3 ms·
That claim seems the more intuitive understanding - if candidates are judged entirely by capability and fit for a role, then background wouldn't factor in. If d
by sorasoraflora 2y ago
That claim seems the more intuitive understanding - if candidates are judged entirely by capability and fit for a role, then background wouldn't factor in. If diversity tips the scales toward a candidate that would have been otherwise passed over then ability is no longer the highest priority. If this understanding is flawed, could you explain how?
- pyrale 2y agoThere are more parameters than just changing the evaluation method applied on a fixed pool of candidates.
- sorasoraflora 2y agoCould you please go into more detail? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not trying to argue, I just want to understand.
- pyrale 2y agoI went more in depth in another reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41788460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41788460
- sorasoraflora 2y agoThank you! That clears it up, makes sense. It sounds like a different thing than what the other person was talking about. I don't have personal experience either way - I see both of you saying the thing you're talking about exists and the thing the other doesn't. Is it possible both are happening? How would you know if the other isn't?
- pyrale 2y agoIt's definitely possible some people do wrong stuff. I wouldn't trust people not to mess things up badly sometimes. But if you intend to criticize the whole discipline, you can't base your analysis only its failures.
- sorasoraflora 2y agoIf there isn't a reliable way of knowing whether its failures or its successes are the exception, I can see why this is a frustrating issue. Especially since both positions of for and against the approach ultimately have the same aim. The only real solution I see is solid data, but for something this complex and multifaceted that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.