undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyummyfajitas11y ago0 comments

As an industry, we used to be in favor of approaching meritocracy as a goal. We'd take pride in using github in lieu of a resume, difficult technical tests, and general attempts at objectivity.

Strangely, the pushback against meritocracy as a goal and objective measurement as a method doesn't come from the alleged "good old boy" network.

http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug

http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-an...

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

swampangel11y ago· 2 in thread

Consider 2 candidates with github profiles:

- A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects

- B has created a large number of functional but sloppy projects

Which is objectively better? The candidate who is more productive, or the candidate whose products have higher quality?

One may be a better fit for your organization, based on your group's needs and existing makeup, but that doesn't mean they are objectively "better" than the other candidate. Do you believe one of these candidates has more "merit" than the other?

Some people who believe a person has objective merit (as opposed to suitability for a particular organization or role) are actually expressing an aesthetic preference (selecting for tidy code, or work ethic, etc) while claiming/believing that their preference is "objective" truth. People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.

yummyfajitasOP11y ago

Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt.

Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question".

People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.

That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.

Karunamon11y ago

>People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance

This sentence is an oxymoron. An objective hiring process is one that looks at facts, more specifically those related to job performance and past performance with related tasks. Those are, IMO, quite literally the only things that should factor into the process since at the end of the day they're the only things that matter.

Coincidentally, this is described as a meritocracy. A process where you're judged solely on what you do, not what you are.

pyrocat11y ago· 2 in thread

The problem with "meritocracy" is that the judging mechanism is inherently vulnerable to bias.

yummyfajitasOP11y ago

So therefore we shouldn't try? What should our goal be instead?

pyrocat11y ago

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-merit...

As for what our goal should be instead: equal pay for equal work.

1 more reply

techpeace11y ago

"The word meritocracy comes from a political satire. It was never meant to be something we should aspire to. It was the opposite, actually, a warning about how we rationalize what we believe we’ve 'earned'. If that sentence doesn’t seem to you applicable to the tech industry and our cyclical discussions about sexism, racism, and even occasionally classism, go get yourself another cup of coffee."

from http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

swampangel11y ago· 2 in thread

Consider 2 candidates with github profiles:

- A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects

- B has created a large number of functional but sloppy projects

Which is objectively better? The candidate who is more productive, or the candidate whose products have higher quality?

yummyfajitasOP11y ago

Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt.

Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question".

People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.

That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.

Karunamon11y ago

>People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance

Coincidentally, this is described as a meritocracy. A process where you're judged solely on what you do, not what you are.

pyrocat11y ago· 2 in thread

The problem with "meritocracy" is that the judging mechanism is inherently vulnerable to bias.

yummyfajitasOP11y ago

So therefore we shouldn't try? What should our goal be instead?

pyrocat11y ago

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-merit...

As for what our goal should be instead: equal pay for equal work.

1 more reply

techpeace11y ago

from http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse