Race and hiring revisited!

[fskimospy]

Hey, remember that landmark study "Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal"? It was a pretty big deal as it demonstrated major racial bias in hiring within the US. Despite pretty extensive controls put into the research, people kept desperately trying to find some other reason than racism for the disparity. One of the ones they settled on was class.

Good news then! Recently a new study was put out that explicitly accounted for class:
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/09/sf.sou111

Guess what? Discrimination still there.

In this research, I examine employment opportunities for white and black graduates of elite top-ranked universities versus high-ranked but less selective institutions. Using an audit design, I create matched candidate pairs and apply for 1,008 jobs on a national job-search website. I also exploit existing birth-record data in selecting names to control for differences across social class within racialized names. The results show that although a credential from an elite university results in more employer responses for all candidates, black candidates from elite universities only do as well as white candidates from less selective universities. Moreover, race results in a double penalty: When employers respond to black candidates, it is for jobs with lower starting salaries and lower prestige than those of white peers. These racial differences suggest that a bachelor's degree, even one from an elite institution, cannot fully counteract the importance of race in the labor market. Thus, both discrimination and differences in human capital contribute to racial economic inequality.

Does this change anyone's mind? (my guess is no, but you never give up hope!)

 

[Newell Steamer]

Does this change anyone's mind? (my guess is no, but you never give up hope!)

I never considered the opposition to acknowledge discrimination as a way of thinking or a "as a matter of fact" type of stance. It's frankly just a lie - a mechanism to hide the truth of why they feel this way.

People who refuse to acknowledge discrimination do so, because they want to continue to discriminate. By acknowledging discrimination, that is the 1st step to allowing the discriminated party into the fold,.. and that is certainly not acceptable.

 

[TreVader]

Dis-cri-mi.....na-nation?



Never heard of it.

 

[Subyman]

I'm not surprised. I'd think it may be more of a regional thing though.

 

[mrjminer]

Pretty hard to judge if all you get access to is an abstract.

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty hard to judge if all you get access to is an abstract.

Nobody here actually reads the studies anyway, but in case you wanted to:

http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/120818

 

[thraashman]

The people who are most likely to show racial bias are also the ones most likely to deny it still exists. If not obvious those people are overwhelmingly conservative in their political leanings.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hey, remember that landmark study "Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal"? It was a pretty big deal as it demonstrated major racial bias in hiring within the US. Despite pretty extensive controls put into the research, people kept desperately trying to find some other reason than racism for the disparity. One of the ones they settled on was class.

Good news then! Recently a new study was put out that explicitly accounted for class:
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/09/sf.sou111

Guess what? Discrimination still there.



Does this change anyone's mind? (my guess is no, but you never give up hope!)

Interesting, but is there a link to the actual study? I see the summary conclusion blurb, but not what exactly was done and how they came to those conclusions.

Not that the results surprise me BTW.

<edit> you posted the link before I finished my post. Thanks!

 

[Spungo]

I don't care how white you are. I'm not hiring someone named Bubba-Joe. Or maybe I would. If someone has a name like Ladynasty (pronounced "la dynasty") has a degree in math with a minor in physics, I would probably want to meet them and see what's up.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't care how white you are. I'm not hiring someone named Bubba-Joe. Or maybe I would. If someone has a name like Ladynasty (pronounced "la dynasty") has a degree in math with a minor in physics, I would probably want to meet them and see what's up.

One of my favorite Always Sunny episodes!

 

[glenn1]

The perceived merit of minority candidates has been diluted by well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive activities to increase minority representation in higher ed. University admissions fetishes for diversity and willingness to bend/break quotas laws and even their own admissions criteria have cast doubt on the equal merit of many minority students. And many "elite" universities don't seem to care if black students graduate, only that they have the right racial mix since they can just churn more black freshmen through next year.

How to fix this? Bring back the ability for employers to test intelligence and aptitude directly rather than by using college as a rough proxy. Use a system similar to the "blind auditions" used by symphonies to hire musicians and let the best and brightest rise to the top.



http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9343483

 

[Subyman]

The perceived merit of minority candidates has been diluted by well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive activities to increase minority representation in higher ed. University admissions fetishes for diversity and willingness to bend/break quotas laws and even their own admissions criteria have cast doubt on the equal merit of many minority students. And many "elite" universities don't seem to care if black students graduate, only that they have the right racial mix since they can just churn more black freshmen through next year.

How to fix this? Bring back the ability for employers to test intelligence and aptitude directly rather than by using college as a rough proxy. Use a system similar to the "blind auditions" used by symphonies to hire musicians and let the best and brightest rise to the top.



http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9343483

Many do that. Depends on the field. The programming field typically requires a competency test during the interview. Some actually give you a marker and tell you to write code on a white board or ask you to explain how you would structure code. I had to do a 45 min presentation, much like a dissertation, during one of the interviews after college while also spending the entire day with staff before getting to the actual sit-down interview. Again, it just depends on the field and what is required from the position.

 

[fskimospy]

The perceived merit of minority candidates has been diluted by well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive activities to increase minority representation in higher ed. University admissions fetishes for diversity and willingness to bend/break quotas laws and even their own admissions criteria have cast doubt on the equal merit of many minority students. And many "elite" universities don't seem to care if black students graduate, only that they have the right racial mix since they can just churn more black freshmen through next year.

How to fix this? Bring back the ability for employers to test intelligence and aptitude directly rather than by using college as a rough proxy. Use a system similar to the "blind auditions" used by symphonies to hire musicians and let the best and brightest rise to the top.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9343483

It's hard to see how that has any bearing on this study whatsoever.

The preference you are talking about for minority candidates comes from input values to colleges such as SAT scores and high school grades. The attributes being measured here are the people who graduated and the GPA achieved at that college. ie: output values.

If employers were concerned about the effect of less 'capable' minorities being admitted to these colleges they would ask for SAT and high school GPA scores as well. They do not.

 

[Spungo]

Many do that. Depends on the field. The programming field typically requires a competency test during the interview. Some actually give you a marker and tell you to write code on a white board or ask you to explain how you would structure code. I had to do a 45 min presentation, much like a dissertation, during one of the interviews after college while also spending the entire day with staff before getting to the actual sit-down interview. Again, it just depends on the field and what is required from the position.

If you want to see real racism and sexism, look at jobs where the interview consists of HR people asking questions. Engineers and scientists really don't care what you look like; they just want someone intelligent. HR people are the exact opposite. I'm an engineer, and most interviews for engineering jobs have no technical questions at all. The HR people don't care how much you know or how much you can help the company. They just care about how threatened they feel or how much they like you. If you happen to be black, you're screwed.

You're also at a disadvantage if you're a young woman who is reasonably attractive and not yet bogged down a family you hate.
http://www.livescience.com/9038-attractive-women-hired.html

 

[glenn1]

Many do that. Depends on the field. The programming field typically requires a competency test during the interview. Some actually give you a marker and tell you to write code on a white board or ask you to explain how you would structure code. I had to do a 45 min presentation, much like a dissertation, during one of the interviews after college while also spending the entire day with staff before getting to the actual sit-down interview. Again, it just depends on the field and what is required from the position.

Broad-based testing is illegal and it would be completely impractical for first level screening to be done this way. Do you really think a company will spend 45 minutes per applicant to determine basic competency when they may get 100s or 1000s of applicants for any given position?

Thus in lieu of that, employers use simple heuristics for basic hire screening; things like an applicant's college is a big part. And yes, if race can be reasonably deduced that will be used to "discount" the college weighting accordingly for the reasons I stated above. If standards were the same for all races that wouldn't be a factor, but then colleges and leftists wouldn't get the end results they want.

 

[Subyman]

Broad-based testing is illegal and it would be completely impractical for first level screening to be done this way. Do you really think a company will spend 45 minutes per applicant to determine basic competency when they may get 100s or 1000s of applicants for any given position?

Thus in lieu of that, employers use simple heuristics for basic hire screening; things like an applicant's college is a big part. And yes, if race can be reasonably deduced that will be used to "discount" the college weighting accordingly for the reasons I stated above. If standards were the same for all races that wouldn't be a factor, but then colleges and leftists wouldn't get the end results they want.

So you are talking about the first pass over the applicants? Yeah, I don't see a detailed analysis of each person working out. I don't think there is a perfect way. Even if you could do testing on the first pass, the questions could come under fire as being too narrowly focused on one culture. The controversies are never ending.

 

[Spungo]

Broad-based testing is illegal and it would be completely impractical for first level screening to be done this way. Do you really think a company will spend 45 minutes per applicant to determine basic competency when they may get 100s or 1000s of applicants for any given position?

Why not? It usually takes months to fill a job position. Instead of sitting in a circle and jerking each other off for several months, why not use that time to test the applicants? It would probably work a lot better than having a 60 minute interview about a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with your job.
"Tell us about a time you've experienced conflict in the workplace and how you overcame that conflict."
What kind of stupid fucking question is that? How many people actually have conflicts at their jobs? Even if that is the case, you can't give an honest answer. You can't say you set the guy up to get fired, it worked, and you were victorious. You need to give some fake answer that is the same as the answer given by every other candidate. Hundreds of hours are spent on this interview process and it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

[mrjminer]

Nobody here actually reads the studies anyway, but in case you wanted to:

http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/120818

Red flags:

To address my research questions, I use an experimental​

research design​

known as an audit study to match candidate pairs and apply for jobs listed on a​

national job search website..

Although these findings refute recent​

methodologically sophisticated research using survey data on college selectivity, I suggest​

that​

the context of the current higher education environment explains these differences

Thus, employers may hire individuals​

through shared networks based on education connections.

Just in the first five pages of skimming. I read a few more pages, but it is obvious he is selectively presenting information and not drawing valid comparisons, and introducing ideas with no contrary explanation or research to back it up. 75% of what I skimmed through was purely speculative, or plain stupid.

Later in the data and methods on page 19:

I created a series of candidate profiles by​

varying each candidate's listed college of attendance, college major, race, gender, social class,​

and geographic location

In other words, the candidate profiles he created in his "experimental" method of research were all different. Pretty fucking amusing based on his previous analysis of the factors involved in hiring. Not to mention, the admission in there that variability can be a result of computerized selection process, as well. Joke of a "study." I stopped after this.

Pretty big leap from the various citations and analysis he performs to back up that institutions, colleges, organizations, grades, activities, etc. are all what matter -- then to give candidates with "white" and "black" names different backgrounds on their resume -- only to then conclude that the reason is because they have white or black names.

 

[chucky2]

Man do I ever know what the study is talking about! Had to test when trying to get a summer job at Ford one summer. Took the test with about 2k other people (estimated), sat in the very back and the turnout was about 70% black, 30% non-black (white, latino). Each segment of the test had absurdly easy questions, so much so I was done in about 1/3 of the allocated time for each segment - after I went back and checked my work. At the start of the test, the Ford hiring manager for the plant, who is black, announced that Ford had a strict hiring policy, did not discriminate, those with the highest test score would be called first.

I was finally called to be a summer worker, for the last summer worker class - my dad finally went into HR and asked WTF was up, as he kept seeing the classes (all black) being walked through the plant on their orientation (wha, what happened to they don't discriminate????). Prior to the class we had to report to HR, where I literally got the last '89 dayer' (works M-F full time for up to 89 days) position, which is coveted, because the other option is M,F only. As I was finishing up, the same black hiring manager showed up with two black chicks wanting the HR lady to give them 89 dayer positions, to which she replied, 'That guy right there got the last one.' To say the black hiring manager looked at me with outright love and respect would be probably a very large lie.

So, Out of those 20 or so people in that class, there was one other white guy, one Mex, rest black. Half could hardly speak proper English - embarrassingly, the Mex spoke better English than about 90% of the black people there. The entire time on breaks, constantly would hear about 'Can't wait to get down there and start working, my baby needs <x>', or, 'So behind on rent got to get money else we be evicted' (followed by a few chiming in how to delay that), and on and on. We finally get down to the floor on Monday, 5:45 AM I'm there. Who do I see walking up to the forewomans desk? Why, the black hiring manager! Wow, they're looking right at me and talking, now she gestured to me. So the Mex from my class and I walk over as the forewoman points at us and gives us our jobs: I will be on shift cable, which is my at 6'3" hunched under the car all day, and the Mex will be on trans lines, which is him at about 5'9" on his tiptoes all day. Interesting choice of job assignment huh?

So over the next couple of weeks, as I'm there killing myself on shift cable, doubled up with a bumped guy from afternoons doing literally the last operation on my job, I keep seeing these people from my class walking past. Where were they going in the middle of a shift? Subbed out to another part of the plant? Nope. The job they were doubled up on (or was so easy a M,F person with zero training could do it alone) was too hard for them...they were quitting. Neither the Mex or I quit though, we stayed on for our almost full 89 days (they cut us at like day 87).

So I completely believe there are problems with race and hiring OP!

 

[Subyman]

chucky2, I wonder if there is something going on where they want a certain amount of the people to quit prematurely? Artificially bump their employment numbers?

 

[Jaskalas]

Guess what? Discrimination still there.

Human nature is not going to change. We are tribal. Discrimination is not just real, it is a pervasive human pathos.

I suppose you intend to use this to argue for affirmative action?

You would set quotas and judge people based on the color of their skin. Do two wrongs make a right?

 

[BoberFett]

One of my favorite Always Sunny episodes!

Hey, that's Shadynasty to you, mister.

 

[chucky2]

chucky2, I wonder if there is something going on where they want a certain amount of the people to quit prematurely? Artificially bump their employment numbers?

The people walking out weren't being overworked (I myself even as a 89 dayer was subbed out/doubled up on jobs...they are ridiculously easy with another temp working doing half the work, or, are the "p*ssy" jobs...jobs that the old timers/women/suckups get because they're so incredibly easy), they just didn't want to work. Standing there doubled up with another person/on a stupid easy job actually having to arrive on the line by 5:50 AM, sweat, and expend effort for the <x> their babies needed, or the rent money so they didn't get evicted, was just too F'ing hard for them. Ford went through the hassle and expense hiring them to be rewarded with people who need a job so bad they walk out.

As for the mex and I, we fully expected to get ball buster jobs - they certainly aren't going to put a regular worker at a ball buster when they can put an 89 dayer there. The con in our case was putting us in clearly the opposite jobs we should have been in, intentionally. There is zero way someone so short should have been on trans line, or someone so tall (when a short person was available) to work on shift cable. It was so F'd up that regular line workers went and complained to the Upgrade (sort of like a TL but not really...more like an experienced floater) who went and complained to the forewoman. She wasn't going to change her mind though, because she knew the hiring manager wanted us to quit; that hiring manager had her two pals she wanted 89 dayer jobs for - but you can bet even if we had quit, there is zero way those two chicks would have been on our ball buster jobs. What would have happened is they'd be on an easy job, and they'd bump people around to get our jobs covered...likely F'ing a regular employee until day 89.

 

[fskimospy]

Red flags:

Oh good, another thread where clueless people try and critique research design instead of discussing its implications. I figured as much.

Those two "red flags" would be red flags that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Experimental research design" doesn't mean that it's some made up type of experimental, untested research, it means it's a type of research that involves an experiment. It's MORE reliable than other research designs, not LESS.

LOL. Clueless people.

Refuting other research is not a bad thing either, btw.

Just in the first five pages of skimming. I read a few more pages, but it is obvious he is selectively presenting information and not drawing valid comparisons, and introducing ideas with no contrary explanation or research to back it up. 75% of what I skimmed through was purely speculative, or plain stupid.

Baseless blathering.

Later in the data and methods on page 19:

In other words, the candidate profiles he created in his "experimental" method of research were all different. Pretty fucking amusing based on his previous analysis of the factors involved in hiring. Not to mention, the admission in there that variability can be a result of computerized selection process, as well. Joke of a "study." I stopped after this.

Holy shit.

Of course they were all different. If they weren't different you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions.

It's probably a good thing you stopped reading after that. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. Hahaha.

 

[Blanky]

I can't believe some people are so naive that they would need a study to conclude this. Are people really so stupid as to think laquisha and amanda have the exact same odds of getting an interview with no difference than their name? They is truly obvious ignorance. Hell if I were interviewing and had to pick one person and they were the same and one was Catherine and the other went by candy guess who gets the interview? To pretend lashawn and Robert get the same chances is to pretend there is no more racial discrimination, which there is--hell, the names themselves are racially motivated if you get down to brass tacks.