3 ms·

Nepotism and in-group hiring is problematic regardless of if it's English Gentlemen or any other group. It's not always bad (it can be very beneficial for histo

Nepotism and in-group hiring is problematic regardless of if it's English Gentlemen or any other group. It's not always bad (it can be very beneficial for historically marginalized groups of people, for example). But it is problematic. That said, "Indian" is too big of a group. How much does this involve cross-caste versus intra-caste hiring?

0xcafefood 4y ago
[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  "English gentleman" is, within the last 400 years, the most world-shaking in-group. And it preferentially hired and promoted within the in-group into the present era. Dalits and scheduled castes and tribes (forgive me if I'm getting this wrong) make up about 40% of Indians, but are historically about as marginalized as Native Americans and Blacks are in the US. And this marginalization continues with hiring practices in the US.
viableSprocket1 4y ago
I'm not defending Nepotism. I'm saying there is an obvious explanation of the effect the article is talking about (and several bad explanations that rely on cultural tropes)
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Oh sure. I got what you were saying. I was adding on to it by kind of pointing out the historic, world-defining nepotism of white ethnic groups. And also saying that not all nepotistic-like behaviour is bad. And also pointing out that people looking at Indian hiring trends from the outside need to be aware that Indian (/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Diaspora/look-alike Sri Lankan) people do not see themselves as a monolith. They are not only as diverse as European peoples, but tack on caste on top of it. If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.
  - 0xcafefood 4y ago
    > "If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies." Does that make this behavior okay? Let's run a thought experiment: If a White man is only hiring White men, but is hiring White men from all ethnic groups (English, French, German, Italian, Polish, etc.), this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      It doesn't make it "okay", but it can make it "better" than some other thing. And no, I'm not talking about ethnic group hiring here (primarily), I'm talking about caste-based hiring. Which would make the following a better parallel: If a White man is only hiring White people, but is hiring from all economic and educational groups (from dirt-poor white folk with a third-grade education to blue-bloods with post-doctoral certifications), this is better than a Yalie hiring only other Yalies. All else held equal.
      - throwaway426079 4y ago
        Better how? If someone who only holds 3rd grade education on paper but self taught to become a master in some field then in truth he is not holding only a 3rd grade education. But if he learned nothing beyond 3rd grade then I really hope he isn't being hired for complex skilled work that he cannot perform
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Back in the day corporations used to train people to be competent at doing the job they were hired to do. Computer disciplines are different than most others in not requiring a degree to prove competency. I'm in biology, and good luck getting any decent job without a B.S., regardless of how competent you are. For Bio jobs a third-grade education is only a third-grade education, regardless of your self-taught skills.
      - 4y ago

0xcafefood 4y ago

[flagged]

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
"English gentleman" is, within the last 400 years, the most world-shaking in-group. And it preferentially hired and promoted within the in-group into the present era. Dalits and scheduled castes and tribes (forgive me if I'm getting this wrong) make up about 40% of Indians, but are historically about as marginalized as Native Americans and Blacks are in the US. And this marginalization continues with hiring practices in the US.

viableSprocket1 4y ago

I'm not defending Nepotism. I'm saying there is an obvious explanation of the effect the article is talking about (and several bad explanations that rely on cultural tropes)

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Oh sure. I got what you were saying. I was adding on to it by kind of pointing out the historic, world-defining nepotism of white ethnic groups. And also saying that not all nepotistic-like behaviour is bad. And also pointing out that people looking at Indian hiring trends from the outside need to be aware that Indian (/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Diaspora/look-alike Sri Lankan) people do not see themselves as a monolith. They are not only as diverse as European peoples, but tack on caste on top of it. If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.
- 0xcafefood 4y ago
  > "If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies." Does that make this behavior okay? Let's run a thought experiment: If a White man is only hiring White men, but is hiring White men from all ethnic groups (English, French, German, Italian, Polish, etc.), this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    It doesn't make it "okay", but it can make it "better" than some other thing. And no, I'm not talking about ethnic group hiring here (primarily), I'm talking about caste-based hiring. Which would make the following a better parallel: If a White man is only hiring White people, but is hiring from all economic and educational groups (from dirt-poor white folk with a third-grade education to blue-bloods with post-doctoral certifications), this is better than a Yalie hiring only other Yalies. All else held equal.
    - throwaway426079 4y ago
      Better how? If someone who only holds 3rd grade education on paper but self taught to become a master in some field then in truth he is not holding only a 3rd grade education. But if he learned nothing beyond 3rd grade then I really hope he isn't being hired for complex skilled work that he cannot perform
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Back in the day corporations used to train people to be competent at doing the job they were hired to do. Computer disciplines are different than most others in not requiring a degree to prove competency. I'm in biology, and good luck getting any decent job without a B.S., regardless of how competent you are. For Bio jobs a third-grade education is only a third-grade education, regardless of your self-taught skills.
    - 4y ago