31–40 of 177 posts
> 30% of Black applicants apply to at least one position that demonstrates adverse impact against Black applicants.
The whole thing reads like a tautology.
> To measure adverse impact, we apply the EEOC’s “four-fifths rule,” which flags a position when one group is recommended at less than 80% of the rate of the most-recommended group That seems like a nonsensical way to measure racial discrimination. What could justify it?
It's a starting point to flag. Here's some analysis of what it is and why it's useful as a canary in the coal mine: https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-a...
> Since the 80% test does not involve probability distributions to determine whether the disparity is a “beyond chance” occurrence, it is usually not regarded as a definitive test for adverse impact. Instead, other statistically significance tests, such as the standard deviation analysis, may be used for this purpose.
But then my question recurs: isn’t this a ridiculous way to measure discrimination? It’s assuming that the only thing that differs between the different ethnic applicant pools is their ethnicity, which is essentially never going to be true.
> To measure adverse impact, we apply the EEOC’s “four-fifths rule,” which flags a position when one group is recommended at less than 80% of the rate of the most-recommended group That seems like a nonsensical way to measure racial discrimination. What could justify it?
This is an application of the disparate impact doctrine. Even facially neutral policies are considered suspect if they produce results that correlate against protected groups, irrespective of intent. This doctrine is the basis for much of employment law. It is a significant reason why employers don't administer IQ tests (or equivalents) to screen candidates since ~the 90s. A common objection to the doctrine is that i…
> To put this in perspective: If the AI had recommended Black and Asian candidates at the same rate as it recommended the most-favored group (typically white applicants) Some people just can't help but put their biases on display at every opportunity, even when it comes to the most minute details.
The phrase "most-favored" means, "most recommended by the AI relative to the field".
What did you think this sentence meant?
I tried it before, and discrimination is there, I would get one resume rejected quickly and few days later the same company would invite another resume for a screening call. I tried this before and after AI hype, results weren’t that different btw, and that was tested in US and Canada employers only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a starting point to flag. Here's some analysis of what it is and why it's useful as a canary in the coal mine: https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-a...
Thanks. I read the article: > Since the 80% test does not involve probability distributions to determine whether the disparity is a “beyond chance” occurrence, it is usually not regarded as a definitive test for adverse impact. Instead, other statistically significance tests, such as the standard deviation analysis, may be used for this purpose. But then my question recurs: isn’t this a ridiculous way to measure disc…
Like. If I am evaluating a developer on lines of code written, I am a bad manager. But if an engineer has 40% fewer lines of code than the team median, it's absolutely ok for me to go, "Interesting. What's the story there? Are they slower or is there some other factor?"
Same idea -- this is purely a fast, first pass metric that can quickly assess if something warrants a deeper evaluation.
>If the AI had recommended Black and Asian candidates at the same rate as it recommended the most-favored group (typically white applicants), 40,000 more of their applications would have advanced to the next stage of hiring.
I don't think this is the right benchmark here, or at least, it would be very interesting if the actual outcome, offer or rejected, was considered at the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a starting point to flag. Here's some analysis of what it is and why it's useful as a canary in the coal mine: https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-a...
Thanks. I read the article: > Since the 80% test does not involve probability distributions to determine whether the disparity is a “beyond chance” occurrence, it is usually not regarded as a definitive test for adverse impact. Instead, other statistically significance tests, such as the standard deviation analysis, may be used for this purpose. But then my question recurs: isn’t this a ridiculous way to measure disc…
If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline misleading" you should say that instead of misrepresenting the 4/5ths rule. Also the word "can" implies uncertainty of conclusion. This isn't ridiculous, the authors point out that this is the first large scale study of this topic. Nothing has been "proven" here, it's showing that this warrants further investigation and attention.
Do you read many academic papers, because you seem to be having a rough go here.