3 ms·

@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 nu

by 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.
  - randomdata 11y ago
    > The link between skill and gender is not CAUSAL. I'm not sure it is relevant to the discussion. The question was asked in the context of your concern about the overhead of interviewing people. You are using a degree as a simple filter, and gender is equally applicable in that regard. Statistically, for our aforementioned example, a suitable candidate will be found in the male population of applicants due to the reasons we already discussed. So, why bother wasting your time and associated costs also interviewing women when you can be reasonably confident that the male candidates will provide someone suitable? It is very possible that a great employee lies in that group of women, and it is very possible that a great employee lies in those without degrees, but you have made it clear that you don't have time to evaluate them all. > You're pretending like there's no causal link between education and capability. You are wrong. Period. I'm getting a distinct impression that you haven't fully understood my comments. That may very well be my failing, but this becomes a completely pointless discussion if that persists. > Hiring someone based upon degree is absolutely no different from hiring someone based upon whether they have prior work experience. Absolutely not true. What you are essentially saying is that even among those who have prior experience, you will only hire those whose experience came from Google or Microsoft. There are a number of practical reasons why a perfectly suitable candidate is unable to work at either of those companies before working for you, even though they do come with relevant experience from somewhere else. I understand from your point of view why hiring from only past Google and Microsoft employees is desirable, but what about the people who were unable to work at those places? You really don't see the problem with that?
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      > You really don't see the problem with that? I don't see a moral or ethical problem with it, no. And the democratic consensus in most western countries agrees. Choosing one applicant over another because of prior work history or education is just making informed decisions. Choosing on applicant over another because of their gender is illegal discrimination. I understand you feel like people who don't have degrees deserve equal footing in the job market. But they don't, and business don't have any moral, ethical, or legal obligation to forego their own best interest and take bets on higher risk hires.

by nmrm2 11y ago

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.
- randomdata 11y ago
  > The link between skill and gender is not CAUSAL. I'm not sure it is relevant to the discussion. The question was asked in the context of your concern about the overhead of interviewing people. You are using a degree as a simple filter, and gender is equally applicable in that regard. Statistically, for our aforementioned example, a suitable candidate will be found in the male population of applicants due to the reasons we already discussed. So, why bother wasting your time and associated costs also interviewing women when you can be reasonably confident that the male candidates will provide someone suitable? It is very possible that a great employee lies in that group of women, and it is very possible that a great employee lies in those without degrees, but you have made it clear that you don't have time to evaluate them all. > You're pretending like there's no causal link between education and capability. You are wrong. Period. I'm getting a distinct impression that you haven't fully understood my comments. That may very well be my failing, but this becomes a completely pointless discussion if that persists. > Hiring someone based upon degree is absolutely no different from hiring someone based upon whether they have prior work experience. Absolutely not true. What you are essentially saying is that even among those who have prior experience, you will only hire those whose experience came from Google or Microsoft. There are a number of practical reasons why a perfectly suitable candidate is unable to work at either of those companies before working for you, even though they do come with relevant experience from somewhere else. I understand from your point of view why hiring from only past Google and Microsoft employees is desirable, but what about the people who were unable to work at those places? You really don't see the problem with that?
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > You really don't see the problem with that? I don't see a moral or ethical problem with it, no. And the democratic consensus in most western countries agrees. Choosing one applicant over another because of prior work history or education is just making informed decisions. Choosing on applicant over another because of their gender is illegal discrimination. I understand you feel like people who don't have degrees deserve equal footing in the job market. But they don't, and business don't have any moral, ethical, or legal obligation to forego their own best interest and take bets on higher risk hires.