Quantcast
View Post
DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

I highly doubt you can find documentation that proves they hired staff purely for diversity value at the absolute expense of skill/experience.

Perhaps he can or can't, who knows, there may be some devs spilling the beans on those forum that are to complain about the company you work at.

But we have seem several cases of company talking about diversity being more important than the skill/experience, because skill they could build and experience they would accumulate there. We even had a case in VGC of a user showing he got throw away from an interview because he replied to a question of if he thought diversity was more important than experience and he replied "company should hire whoever is more qualified". And we had a big discussion on VGC on how much value the diversity would bring to the team that made it more important than the knowledge.

I think we should have a better understanding of what companies mean when they say diversity is more important that skill/experience.

Some of us seem to believe this to mean that skill/experience is not important at all.  I'll provide a metric and scenario to illustrate what it actually means.


Position A requires Skill B.  The range of possible talent for Skill B could be put on a spectrum from 0 to 100. 0 being no skill at all and 100 being the best possible at said skill. 

Position A requires a 60 score of Skill B.  Now, when diversity becomes a hiring factor, that doesn't mean they will accept a diversity candidate if they do not possess a 60 score of the required skill.   If 2 candidates applied and one scores 70 and one scores 80, they both qualify and both will do a sufficient job for the position.  But if candidate 1 with the 70 score fit the diversity requirement over candidate 2 with the 80 score...candidate 1 will more likely get the job.

This is what is meant by diversity being important over skill/experience.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."