I see a lot of responses in here that try to justify the practice using empirical data/logic. What we’re failing to consider is the trade off between “efficiency” and “equitability.”
Just because something is 100% efficient in allocating resources (time, money), doesn’t mean that it’s worth doing. What this thread shows is that somehow, we’ve become sympathetic to megacorps, in winner take all markets, who want to build a world where their time and money is seen as the most valuable.
Instead, we should account for the fact that these companies, with CEOs making $200mm+ per year, should have a civic duty to take on more risk giving people a basic right- access to a job.
Credit card companies aren’t allowed to underwrite based on certain factors heavily correlated with race, religion, or other things (I forget the rest) that were deemed unfair to be judged by. In an efficient world, we would have collectively decided that companies should be able to infer your ability to repay debts based on the zip code you live in, or the college you went to, or the demographics of your friends. It makes sense to not allow this from an equitable standpoint. Why can’t the same be said about hiring people?
Who has the luxury of going through 4 interview rounds? Who has the privilege of studying hours and hours of leetcode? Who has the privilege of staying up to date on the latest web frameworks? I think you get my point.
What won’t surprise me is that the data may suggest the youngest are most suited for many jobs, if one were to judge by interview readiness and performance. If that becomes to norm, would the future version of yourself deem the mechanisms of finding a job market acceptable?
Just because something is 100% efficient in allocating resources (time, money), doesn’t mean that it’s worth doing. What this thread shows is that somehow, we’ve become sympathetic to megacorps, in winner take all markets, who want to build a world where their time and money is seen as the most valuable.
Instead, we should account for the fact that these companies, with CEOs making $200mm+ per year, should have a civic duty to take on more risk giving people a basic right- access to a job.
Credit card companies aren’t allowed to underwrite based on certain factors heavily correlated with race, religion, or other things (I forget the rest) that were deemed unfair to be judged by. In an efficient world, we would have collectively decided that companies should be able to infer your ability to repay debts based on the zip code you live in, or the college you went to, or the demographics of your friends. It makes sense to not allow this from an equitable standpoint. Why can’t the same be said about hiring people?
Who has the luxury of going through 4 interview rounds? Who has the privilege of studying hours and hours of leetcode? Who has the privilege of staying up to date on the latest web frameworks? I think you get my point.
What won’t surprise me is that the data may suggest the youngest are most suited for many jobs, if one were to judge by interview readiness and performance. If that becomes to norm, would the future version of yourself deem the mechanisms of finding a job market acceptable?