I feel like this article (and many like it) doesn't mention a key point: Portfolios and verifiable career assets/achievements make you more valuable to potenti

I feel like this article (and many like it) doesn't mention a key point: Portfolios and verifiable career assets/achievements make you more valuable to potential employers. It de-risks hiring you. Even if you're just as skilled, capable, etc, if you can't offer anything to verify it, you're statistically riskier to hire. Now all the points in the article drive home the point that the less privileged you are (due to gender/age/ethnicity/socioeconomics), you'll have a harder time building those career assets, due to time, limited job selection, lack of mentors, etc. Requiring OSS contributions to interview doesn't mean you're getting better employees, it just reduces your risk of hiring a bad employee. It does mean you're filtering out skilled people w/o career assets. It's about reducing false positives, not avoiding false negatives.