For discussion of life's issues: current events, social trends and personal opinions.
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 14295
- Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:12 am
- Location: Rockland,DE and Parksley, VA
don't worry, meritocracy will be coming, and the process will be harsh. When you need 10% of the workers you used to, you don't have the luxury of keeping mediocre employees to remain competetive.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
Interesting thought, but I find that strange that you would be okay with someone less qualified than you doing what takes your qualifications to do. That would be a bit like taking your car to the auto shop and finding out the front end person did the mechanical work without knowing enough to do the job.vision wrote:And I was Ok with it because I think those quotas are important.
That's a bit of a stretch. Topgun did bring up a valid point in the sense that the seed of desire to achieve is planted early in a persons' mind. There's also cases that even when a person is suggested to follow a certain path, they suddenly go in an opposite direction...There is a lot of good reasoning behind the idea that the overall benefits to society are offset by these "unjust" hiring practice. Think "Stanford prison experiment". People often fall into behavioural stereotypes whether they are biologically disposed or not.
as you bring up here: "In tech, the problem with women is less about technical proficiency than you might think".
In which case, the fault lies with management and they should be either reprimanded to pull their own weight better or fired outright.I've got some male co-workers that are really goddamn bad at their jobs and it's totally glossed over.
and I do agree and stand by the fact that this unconscious sexism needs to change.If they were women people would chalk it up to "women aren't good at this stuff."
That is wonderful and lines up with what I believe in.Luckily, where I work the women with the tech jobs are great at them.
We could talk about that, but that seems to be more geared to a different thread.This could easily devolve into a discussion about the pros and cons of meritocracy (and how we don't have one and never had), but unfortunately I don't have time to participate in this thread any longer.
I think a better analogy would be something like a mechanic who has done one or two front end jobs versus a mechanic who has never done one, but has enough general experience that they can pull it off. Neither is an expert, but the job will get done satisfactorily. Everyone has to start somewhere, right?Ferno wrote:Interesting thought, but I find that strange that you would be okay with someone less qualified than you doing what takes your qualifications to do. That would be a bit like taking your car to the auto shop and finding out the front end person did the mechanical work without knowing enough to do the job.vision wrote:And I was Ok with it because I think those quotas are important.
In the case of my friend who got the job instead of me, she did the job OK, but they eventually let her go. It was more because of budget issues than talent, but had she a stronger skill set she might have not been cut. However, having that position on her resume is important for her career, and eventually she will find a good fit for her interests and skills. Without that professional experience she would be in worse shape. This is what I mean by "better for our society" in the long run. A lot of people don't get opportunities due to systemic sexism/racism/whatever, but giving people a chance to learn new skills and have new experiences goes a long way toward building a stronger workforce. I hope this makes sense.
This post may have been edited by moderators for content and delivery.