Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think many companies hire with the number one goal of reducing false positives. By definition this approach is going to unfairly reject a number of candidates. I would argue that it also dehumanizes a number of candidates, forcing them in aggregate to play a numbers game until they are in the top 20%-40% of the pool (if they ever get there) where companies then begin vying for them.

It is as you put: depressing as hell. And this is among white collared, educated, demographics. Imagine how it must feel to be an uneducated demographic in most other parts of the world...




> By definition this approach is going to unfairly reject a number of candidates.

This is only a problem if the interview/hiring/capitalism process is meant to be fair.

> Imagine how it must feel to be an uneducated demographic in most other parts of the world

The less privileged here certainly had jobs in HS and college where you just filled out an application, the manager made sure you weren't a convict or on drugs, and you got the job. The "uneducated demographic in most other parts of the world" is probably not solving algorithm quiz questions on a whiteboard.


> This is only a problem if the interview/hiring/capitalism process is meant to be fair.

It's also a problem when those same companies want to bitch and whine about a "talent shortage" or a lack of diverse candidates.


> It's also a problem when those same companies want to bitch and whine about a "talent shortage" or a lack of diverse candidates

so much this. Why do companies get to receive all sorts of incentives to hire when candidates they reject walk into other great tech firms, make bank, and generate boatloads of value?

Maybe some should just pay more, too. There are plenty of firms just being too cheap to hire great talent, including some large, well-known ones.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: