3 ms·

> It's unclear to me why they think that SV is more meritocratic than anything else. Sports still seems much more meritocratic than SV. Any industry that depend

> It's unclear to me why they think that SV is more meritocratic than anything else. Sports still seems much more meritocratic than SV. Any industry that depends so much on getting funding hardly seems like it would be especially meritocratic -- at least at first blush. Fair point. Sports may indeed be fairer and more objective than other industries - results are easily measured, and are objective. And it's clear that the tech industry is far from perfect. However, tech does have several things that make it fairer than other industries: * You don't need a degree to get into tech. Sure, it can help - the article here is about Stanford, one of the best places to study at - but the industry also has plenty of self-taught people. To at least some extent, talent can rise despite not having e.g. parents that can pay for college. * The tools you need to self-teach are cheap, and getting cheaper. Personal computers are common these days. For comparison, some sports require almost no tools, but some do (e.g. skiing). Music is similar (some instruments are cheap, others not so much). But most careers don't work that way. You can't be a self-taught lawyer or doctor or soldier or social worker. * Talent has the opportunity to present itself in an abstract way. You can create an anonymous github account and prove your skills, and no one would know any demographic information about you. Something similar has happened in classical music, with people performing behind curtains so as to remove any bias due to their gender or race, and it was very helpful there. For comparison, sports doesn't work that way - you have to see people when they compete, so racial prejudice etc. might still have an impact. In tech and classical music, while things aren't perfect, there is a fairly natural way to diminish such effects, simply let people only see the abstract result of their work. * Some fields absolutely require a strong mentor, like in academia (perhaps also in sports? I don't know). This disadvantages people that have a hard time finding such mentors, either due to prejudice on the part of potential mentors, or just a lack of connections, or weak social skills. In tech, some people benefit from mentors, but there are also lots of examples of people that have never had a mentor and do very well. * Telecommuting is much more common in tech than other fields, even if it isn't ubiquitous there. We have the technical capability to let people work from home in tech, in most roles, and it makes things fairer in many ways. * You make a valid point that industries that depend on getting funding are less fair than others, all things being equal. However, tech has been driving down the amount of necessary funding, through open source software, things like AWS, etc. Again, tech is far from perfect, and has many flaws. Still, it's worth mentioning the good aspects.

michaelochurch 12y ago
There's some truth in what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree, but here are where I see you being overly optimistic on the matter of SV's meritocracy. > You don't need a degree to get into tech. As soon as the market draws back, the non-BA programmers are going to be shut out (and most will have to go to school). I wish it weren't that way, but that seems to be how these things work. The more pedigreed you are, the less you fall. That said, a bit of blue-collar street smarts can also serve you well. The people who really take a dive are the middle-class earnest types who aren't high enough on the socioeconomic spectrum to be protected, but were never low enough to learn how brutal the world can be when resources are scarce and contracting. > Talent has the opportunity to present itself in an abstract way. You can create an anonymous github account and prove your skills, and no one would know any demographic information about you. You can get an engineer position, but you won't become a founder that way. There are no blind auditions to raise VC. > In tech, some people benefit from mentors, but there are also lots of examples of people that have never had a mentor and do very well. What would you call the guy who offers the first introduction to the first investor?
- brighteyes 12y ago
  I agree with your points. Regarding the last one, I meant more the case of technical people, that never had a mentor. There are a lot of people like that in SV that are doing great. But I certainly concur that for getting funding, you do need connections, difficult or impossible without them. As I said before, I'm not saying anything is perfect, and there are plenty of flaws. I would say that more flaws exist in getting funded than in having a successful career - which is most people in tech in SV.

michaelochurch 12y ago

There's some truth in what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree, but here are where I see you being overly optimistic on the matter of SV's meritocracy. > You don't need a degree to get into tech. As soon as the market draws back, the non-BA programmers are going to be shut out (and most will have to go to school). I wish it weren't that way, but that seems to be how these things work. The more pedigreed you are, the less you fall. That said, a bit of blue-collar street smarts can also serve you well. The people who really take a dive are the middle-class earnest types who aren't high enough on the socioeconomic spectrum to be protected, but were never low enough to learn how brutal the world can be when resources are scarce and contracting. > Talent has the opportunity to present itself in an abstract way. You can create an anonymous github account and prove your skills, and no one would know any demographic information about you. You can get an engineer position, but you won't become a founder that way. There are no blind auditions to raise VC. > In tech, some people benefit from mentors, but there are also lots of examples of people that have never had a mentor and do very well. What would you call the guy who offers the first introduction to the first investor?

brighteyes 12y ago
I agree with your points. Regarding the last one, I meant more the case of technical people, that never had a mentor. There are a lot of people like that in SV that are doing great. But I certainly concur that for getting funding, you do need connections, difficult or impossible without them. As I said before, I'm not saying anything is perfect, and there are plenty of flaws. I would say that more flaws exist in getting funded than in having a successful career - which is most people in tech in SV.