SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Silicon Valley is starting to realize that the huge talent pool of nontraditional candidates may be the answer to its pipeline problem.
The technology industry is now trying to figure out a way to attack its cultural and demographic homogeneity issues. One simple initiative is to begin to recruit talent from people outside of its preferred networks. One way is to extend their recruiting efforts to people who don't have four-year degrees.
IBM's head of talent organization, Sam Ladah, calls this sort of initiative a focus on "new-collar jobs." The idea, he says, is to look toward different applicant pools to find new talent. "We consider them based on their skills," he says, and don't take into account their educational background. This includes applicants who didn't get a four-year degree but have proven their technical knowledge in other ways. Some have technical certifications, and others have enrolled in other skills programs. "We've been very successful in hiring from [coding] bootcamps," says Ladah.
For IT roles, educational pedigree often doesn't make a huge difference. For instance, many gaming aficionados have built their own systems. With this technical grounding, they would likely have the aptitude to be a server technician or a network technician. These roles require specific technical knowledge, not necessarily an academic curriculum vitae. "We're looking for people who have a real passion for technology," says Ladah. He goes on to say that currently about 10% to 15% of IBM's new hires don't have traditional four-year degrees.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3069259/why-more-tech-companies-are-hiring-people-without-degrees
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday April 10 2017, @06:34PM (6 children)
If the article simply said companies were ceasing to throw any application that doesn't list a degree in the shredder unread it would be a good thing. But notice what is said even before that and it changes everything. It is being done because they can't find enough warm female/minority bodies with any degree so now they are dropping the degree requirement FOR THEM ONLY. Forget the text, everything these days must be spoken in politically correct code phrases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)
I see the liberal side of the propaganda arm has caught its first sucker for the day. There is an on-going attempt to divide the US population by hammering at polarizing concepts and key phrases. So how about you stop complaining and be happy that tech companies are looking outside the box for qualified candidates. Or do you really think there is a vast conspiracy against white males so if your name is Jughead Morris then your resume is automatically shredded?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @08:29PM
A conspiracy just requires a particular set of cultural elements, often inculcated in youth, which transforms infected individuals into good little quasi-conspiratorial drones.
It has become a meme across young millennials that straight white males are in a "structurally" privileged position, and this belief drives people to act a certain way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @11:06PM
Breaking free of the box is good. Unconsciously making another is even worse. In the past people got discriminated for their color and other factors hands down. To then hire strictly on capability is a improvement. Messing it up by specifically looking for minority attributes instead of capability is a step backwards. And the market place can be swift with these kinds of behaviors in the long run.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:34PM (2 children)
You're like the black folks who hate white people, reverse racism is ugly. Here we find reverse reverse prejudice, jmorris doesn't want to lose his invisible (to him) white privilege and HATSES anyone who looks for cultural and gender diversity when hiring people. Here's a hint jmo: diversity more often than not is a strength for any business. It reminds me of the civil rights movement, some white folks got so mad that anyone would try and re-balance society's scales to give black folks a more even footing. Here we see it again, with people like yourself so mad that skin color and cultural background seem to get preferential treatment.
Question: so all the preferential treatment you didn't realize you got is OK? All the social interactions that were friendly and amiable are perfectly legit, it doesn't matter that if you were black a lot of those interactions would have gone much differently? Where is your outrage at all the white privilege you and others have received? If you can't acknowledge those facts then shut your whiny little trap, the shoe is on the other foot for better or for worse, and complaining about it reveals you for the bigoted little snowflake you very likely are.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @08:29PM
Show me evidence of this white privilege. Until then, shut your whore mouth and get back to sucking down my cum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @11:10PM
AC: Do you really take no offense at "positive" discrimination at all? Taken to an extreme, do you have a hard working American boy of Chinese who studied hard his whole life (while his white neighbors were out partying, getting stoned, and skipping school), got straight As, did everything right, with a 4.0 GPA. Unfortunately, because he's Asian and in a competitive cohort, he doesn't get into the school... instead the 2.5 GPA black woman who never opened a textbook and slept through class gets admitted because "civil rights."
I'll accept that some people could see this as being right and proper due to historical discrimination and unequal opportunities. On the other hand, surely you must see how some people could take offense at this situation.
jmorris: Is there any evidence that this is trying to forcibly increase woman/minority numbers? The article I read suggest it was to prevent cultural homogony. The goal is to get a diverse population to prevent groupthink and systemic risk. It's like saying, "all the college white boys love our product, I'm sure it will sell well everywhere!" It seems to me a sound business decision to get some diversity just to make sure there isn't an obvious glaring hole in what you are doing (e.g. avoid the same problems which caused the Flash Crash, or avoid another New Coke), rather than some nefarious plot to push diversity because "civil rights." Was there more evidence I'm missing?