Live data from Hacker News

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

tracingwoodgrains.com

651–660 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spending any tax money on programs designed to only help "DEI" causes is racist. DEI has only one cause, and that is avoiding discrimination on non-germane axes, particulalry by subtle, non-obvious means, such as relying on biased funnels.

wrong, it doesn't avoid discrimnation, it enforces it. companies are doing stuff like 'must include candidates from for open reqs at grade XX or above'

Those companies (I'm having trouble finding any current ones, though there are few notable past examples that have been shot down in court) are doing DEI wrong.

The last two places I've worked (one a university) had DEI goals of hiring the most qualified person for the job, without regard to race, etc. The whole point was to stress the "without regard to" part.

We do collect data and try to correct imbalances by making sure our candidate pools have good coverage (i.e. they aren't discriminatory). But every offer we extend goes to the most qualified candidate, without regard to race, etc., to the very best of our ability.

It's also more comprehensive than just hiring and race.

For example, one goal is that a student in the National Guard with a side job gets the same shot as one unemployed living with their parents. What can you do to help facilitate that without reducing the impact of the program?

There's evidence that spatial reasoning is important for learning Computer Science. There's evidence that men and women can both develop spatial reasoning skills. There's evidence that men in general get more practice than women in this regard, potentially putting women at a disadvantage in the program. What can you do to help level that playing field without weakening the material?

Lastly, coming out against DEI programs whose goal is to hire based solely on merit and not race or other factors... not a good look. So you might want to specify which kind of DEI you're really against.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Ok, I think enough is enough and have banned this account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40660693 (June 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39099968 (Jan 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38921687 (Jan 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25830600 (Jan 2021)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22746689 (April 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21068892 (Sept 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20308569 (June 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20157648 (June 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16782569 (April 2018)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719891 (March 2018)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16691736 (March 2018)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973671 (Aug 2017)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13952958 (March 2017)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13199347 (Dec 2016)

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#653
post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our guardrail is the assumption that our hiring process is blind, and our workforce demographics should closely mirror general population demographics as a result > If our demographics start to diverge, we re-eval our process to look for bias or see if we can do better at recruiting These are not good assumptions. 80% of pediatricians are women. Why would a hospital expect to hire 50% male pediatricians when only 2…

> These are not good assumptions. 80% of pediatricians are women. Why would a hospital expect to hire 50% male pediatricians when only 20% of pediatricians are men? If you saw a hospital that had 50% male pediatricians, that means they're hiring male pediatricians at 4x the rate of women. That's pretty strong evidence that female candidates aren't being given equal employment opportunity. We track these, but don't es…

> To give you a more solid answer, in our data we see that men are a bit overrepresented in our platform engineering roles, while women are within our data science and ML roles. General backend/frontend roles are fairly balanced. Overall engineering metrics roughly fit out guardrails. We look at the same for management, leadership, sales, and customer support.

So you have a slightly more than 50% women in data science, a field that's 15-20% women [1]. Likewise, software development is ~20% women. But your frontend and backend roles have 50/50 men and women. You're achieving results representative of the general population but you're obtaining a very large overrepresentation of women relative to their representation in the workforce. We're talking overrepresentation by a factor of four or five.

All of the fields you listed ~80% male. This isn't like a hospital that's equally comprised of urologists and OB/GYNs. It's like a hospital exclusively comprised of urologists, but somehow hires 50% women.

> I don't have direct data on the recruitment -> interview process on hand. I work on the interviewing side though, and can tell you anecdotally that I've run dozens of interviews and overall haven't noticed a discrepancy in the candidates I've seen.

Discrepancy is a relative statement. What is the gender breakdown of the candidates you've interviewed? Remember, if the software developers you're interviewing are 50/50 men and women, that is representative of the general population but it's a 4x overrepresentation of women relative to their representation in the field. If by "no discrepancy" you mean "no discrepancy relative to the general population" it sure sounds like female applicants have a much better shot at getting interviewed. If you're seeing 50 / 50 male and female interviewees in a field that's 80% male, you really ought to question whether recruiters are using gender as a factor in deciding which applicants to advance to interviews.

Is your company's goal to achieve representation equitable with respect to the general population, even if it means applicants from one gender are significantly disadvantaged in interviewing? Or is it to give equal employment opportunities to candidates, regardless of their gender? It sure sounds like your company is pursuing the former. I would highly suggest pushing for more transparency in the application to interview pipline if you care about gender equality.

1. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/women-in-computer-data-scie...

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#654
post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea when I have done hiring the vast majority of applicants were of specific races and demographics. It isn’t a private companies’ job to skew hiring outcomes away from the demographics of the incoming pool of qualified applicants. If you have 95% female applicants for a position I would expect that roughly 95% of hires are going to be female and vice versa. I think it is damaging when hiring outcomes are skewed as w…

> If you have 95% female applicants for a position I would expect that roughly 95% of hires are going to be female and vice versa. I would disagree for the most part. As mentioned above, there are roles where you'll see gender bias that may not be addressable. In the OB/GYN example, I understand some women would only be comfortable with a doctor that is also a woman. That's not necessarily addressable by shoe-horning…

> Otherwise, in my opinion, a candidate pool that is 95% some demographic shows a severe deficiency in the ability to attract candidates.

If the job in question is 95% one gender it does not at all show a deficiency in attracting candidates. 87% of pharmeceutical technicans are women (in the uk) as per: https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-d...

If I'm interviewing for pharmaceutical technicians, and my goals is to give all candidates equal opportunity for employment, why would I expect something vastly different from 87% women? If the candidate pool for pharmaceutical technicians was somehow 50/50, then it'd indicate a severe deficiency in attracting female candidates on account of the massive underrepresentation relative to the workforce of pharmaceutical technicians.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#655
post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ok, I think enough is enough and have banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40660693 (June 2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39099968 (Jan 2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38921687 (Jan 2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25830600 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22746689 (April 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21068892 (Sept 2019) https://news.yc…

[dead]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI quotas have been around for decades. We just used to call it affirmative action and it was far less aggressive and blatant.

Affirmative action is strictly _better_ than some of the DEI nonsense. With affirmative action, you just reserve a bunch of positions for minorities, and then give them out based on merit. With most of DEI, you either tweak the criteria to make job positions easier to get for minorities, or you lower your standards.

[dead]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I feel like often people in your position don't have a basic undestanding why racism is wrong. You don't have a concept or any empathy for how racism affects individual people, all you see is the broad identity group itself. You don't understand the individual core experience of what racism does to people, dehumanizing them, prejudicially dismissing their life and individuality on the basis of skin color. Or at least…

[dead]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#658
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation. I'm as blue as they come, but let's not mince words. This was a racial equity policy. Like a lot of them, it was designed by idiots and/or racists. Much like the elite college admissions lawsuit, we don't need to guess at people's ideology - they WROTE DOWN that the cognitive test "disad…

> they WROTE DOWN that the cognitive test "disadvantaged" black applicants Which would mean entirely different things if (a) that were true (b) that were not true. It sounds as if you are completely convinced that it is not true, but what is your conviction based on, and why do you think they believed the opposite (or perhaps you take the position that they did not, in fact, believe this) ?

[dead]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#659
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation. I'm as blue as they come, but let's not mince words. This was a racial equity policy. Like a lot of them, it was designed by idiots and/or racists. Much like the elite college admissions lawsuit, we don't need to guess at people's ideology - they WROTE DOWN that the cognitive test "disad…

I agree with calling people out. > This was a racial equity policy. Like a lot of them, it was designed by idiots and/or racists. So a policy can be labeled an 'equity policy' and have nothing to do with equity in either intent or result, which is what I would expect from an 'equity policy' written by a racist. Call it corruption, call it fraudulent activity, but it does it seems like there was only lip service to eq…

[flagged]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between this and the college scandal is that there were limited numbers of seats at colleges, so to putting in an underqualified white student meant you had to pull an overqualified Asian student. The situation here was the ATC was chronically understaffed and unable to fill positions. So an effort for them to boost applications makes sense even under non-DEI principles.

> The difference between this and the college scandal is that there were limited numbers of seats at colleges, so to putting in an underqualified white student meant you had to pull an overqualified Asian student. I know this is a tangent, but in case people read this, they may get the wrong idea. While some elite universities like Harvard have a cap on how many people they admit (leading to the displacement you refe…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN