies/salaries to begin with? Why do they need to be reached out to if they have the talent? It has been a STEM job seekers market for a while now.

ridaj 5y ago
Lack of knowledge and humility? People look at some of the top companies, lionized as they are for their exclusive hiring process, and don't see themselves as belonging there. All the more so as they don't know anybody there. Meanwhile Jo big-school dude knows, hey my buddy went in and I know based on four years as roommates that I'm smarter than he is, it can't be that hard.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

You're right that if your search is incomplete the sort of thing you describe can happen. In my industry (academia) search is complete. Everyone looking for a job knows all the job postings. That said, I think the problem is that overall there aren't enough qualified under-represented minorities to get up to proportional representation. If there were, it would be a very confusing market failure. What's really going on is two things: 1) You can't be both under-privileged and as capable as everyone else on average. Being poor, abused, discriminated against, etc. affects our ability to do things like be really smart and get good at software engineering. 2) For those who are under-represented but not on average under-privileged (e.g. women in mathematics), we are seeing the result of a difference in preferences between men and women. Blue Team elites really don't want to admit that there are systematic differences in who prefers what that correlate with things like gender and race, but it is obviously the case. It's not rampant sexism relative to biology that explains why there are few women in e.g. mathematics, it's because women prefer to do other things on average. And there's nothing wrong with that, and we as a liberal society need to accept it. Of course, this is absolutely not to claim that women can't be just as good at maths.