4 ms·
Right on. At least they give a reasoning. It does feel kind of arbitrary but maybe they had a history of older applicants failing abysmally. It would be nice if
by SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
Right on. At least they give a reasoning. It does feel kind of arbitrary but maybe they had a history of older applicants failing abysmally. It would be nice if that is the case that they would actually make said research public information. If you are going to blanket exclude a group on possibly shaky legal grounds (age is a protected class) you had better have some data and explanation to back it up. Even then with the data it feels more appropriate to say something like “<1% of applicants over 30 succeed, we strongly discourage you from applying”, rather than just saying “sorry, you can’t apply at all because you’re over 30”
- lotsofpulp 4y agoOnly age 40 or older is a protected class in the US. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y agoSure, but that means if I’m age 30-39 and wanting to be an ATC, im not legally protected, but the second I turn age 40, all of my above arguments apply. So basically the same argument as above, but also pointing out that in the context of ATC, there’s this weird situation where people aged 30-39 don’t have as much recourse to argue against something clearly illegal
- hgsgm 4y agoWhy is it clearly illegal for <40?