"They also found that participating firms attached less importance to interrupted work histories or other negative signals for minority candidates. This suggests that anonymizing resumes may have made it more difficult for employers that were originally more favorable to minority candidates, to identify these candidates, and to assess their application in light of the adverse employment conditions many of them face."
That makes sense. It's sort of like how I wouldn't expect someone from Kentucky to have the same internship opportunities as someone from the bay area, but if I cant see their location then all I have to go off of is the listed experience.
"if an employer wants to not hire you because of your race/gender/nationality etc, it can do it anyway in a later stage"
First, you're increasing the probability of discrimination by making it possible earlier on. The number of people that could exclude you goes up; e.g. the initial, possibly external, recruiter (who is screening hundreds of candidates) who would never otherwise have seen your face, can now discriminate on appearance.
Secondly, people are less discriminatory to people they've actually met and gotten to know somewhat. A picture of an anonymous person, with very little other information to go off of, may affect someone's judgement quite strongly; whereas, when you actually meet and talk with someone, have a lot of other information about them, and they are no longer anonymous, physical appearance will have less influence.
I interviewed with them for a few different positions and worked for them once. Do not recommend. A toxic 'shark tank' like workplace culture and very middling salary.
"Even 4x2 hour interviews is still only the equivalent of a single workday."
So about $400 of labor?
Neither the prospective employee or employer get a good 'feel' of each other because both are giving 'performances' in a completely different context than actual work.
No one has any real, statistically valid and logically sound, data on hiring practices. It's all dogma & "intuition".
you kind of answered your own question with the next to paragraphs. Other car manufacturers don't call their adaptive cruise control 'autopilot' or 'full self driving'.
"Normal" cars don't call their adaptive cruise control 'autopilot' or sell "Full" self driving that doesn't exist yet.
disengaging the autopilot or reducing speed at the wrong time is already occurring quite often with autopilot. If these are unacceptable level of risk introduced by using autopilot, then autopilot should not be used.
These don't contradict each other at all, unless you don't understand the fundamental idea of a team or organization.
Let's say I have ten people with experience A. I add an 11th person with experience A. My team still just has experience A.
I have ten people with experience A, and I add an 11th person with experience B. Now my team has experiences A & B.
Breadth of knowledge and perspective is the heart of innovation. Adding a wider variety of experiences to an organization improves its ability to solve problems.
Now, this is so obvious, I'm left wondering why you're so desperate to maintain the illusion that women are inferior in some way?
I'm pretty selective although I'm fairly low caliber. I have alternative income so I'm never in a rush to get hired.
I'm sometimes surprised by weird hiring practices at a place I didn't expect. Even different positions at the same FAANG can be completely different experiences.
The same thing happens at private enterprise because free market incentives don't apply internally; i.e. if I double my productivity it won't actually affect my income at all.
That's a very good analogy. Much of role is just coordinating; expecting your team to self-coordinate is expecting your team to do your job for you, and leaving things up to chance.
I mean, I'm in the same boat as you. I just hate that I have to rely on this type of information, subject to all the flaws and biases of relying on personal experience.
In my experience, it's useful to have a couple 'jack-of-all-trades' types on the team, but you wouldn't want all your engineers to be broad but shallow. I did a stint in the military to pay for college, and something we'd point out was that it was better to have something 'good enough' right now than something perfect a thousand miles away. Breadth of experience is also handy when trying to innovate a novel solution.
But I don't have any better evidence than you. I've never worked anywhere large enough to have that sort of data where we could demonstrate quantitatively that one method works better than another, and of course the metrics are all fairly arbitrary themselves.
All data is meaningless if interpreted or used incorrectly. Is there any evidence supporting the use of psychometric evaluations in the context of making hiring decisions? Just intuitively, I would think the predictive power would be low.
That makes sense. It's sort of like how I wouldn't expect someone from Kentucky to have the same internship opportunities as someone from the bay area, but if I cant see their location then all I have to go off of is the listed experience.