3 ms·

> So it is not trivial to test for the presence of a CS degree? It is trivial to test for the presence of a CS degree. The bulk of a CS degree can be a necessa

by nmrm2 11y ago

> So it is not trivial to test for the presence of a CS degree? It is trivial to test for the presence of a CS degree. The bulk of a CS degree can be a necessary but not sufficient qualification for a job. Testing for just the extra stuff is far easier than testing for everything. This isn't rocket science. (And no, discriminating based on credentials is not tantamount to racism. I would have hopes the problems with this analogy were fairly obvious...)

randomdata 11y ago
I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding you, but the logic doesn't seem to follow. If you can trivially test for a CS degree then you already have all the other testing that comes with a CS degree by association. Why would you take weeks or months to test everything in a CS degree when you already know a CS degree is present via your trivial test? > And no, discriminating based on credentials is not tantamount to racism. You are, however, judging someone's abilities on their outward appearance even though in our hypothetical situation the person is equally skilled as anyone else. It may not be racism exactly, but still morally wrong for many reasons. That should be fairly obvious.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  @randomdata -- "trivial" isn't "free". The test I proposed adds an extra hour of in-person interview time per candidate, and also substantially increases the number of viable candidates. > It may not be racism exactly, but still morally wrong for many reasons. That should be fairly obvious. Comparing discriminating based upon whether someone did four years of audited work with racism is... a somewhat extreme position, to say the least. You may not think that college is "real work". You're welcome to your opinion. But I assure you that a university degree at many universities does require a lot of work, and that this work is difficult enough and audited well enough that it warrants consideration in hiring decisions. A degree is NOT something anyone is born with. It is something many people work very hard to earn. To put a finer point on it: is it OK to discriminate based upon prior industry experience? Because I consider a degree from a top uni better preparation "work" preparation for many jobs than X years writing web apps. Is it OK to discriminate against doctors who don't have MDs? Or am I supposed to give everyone who submits a job application the benefit of an interview, and sink my business in the process?
  - randomdata 11y ago
    > A degree is NOT something anyone is born with. It is something many people work very hard to earn. But, again, you are automatically discounting everyone who worked equally hard to acquire their skills just because they don't have the right piece of paper. That is exactly the same as rejecting a female candidate on the assumption that because she is female, she probably doesn't have the necessary skills – and statistically speaking, in this case you'd be right – the number of female CS graduates is significantly lower than men. So, if you're just playing the numbers game like you suggested at the beginning of your post, then why not reject all women?
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      > then why not reject all women? Because there is often a CAUSAL link between the degree and the set of qualifications relevant and related to the job at hand. The link between skill and gender is not CAUSAL. You're pretending like there's no causal link between education and capability. You are wrong. Period. Hiring someone based upon degree is absolutely no different from hiring someone based upon whether they have prior work experience. Need someone to work on a team? Deliver some production-quality CRUD? You could test these directly for every single candidate in an interview. Or you could hire someone with prior web dev experience and a letter from the previous employer or a portfolio that directly and immediately witnesses the requisite knowledge and skills. Everyone does the latter (or uses some other signal to weed out who they interview) because the former is a stupid waste of resources. Need someone who can model a system using some ODEs (this afternoon, not in 6 weeks after wasting you money taking a MOOC on company time)? Making tweaks to a library for processing large matrices? You could give every single candidate a pop quiz on ODEs or Linear Algebra. Or you could hire someone with a degree and high grades in those courses that directly and immediately witnesses for requisite knowledge. Another way of saying this: Degrees are direct witnesses of relevant skills, not merely signals or correlated values. Of course there are other direct witnesses. But there is never anything remotely morally questionable about taking into account the presence or absence of any direct witness of capability during hiring. Including degrees.
      - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by nmrm2 11y ago

randomdata 11y ago

I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding you, but the logic doesn't seem to follow. If you can trivially test for a CS degree then you already have all the other testing that comes with a CS degree by association. Why would you take weeks or months to test everything in a CS degree when you already know a CS degree is present via your trivial test? > And no, discriminating based on credentials is not tantamount to racism. You are, however, judging someone's abilities on their outward appearance even though in our hypothetical situation the person is equally skilled as anyone else. It may not be racism exactly, but still morally wrong for many reasons. That should be fairly obvious.

nmrm2 11y ago
@randomdata -- "trivial" isn't "free". The test I proposed adds an extra hour of in-person interview time per candidate, and also substantially increases the number of viable candidates. > It may not be racism exactly, but still morally wrong for many reasons. That should be fairly obvious. Comparing discriminating based upon whether someone did four years of audited work with racism is... a somewhat extreme position, to say the least. You may not think that college is "real work". You're welcome to your opinion. But I assure you that a university degree at many universities does require a lot of work, and that this work is difficult enough and audited well enough that it warrants consideration in hiring decisions. A degree is NOT something anyone is born with. It is something many people work very hard to earn. To put a finer point on it: is it OK to discriminate based upon prior industry experience? Because I consider a degree from a top uni better preparation "work" preparation for many jobs than X years writing web apps. Is it OK to discriminate against doctors who don't have MDs? Or am I supposed to give everyone who submits a job application the benefit of an interview, and sink my business in the process?
- randomdata 11y ago
  > A degree is NOT something anyone is born with. It is something many people work very hard to earn. But, again, you are automatically discounting everyone who worked equally hard to acquire their skills just because they don't have the right piece of paper. That is exactly the same as rejecting a female candidate on the assumption that because she is female, she probably doesn't have the necessary skills – and statistically speaking, in this case you'd be right – the number of female CS graduates is significantly lower than men. So, if you're just playing the numbers game like you suggested at the beginning of your post, then why not reject all women?
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > then why not reject all women? Because there is often a CAUSAL link between the degree and the set of qualifications relevant and related to the job at hand. The link between skill and gender is not CAUSAL. You're pretending like there's no causal link between education and capability. You are wrong. Period. Hiring someone based upon degree is absolutely no different from hiring someone based upon whether they have prior work experience. Need someone to work on a team? Deliver some production-quality CRUD? You could test these directly for every single candidate in an interview. Or you could hire someone with prior web dev experience and a letter from the previous employer or a portfolio that directly and immediately witnesses the requisite knowledge and skills. Everyone does the latter (or uses some other signal to weed out who they interview) because the former is a stupid waste of resources. Need someone who can model a system using some ODEs (this afternoon, not in 6 weeks after wasting you money taking a MOOC on company time)? Making tweaks to a library for processing large matrices? You could give every single candidate a pop quiz on ODEs or Linear Algebra. Or you could hire someone with a degree and high grades in those courses that directly and immediately witnesses for requisite knowledge. Another way of saying this: Degrees are direct witnesses of relevant skills, not merely signals or correlated values. Of course there are other direct witnesses. But there is never anything remotely morally questionable about taking into account the presence or absence of any direct witness of capability during hiring. Including degrees.
    - 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]