5 ms·

"If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at le

"If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group." This is uninteresting thinking. If the pool doesn't have enough qualified candidates, you expand the pool. That requires more effort. That's good effort that should be taken. It's lazy to do otherwise.

Manuel_D 3y ago
But you can't unilaterally expand the pool. You can't force people to do jobs they don't want to do. At least not outside of forced labor (this is part of why Israel has above average women in STEM, since their conscription forces women to gain technical experience in the military). Some suggest that underrepresented demographics should be attracted with higher wages. But that's illegal, you can't pay people differently for the same job.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  You expand the pool by sending your recruiting team to more colleges. This isn't hard unless you want to make it hard.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    And how does that change the demographics of the applicant pool? If I get 80 men and 20 women applying, and I send my recruiters to twice as many colleges I'll probably get 160 men and 40 women. The proportional representation is unchanged. You can get more applicants, but you're drawing from the same pool that's 80% men and 20% women. I could direct my recruiters to exclusively advance women to the interview stage, but that's illegal. There are a few universities where there are above average proportions in STEM fields like MIT and Harvey Mudd. But these are few and far between, and their graduates have heavy competition for offers. There aren't enough graduates to meaningfully make a dent in representation. Furthermore, these universities have big gender disparities in admissions rates - over two to one [1] - so directing recruitment at these universities is still achieving "better" representation through discrimination, just indirect discrimination. 1. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/can-your-gender-give-you-an-admissions-edge/ https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/can-your-gender-give...

Manuel_D 3y ago

But you can't unilaterally expand the pool. You can't force people to do jobs they don't want to do. At least not outside of forced labor (this is part of why Israel has above average women in STEM, since their conscription forces women to gain technical experience in the military). Some suggest that underrepresented demographics should be attracted with higher wages. But that's illegal, you can't pay people differently for the same job.

asadotzler 3y ago
You expand the pool by sending your recruiting team to more colleges. This isn't hard unless you want to make it hard.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  And how does that change the demographics of the applicant pool? If I get 80 men and 20 women applying, and I send my recruiters to twice as many colleges I'll probably get 160 men and 40 women. The proportional representation is unchanged. You can get more applicants, but you're drawing from the same pool that's 80% men and 20% women. I could direct my recruiters to exclusively advance women to the interview stage, but that's illegal. There are a few universities where there are above average proportions in STEM fields like MIT and Harvey Mudd. But these are few and far between, and their graduates have heavy competition for offers. There aren't enough graduates to meaningfully make a dent in representation. Furthermore, these universities have big gender disparities in admissions rates - over two to one [1] - so directing recruitment at these universities is still achieving "better" representation through discrimination, just indirect discrimination. 1. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/can-your-gender-give-you-an-admissions-edge/ https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/can-your-gender-give...