Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

tracingwoodgrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#541

Post by andsoitis »

legitster wrote: post #115
andsoitis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then selling it as a new scandal is already a popular MO for state-sponsored propoganda, I don't know that it is limited to, or even most prevalent, in state-sponsored propaganda. Private individuals, media, etc. do this too without any state sponsorship.

Sure, I wasn't even insinuating that this was state-sponsored, just highlighting that it's known to be a super effective way to manipulate stories.

> I wasn't even insinuating that this was state-sponsored, just highlighting that it's known to be a super effective way to manipulate stories

And yet, although this is a fact, the choice and the phrasing paints a particular story.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#542

Post by stackskipton »

clutchdude wrote: post #523
stackskipton wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, COVID didn't help either. However, I'll note that hiring != actual ATC controllers because drop/fail rate which for some insane reason is so hard to find.

Here ya go: Academy attrition on page 38. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/controller_staf...

Figure, it was in a PDF that search engines had trouble scraping. I feel like FAA is burying this data on purpose because it looks terrible.

Reading deeper, on page 40 that has historical data, starting FY14 when this survey had been implemented and initial class hired, Academy Training Attrition appears to be much higher though all I can base this on is comparing bar graph sizes. So yes, this change to hiring process did impact staffing levels because academy attrition was higher.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#543

Post by jquery »

Khaine wrote: post #363
jquery wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the best DEI successes are the ones that reduce bias without relying on clumsy quotas. Blind auditions in orchestras led to a big jump in women getting hired. Intel’s push to fund scholarships and partner with HBCUs broadened their pipeline in a real way. And groups like Code2040 connect Black and Latino engineers with mentors and jobs, targeting root causes instead of surface-level fixes.

Yes, famously the Australian Government tried that and undid it as pesky white men were being hired at a greater rate because of them[1]. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...

The difference was within the margin of error (only a 3% change), which is very inconclusive. That's fine. Making the world a more inclusive place is hard. There's lots of people (see this thread) who clearly believe that certain races and genders are biologically superior.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#544

Post by gr3ml1n »

kenjackson wrote: post #442
gr3ml1n wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Everything is downstream of the pressure on organizations to address disparate impact. Some examples: When a company is under pressure to boost the number of X engineers, they quickly run into the 'pipeline problem'. There simply isn't enough X engineers on the market. So they address that by creating scholarship funds exclusively for race X. When a school is under pressure to have the racial makeup of it…

The study did show it. The author of this critique properly notes that Table 4 is not an apples to apples comparison. The author of the study notes that expanding the pool of women as used in Table 4 likely brought in less talented musicians disproportionately. Table 5 does the more apples to apples comparison. The critique notes that sample size is too small, but it captures 445 blind women, 816 blind men, 599 non-b…

No, it doesn't. This is a dramatic reach and complete misunderstanding of the stats. The data in table 5 is not statistically significant.

If you go down to table 6 (which is also incredibly weak), it shows the opposite: men are advancing at a higher rate than women in blind auditions.

Andrew Gelman reviewed the link as well and agreed:

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-...

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#545

Post by jquery »

fallingknife wrote: post #454
jquery wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is not “absolute proof” of anything, it’s just a discussion if blind auditions are the be-all end-all. Your comment is very low quality and unnecessarily hostile. Referring to Black people discussing how to get more minorities interested in orchestras as “DEI goons” is one step removed from a slur.

I intend to slur the DEI goons. My opinion of the DEI bureaucracy is such that there is no way to express it politely. 'Contempt' and 'hate' would be such an understatement as to be dishonest.

So what do you think of all the "DEI" hires in the Trump administration? Or do you think a second-rate alcoholic domestic abusing Fox News host is the best individual on the merits to run the DoD?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#546

Post by Aloisius »

tstrimple wrote: post #444
fwip wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misread something, because that's not true.

"It's the only answer for that question which provides points*" Is what I meant. https://i.imgur.com/2hRa1eQ.png

It's the first question that provides points, not the only one.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#547

Post by tstrimple »

Aloisius wrote: post #546
tstrimple wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's the only answer for that question which provides points*" Is what I meant. https://i.imgur.com/2hRa1eQ.png

It's the first question that provides points, not the only one.

It clearly states that if you choose anything other than science for that question, you get zero points. It's literally in the quiz and captured in a screen shot. How is this controversial or confusing at all?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#548

Post by amluto »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #466
immibis wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you start with 500 slots to fill, 1000 qualified white applicants and 10 qualified black applicants What you're supposed to do is go to places with more black people and start advertising to people in general they can become air traffic controllers. Then take them through air traffic controller training school and at the end, you *don't* have only 10 qualified black applicants.

There are only so many black people in the country. Every skilled job has this problem; poaching can make you look slightly better but it does nothing overall and will make wherever you poached your qualified black applicants from look worse.

> There are only so many black people in the country.

The US population is around 1/8 black. Which means, if every kid has an equal opportunity (in an absolute sense or on average) to develop the requisite skills to be an air traffic controller and if every kid was equally inclined to apply, and the application process were fair, then eventually around 1/8 of air traffic controllers would be black. Which seems like a good outcome.

If 1/8 of the population is black and someone is trying to get 1/4 of air traffic controllers to be black, that seems like a mistake.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#549

Post by Xelynega »

int_19h wrote: post #405
theossuary wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally one of the things DEI programs push to implement. I have a friend who helps make hiring decisions and this is one of the changes their DEI push included, as well as pulling from a larger pool. It just shows how much propaganda there is around DEI, you're saying we should get rid of DEI and replace it with the things DEI was trying to do. It really has become the new critical race theory.

It really depends on what the outcome is. There has been pro-DEI pushback on blind interviews and auditions when it resulted in fewer minorities being represented. One particularly famous case is when GitHub shut down their conference on diversity grounds after the blind paper review process resulted in a speaker slate that was all male. For another example, here's a pitch against blind auditions for orchestras to "m…

In both those examples, why are you not giving the benefit of the doubt to the failed attempts?

If GitHub attempted to anonymize applications and resulted in a biased selection, can that not be a result of them failing to eliminate the bias they set out to?

Same with the blind auditions for orchestras, if they found that they weren't actually eliminating bias with the stated methods, why is it bad that they're not doing it anymore?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#550

Post by Xelynega »

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #211
boohoo123 wrote: post #118

There's a simple fix to removing discrimination in hiring practices that no one seems to notice. Remove all demographic questions from the application. Hide the name and gender and attach a applicant ID. It's as easy as that. Every job should be looking for the most qualified individual regardless of race, nationality, religion, and sex. Demographics in the application are a recipe for disaster on both sides of the i…

Agreed. However Progressives argue (wrongly in my opinion) that taking into account a person’s race and gender identity is the only wait to guard against discrimination. They explicitly regard ‘merit’ based hiring as racist and discriminatory.

Who is this "progressive" that for some reason is only allowed to speak in the most general of statements and not make claims backed up with evidence?

A lot of people seem to be arguing against caricatures of arguments either they or people theg trust have instilled in them, and not actual points being made by actual people...

Post reply on HN