Hacker News Reader

Comment by 908B64B197 | Hacker News Reader

> Such blind hiring trials are quickly shuttered and swept under the rug to avoid rattling the PC orthodoxy.

France tried it and it backfired spectacularly.

It's kinda sad because it creates two categories of devs when looking at internal hiring: people you know are there on merit and people who maybe got a little bit of help from "the quota".

I've heard it (in engineering only meetings) "you know this guy is solid, he went to X and he's asian so you know he's there for the right reasons".

Something I have to wonder is are women and minorities... ok with this?

View on HN

> Something I have to wonder is are women and minorities... ok with this?

I'm a woman, and I work in tech though not on tech (content marketing). Affirmative action infuriates me. Every time I get offered an institution-based opportunity, I have to wonder, is it actually me, or do they just want to juice the diversity numbers? I know that other people are wondering too, so it becomes important to demonstrate that I could have earned my way into the room. Luckily I'm pretty good at that, so I don't get questioned after opening my mouth.

This was one of the reasons why I stopped applying to speak at conferences — I realized that acceptance meant less about me than about the general applicant pool.

People who are highly technically competent but have a chip on their shoulder are are worst to work with.

This makes it sound like there is only one kind of quota in the world. Speaking as a woman who worked in tech for many years, I saw a ton of mediocre dudes get promoted and a ton of super-talented women stay at the bottom rung. I also had workplaces where all the leadership just happened to be caucasian males from the same tight-knit religion.

Somehow, promoting folks who are culturally just like you (in spite of mediocre ability) is considered a meritocracy, while hiring folks who DON'T look like you is considered a lower-quality diversity hire?

And, speaking of hiring just by resumes, I attended Harvard and we had something even lower status than the waitlist -- the "z list." That was the just-squeaking-in applicants who came from wealthy / connected families, but who wouldn't have gotten in otherwise. I knew one of them; he was not the brightest. But later on, he'd have Harvard on his resume and might outperform another applicant on a blind application. When you dig into it, the so-called meritocracy is often just a machine for consolidating privilege among the already privileged.

I agree with you. However I don’t see a way to truly fix the problem. If your parents are doing well, have a stable loving marriage, highly encourage education etc. you are always going to have a massive advantage compared with a kid who’s parents are divorced/disfunctional, doesn’t consider getting a good education important etc. Also, it is a fact that most people feel more comfortable and communicate better with people who has a similar background to themselves. The soft skills matter a lot more than people think. Yes it is unfair and there is a way to reduce the disadvantages: free health care and free education. It doesn’t completely remove the problems (you don’t choose your parents/culture) but it does make it more likely that disadvantages kids can realise their potential.

It would also help if talented woman/minorities founded more software companies. It does happen but it seems to be more rare? Do you have any insight into why that is? Have you ever considered starting a biz yourself?

And the anti-discrimination morons look at that sort of thing and think it's discrimination against women and minorities.

>>>Something I have to wonder is are women and minorities... ok with this?

As a minority, coming from the largely blind-meritocracy of the military: NO. Same for the vast majority of minority service members and veterans that I know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com