6 ms·

Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

154 points by drchiu 3mo ago

mixseo 3mo ago
[dead]
jmyeet 3mo ago
This sort of thing needs to be illegal. We saw a similar thing wtih RealPage. So many corporate landlords use it that it essentially becomes anticompetitive price-fixing. I've heard a claim that an issue with these ATS AI Systems is that your CV gets scored and that score is cached for some period from 3 to 12 months. So any application with a completely different company with your name will just yield the exact same score. If true, it means that if you score badly for whatever reason, you're going to get auto-rejected by every company that uses that system before ever being seen by a human. This seems to fit anecdotal data where people have applied for hundresd of jobs and never gotten anything other than an automated rejection. But obviously that's not proof or confirmation. But if it is, it's almost like being a voncicted felon. It greatly limits your ability to find a job and that's a huge problem. I don't know what the solution is but I hope these companies get sued for states for issueslike this where actual discrimination occurs.
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  Recruitment and hiring has been a mess for decades, though, especially in tech. It's like all the leetcode bullshit. We know that is not a valid measurement for actual performance in a dev job, but that doesn't stop managers from using it. What they need is a number, a rating, on how much of a fit each candidate is, through some process that can be described as objective and fair. The algorithms provide that. If we make this illegal, they'll just come up with some other bullshit. In an ideal world, companies would assess each and every candidate individually and on their merits. But no-one has time or patience for that, so we have these bullshit systems.
  - watwut 3mo ago
    From what I seen, the leetcode is self reproducing dysfunction. There is whole subculture that believes being good at leetcode like tests and puzzles makes you inherently superior in all aspects, because you are smart. After all, they were good at leetcode like tests and are superior and smart. It is people who grew up in that subculture becoming managers recreating the culture they grew up in. That is why the "not a valid measurement for actual performance in a dev job" thing does not matter. Too many people are emotionally invested in this being important measure. Their and their friends self worth is attached to it.
- typoname 3mo ago
  Is it... illegal... to put white characters on your name field? Just thinking out loud here, but what if we fed the AI (and ONLY the AI) a different name for every role. By adding two invisible characters on the space between your name? Would it then make a new index?
  - rapidaneurism 3mo ago
    Consider characters that look the same but have different unicode?
dhosek 3mo ago
This is just one of many reasons why my current job is likely to be my last. I feel like so much of modern life is just irredeemably broken right now.
- Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
  Could join those in the slow life, invest in passive revenue streams, and keep cash burn rates minimal. You will be fine avoiding debt-based indentured 1980 metropolitan cultures. Learn to play a cheap instrument, garden vegetables, paint miniatures, volunteer at pet shelters, or travel to odd destinations. Play the long game, and remember to have fun. You owe corporate nothing outside what they paid for... and not a cent more. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhKTqdxRdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhKTqdxRdo
  - vintermann 3mo ago
    Passive revenue streams are dependent on someone else not having access to those passive revenue streams. Yes, it would be great to be free of debt, but for me it would have to mean moving away to somewhere real estate prices are not only low, but dropping for all too understandable reasons. And also a huge distance away from friends and family. There's a reason people mostly don't do this, and it's not that they feel a moral obligation to corporate.
    - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
      >Passive revenue streams are dependent on someone else not having access to those passive revenue streams. I think many assume it is some sort of zero-sum-game. This simply isn't how most unique successful product and service based niche businesses operate. Most firms that directly try to hyper-scale their way into market dominance simply fail within a few years. The smarter bros often cash-out after the IPO these days. Some people do feel entitled to others free time, and post-unknown-risk capital investments. Those folks can't help anyone succeed at anything except bankruptcy. =3
  - ErroneousBosh 3mo ago
Eridrus 3mo ago
It seems like this is measuring algorithms against the disparate impact standard of all demographic groups needing to have the same aggregate results. Which is extra weird because the samples to this are applications, not humans, so this is subject to bias in how people apply to these positions. So if a demographic group is more likely to apply to some jobs they are not qualified for, this paper would say they are being discriminated against. On top of all this, there isn't even really a claim that the algorithms are picking up on anything demographic related. One of the vendors they look at pymetrics, which makes players play abstract games and uses that to pre-screen people. In the abstract, it makes sense that monocultures are problematic since ML bias alone (in the bias vs variance sense) would just randomly harm folks in a fairly persistent way. But it's also not immediately clear that this even applies to the pymetrics example where I think they have a large assortment of games they make people play for different positions? It's also not clear that these systems breed monocultures if the inputs into them are firm/position-specific, e.g. job descriptions. Though honestly I would be far more interested in the validity of these measures at predicting actual on the job measures like performance reviews, etc.
- changoplatanero 3mo ago
  A few years ago the same professor did an analysis of racism in police traffic stops. Compared to this current study on job applications, the conclusions from the police study were more convincing because they actually observed the words spoken by the cops in each interaction. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1702413114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1702413114
- BoiledCabbage 3mo ago
  > So if a demographic group is more likely to apply to some jobs they are not qualified for, this paper would say they are being discriminated against. Your understanding appears to be incorrect. > Our research also found that this pattern does not appear to be the case in other circumstances. We analyzed data from the largest prior study of hiring decisions, which sent 83,000 applications to 108 Fortune 500 firms during the same time period as our study and did not focus on whether AI was used to make decisions. We found that the rate at which applicants were rejected from every firm they applied to in this data was no higher than what you’d expect if each company decided independently of the others. If it were what you were asserting, then this behavior and results would persist even without AI being used. Instead when they remove the filter for AI decisions (and AI mono-culture in decisions) the effect is no longer present. This seems to strongly support they argument that effectively a single AI makes a single decision for a candidate across "all" positions they apply for rather than independently assessing them for each position. Essentially it's more or less saying they're is one hiring manager for the entire industry and if they have a random reason they don't like you, you won't be hired for any job in the industry. There is a single evaluation function for the industry and if it puts you a negative for any reason in the model's distribution, every job that uses it will do so.
HedgeMage 3mo ago
Lots of monocultures exist in hiring even without an algorithmic scoring system. That's roughly how every stupid hiring fad works, and how it's always worked, because most employers have no idea how to identify great potential employees. Hiring managers and companies choose algorithms and hiring fads because they don't know how to be really certain of who to hire, so they'll settle for either assuming someone else's expertise will save them, or for some rubric that "everyone is doing" so it "can't be that bad". When I first became a hiring manager, I was working for a public university. Our salaries were limited, being staff rather than faculty and being public servants, to between 1/3 and 1/2 the going salary for equivalent cybersecurity professionals in the private sector. I did not have the option to hire the people everyone else was trying to hire. I also faced one of the key risks of working in a public institution: once you keep someone past their probationary period, it is very, very hard to fire them. So, it's important not to get it wrong. I learned some things that I have carried forward into every hiring manager or senior leadership role since: 1. I base hiring practices on Manager Tools behavioral interviewing systems (https://manager-tools.com https://manager-tools.com). No affiliation, they've just made my work life better. 2. I became really good at understanding what my team or organization really needs. Most hirers focus way too much on "years of experience" and specific technologies than is usually wise. As my favorite former supervisor said, "I can teach a smart person cybersecurity, but I can't teach a dumb [or unmotivated] cybersecurity person to be smart." 3. I became really good at developing people, and ensuring that the managers under me were as well. We couldn't lay someone off just because their technical specialty became irrelevant, so we couldn't afford to hire people who weren't lifelong learners, or to fail as coaches to ensure that learning was always taking place. 4. I cast as wide a net as my HR and regulatory overlords would let me (and now, as a business leader, I cast a huge net). I look for things that aren't just useful at the moment, but are useful long term, in my candidates. I don't care about pedigree. I end up paying less for good employees due to simple supply and demand: I often go for the diamonds in the rough that don't have 10 competing offers. I end up having really good employees who generally stay with me long term, because I apply long-term thinking in hiring, and structure my teams around constant learning and development. I dodge a LOT of bullets... people who have just the right pedigree to look like great hires worth a lot of money, but who'll disappoint me until the day they leave. When it's a tight labor market -- too few candidates for roles I care about -- I'm tapping a hiring market that other managers aren't aware enough of, and still finding talent while they have roles that sit open for months.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
mrkeen 3mo ago
This is keeping me out of work at the moment. The usual flow is that I have a great HR interview, then I'm assigned an online intelligence (what dots should be in the next box) test and a personality test, and then the company wants nothing to do with me. They manage to screen me out before I have the opportunity to talk about anything computing related. (The old horror-stories of 'I couldn't reverse a BST on a whiteboard so I didn't get the job' seem wonderful in comparison now. The non-computing people have captured the hiring pipeline into computing companies)
- ddejohn 3mo ago
  I am miserably bad at soft-skills interviews and never get past this round. Been over a year since I've had somebody actually try to assess my technical competency in any real capacity. I'm also getting maybe 1 INITIAL interview every 3 months right now because of this AI screening stuff and I just haven't felt like re-writing my resume to game them.
  - awesome_dude 3mo ago
    It could be that those HR teams are engaging in some busy work - pretending to be looking for candidates so they/their company looks busier.
  - teiferer 3mo ago
    > miserably bad at soft-skills interviews Is that because of an actual lack of soft skills or is it because the interviews are bad? > I just haven't felt like re-writing my resume to game them. Not defending the AI interview assistance BS, but if you wanted a job bad enough then you'd eventually do this, not the latest after several months?
  - woadwarrior01 3mo ago
    IMO, soft-skills interviews more a test of your storytelling abilities than anything else. At Google, people often used to joke about candidates who cannot even pass the Googleyness interview, which is supposed to be the easiest of all Google interviews.
  - 3mo ago
haeseong 3mo ago
[dead]
simianwords 3mo ago
Waaaait why is it not in the incentives of companies hiring to automatically fix this? They instantly get better candidates for cheaper wages.
- IshKebab 3mo ago
  Yes, but they also hiring is so random already they don't care about it being like 3% better or whatever.
- creshal 3mo ago
  Step one: Decision makers who can change these processes need to be aware of this problem. Many companies fail this simple task. Step two: These decision makers must be held accountable for the success of the process. Many companies fail this simple task. Step three: These decision makers must be willing to admit that they made a mistake, and risk loss of prestige and political capital. Guess how likely that is. And the bigger the company, the worse it gets. It's a good thing we didn't go through 20 years of consolidations and mergers. Oh wait.
  - simianwords 3mo ago
    True I agree and I think there must be some head of recruiting who is in the details who should be kinda held responsible for this.
  - DrScientist 3mo ago
    There are two problems here - the volume of application spam ( which creates the need for automated filtering in the first place, and is now probably AI aided ), and the fact that there isn't a single decision maker. You have HR which decides to outsource filtering, and then the outsourced company who decides how it's done. The line managers actually trying to recruit are no where near this decision - indeed they don't share a common manager till you get to the CEO - who is too busy to care about this sort of stuff. In my experience the only way to fix this is to tell HR that you want the unfiltered CV list and do it yourself. The problem with that is if you work at a large well known company you'll get 100's if not 1000's of applicants for any job you advertise and most applicants don't appear to have even read the job description. So you are committing to a very large amount of work.
rahulshah2002 3mo ago
[dead]
hoshi73 3mo ago
This clearly falls under the definition of automated individual decision-making per Article 22 of the GDPR and would be blatantly illegal if it were done in the EU. The GDPR is explicitly designed to outlaw this kind of algorithmic profiling and exclusion in hiring. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X4BBTPFO000000/international-data-privacy-compliance-professional-perspective-g https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X4BBTPFO00000...
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
jameson 3mo ago
I wonder how they determine an applicant's ethnicity. Is it by the name?
- madcaptenor 3mo ago
  From a glance at the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27371 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27371) it looks like they're using self-reported ethnicity. "We only attempt to identify adverse impact based on self-reported racial information and do not impute data, noting that we do not have access to features like applicant name. 62.35% of all applicants in the data do not self-report race as belonging to one of the four racial groups we study."
ameypandey 3mo ago
[dead]
innocentoldguy 3mo ago
I've found that if I apply for any company that uses Workday, it's an immediate rejection, so I don't bother with them anymore.
- sublimefire 3mo ago
  I would not be surprised if their system breaks somewhere between us clicking submit and some storage system. Their HR stuff is terrible.
swiftcoder 3mo ago
I thought this was going to be about how the whole software industry has been cargo-culting FAANG coding interviews that are heavily reliant on algorithms trivia...
po1nt 3mo ago
If I had to make an algorithm that would correct these injusticies, I would end up just hiring that algorithm as it's way easier than hiring a human.

154 points by drchiu 3mo ago

[dead]

This sort of thing needs to be illegal. We saw a similar thing wtih RealPage. So many corporate landlords use it that it essentially becomes anticompetitive price-fixing. I've heard a claim that an issue with these ATS AI Systems is that your CV gets scored and that score is cached for some period from 3 to 12 months. So any application with a completely different company with your name will just yield the exact same score. If true, it means that if you score badly for whatever reason, you're going to get auto-rejected by every company that uses that system before ever being seen by a human. This seems to fit anecdotal data where people have applied for hundresd of jobs and never gotten anything other than an automated rejection. But obviously that's not proof or confirmation. But if it is, it's almost like being a voncicted felon. It greatly limits your ability to find a job and that's a huge problem. I don't know what the solution is but I hope these companies get sued for states for issueslike this where actual discrimination occurs.

marcus_holmes 3mo ago
Recruitment and hiring has been a mess for decades, though, especially in tech. It's like all the leetcode bullshit. We know that is not a valid measurement for actual performance in a dev job, but that doesn't stop managers from using it. What they need is a number, a rating, on how much of a fit each candidate is, through some process that can be described as objective and fair. The algorithms provide that. If we make this illegal, they'll just come up with some other bullshit. In an ideal world, companies would assess each and every candidate individually and on their merits. But no-one has time or patience for that, so we have these bullshit systems.
- watwut 3mo ago
  From what I seen, the leetcode is self reproducing dysfunction. There is whole subculture that believes being good at leetcode like tests and puzzles makes you inherently superior in all aspects, because you are smart. After all, they were good at leetcode like tests and are superior and smart. It is people who grew up in that subculture becoming managers recreating the culture they grew up in. That is why the "not a valid measurement for actual performance in a dev job" thing does not matter. Too many people are emotionally invested in this being important measure. Their and their friends self worth is attached to it.
typoname 3mo ago
Is it... illegal... to put white characters on your name field? Just thinking out loud here, but what if we fed the AI (and ONLY the AI) a different name for every role. By adding two invisible characters on the space between your name? Would it then make a new index?
- rapidaneurism 3mo ago
  Consider characters that look the same but have different unicode?

dhosek 3mo ago

This is just one of many reasons why my current job is likely to be my last. I feel like so much of modern life is just irredeemably broken right now.

Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
Could join those in the slow life, invest in passive revenue streams, and keep cash burn rates minimal. You will be fine avoiding debt-based indentured 1980 metropolitan cultures. Learn to play a cheap instrument, garden vegetables, paint miniatures, volunteer at pet shelters, or travel to odd destinations. Play the long game, and remember to have fun. You owe corporate nothing outside what they paid for... and not a cent more. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhKTqdxRdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhKTqdxRdo
- vintermann 3mo ago
  Passive revenue streams are dependent on someone else not having access to those passive revenue streams. Yes, it would be great to be free of debt, but for me it would have to mean moving away to somewhere real estate prices are not only low, but dropping for all too understandable reasons. And also a huge distance away from friends and family. There's a reason people mostly don't do this, and it's not that they feel a moral obligation to corporate.
  - Joel_Mckay 3mo ago
    >Passive revenue streams are dependent on someone else not having access to those passive revenue streams. I think many assume it is some sort of zero-sum-game. This simply isn't how most unique successful product and service based niche businesses operate. Most firms that directly try to hyper-scale their way into market dominance simply fail within a few years. The smarter bros often cash-out after the IPO these days. Some people do feel entitled to others free time, and post-unknown-risk capital investments. Those folks can't help anyone succeed at anything except bankruptcy. =3
- ErroneousBosh 3mo ago

Eridrus 3mo ago

It seems like this is measuring algorithms against the disparate impact standard of all demographic groups needing to have the same aggregate results. Which is extra weird because the samples to this are applications, not humans, so this is subject to bias in how people apply to these positions. So if a demographic group is more likely to apply to some jobs they are not qualified for, this paper would say they are being discriminated against. On top of all this, there isn't even really a claim that the algorithms are picking up on anything demographic related. One of the vendors they look at pymetrics, which makes players play abstract games and uses that to pre-screen people. In the abstract, it makes sense that monocultures are problematic since ML bias alone (in the bias vs variance sense) would just randomly harm folks in a fairly persistent way. But it's also not immediately clear that this even applies to the pymetrics example where I think they have a large assortment of games they make people play for different positions? It's also not clear that these systems breed monocultures if the inputs into them are firm/position-specific, e.g. job descriptions. Though honestly I would be far more interested in the validity of these measures at predicting actual on the job measures like performance reviews, etc.

changoplatanero 3mo ago
A few years ago the same professor did an analysis of racism in police traffic stops. Compared to this current study on job applications, the conclusions from the police study were more convincing because they actually observed the words spoken by the cops in each interaction. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1702413114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1702413114
BoiledCabbage 3mo ago
> So if a demographic group is more likely to apply to some jobs they are not qualified for, this paper would say they are being discriminated against. Your understanding appears to be incorrect. > Our research also found that this pattern does not appear to be the case in other circumstances. We analyzed data from the largest prior study of hiring decisions, which sent 83,000 applications to 108 Fortune 500 firms during the same time period as our study and did not focus on whether AI was used to make decisions. We found that the rate at which applicants were rejected from every firm they applied to in this data was no higher than what you’d expect if each company decided independently of the others. If it were what you were asserting, then this behavior and results would persist even without AI being used. Instead when they remove the filter for AI decisions (and AI mono-culture in decisions) the effect is no longer present. This seems to strongly support they argument that effectively a single AI makes a single decision for a candidate across "all" positions they apply for rather than independently assessing them for each position. Essentially it's more or less saying they're is one hiring manager for the entire industry and if they have a random reason they don't like you, you won't be hired for any job in the industry. There is a single evaluation function for the industry and if it puts you a negative for any reason in the model's distribution, every job that uses it will do so.

HedgeMage 3mo ago

Lots of monocultures exist in hiring even without an algorithmic scoring system. That's roughly how every stupid hiring fad works, and how it's always worked, because most employers have no idea how to identify great potential employees. Hiring managers and companies choose algorithms and hiring fads because they don't know how to be really certain of who to hire, so they'll settle for either assuming someone else's expertise will save them, or for some rubric that "everyone is doing" so it "can't be that bad". When I first became a hiring manager, I was working for a public university. Our salaries were limited, being staff rather than faculty and being public servants, to between 1/3 and 1/2 the going salary for equivalent cybersecurity professionals in the private sector. I did not have the option to hire the people everyone else was trying to hire. I also faced one of the key risks of working in a public institution: once you keep someone past their probationary period, it is very, very hard to fire them. So, it's important not to get it wrong. I learned some things that I have carried forward into every hiring manager or senior leadership role since: 1. I base hiring practices on Manager Tools behavioral interviewing systems (https://manager-tools.com https://manager-tools.com). No affiliation, they've just made my work life better. 2. I became really good at understanding what my team or organization really needs. Most hirers focus way too much on "years of experience" and specific technologies than is usually wise. As my favorite former supervisor said, "I can teach a smart person cybersecurity, but I can't teach a dumb [or unmotivated] cybersecurity person to be smart." 3. I became really good at developing people, and ensuring that the managers under me were as well. We couldn't lay someone off just because their technical specialty became irrelevant, so we couldn't afford to hire people who weren't lifelong learners, or to fail as coaches to ensure that learning was always taking place. 4. I cast as wide a net as my HR and regulatory overlords would let me (and now, as a business leader, I cast a huge net). I look for things that aren't just useful at the moment, but are useful long term, in my candidates. I don't care about pedigree. I end up paying less for good employees due to simple supply and demand: I often go for the diamonds in the rough that don't have 10 competing offers. I end up having really good employees who generally stay with me long term, because I apply long-term thinking in hiring, and structure my teams around constant learning and development. I dodge a LOT of bullets... people who have just the right pedigree to look like great hires worth a lot of money, but who'll disappoint me until the day they leave. When it's a tight labor market -- too few candidates for roles I care about -- I'm tapping a hiring market that other managers aren't aware enough of, and still finding talent while they have roles that sit open for months.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

mrkeen 3mo ago

This is keeping me out of work at the moment. The usual flow is that I have a great HR interview, then I'm assigned an online intelligence (what dots should be in the next box) test and a personality test, and then the company wants nothing to do with me. They manage to screen me out before I have the opportunity to talk about anything computing related. (The old horror-stories of 'I couldn't reverse a BST on a whiteboard so I didn't get the job' seem wonderful in comparison now. The non-computing people have captured the hiring pipeline into computing companies)

ddejohn 3mo ago
I am miserably bad at soft-skills interviews and never get past this round. Been over a year since I've had somebody actually try to assess my technical competency in any real capacity. I'm also getting maybe 1 INITIAL interview every 3 months right now because of this AI screening stuff and I just haven't felt like re-writing my resume to game them.
- awesome_dude 3mo ago
  It could be that those HR teams are engaging in some busy work - pretending to be looking for candidates so they/their company looks busier.
- teiferer 3mo ago
  > miserably bad at soft-skills interviews Is that because of an actual lack of soft skills or is it because the interviews are bad? > I just haven't felt like re-writing my resume to game them. Not defending the AI interview assistance BS, but if you wanted a job bad enough then you'd eventually do this, not the latest after several months?
- woadwarrior01 3mo ago
  IMO, soft-skills interviews more a test of your storytelling abilities than anything else. At Google, people often used to joke about candidates who cannot even pass the Googleyness interview, which is supposed to be the easiest of all Google interviews.
- 3mo ago

haeseong 3mo ago

[dead]

simianwords 3mo ago

Waaaait why is it not in the incentives of companies hiring to automatically fix this? They instantly get better candidates for cheaper wages.

IshKebab 3mo ago
Yes, but they also hiring is so random already they don't care about it being like 3% better or whatever.
creshal 3mo ago
Step one: Decision makers who can change these processes need to be aware of this problem. Many companies fail this simple task. Step two: These decision makers must be held accountable for the success of the process. Many companies fail this simple task. Step three: These decision makers must be willing to admit that they made a mistake, and risk loss of prestige and political capital. Guess how likely that is. And the bigger the company, the worse it gets. It's a good thing we didn't go through 20 years of consolidations and mergers. Oh wait.
- simianwords 3mo ago
  True I agree and I think there must be some head of recruiting who is in the details who should be kinda held responsible for this.
- DrScientist 3mo ago
  There are two problems here - the volume of application spam ( which creates the need for automated filtering in the first place, and is now probably AI aided ), and the fact that there isn't a single decision maker. You have HR which decides to outsource filtering, and then the outsourced company who decides how it's done. The line managers actually trying to recruit are no where near this decision - indeed they don't share a common manager till you get to the CEO - who is too busy to care about this sort of stuff. In my experience the only way to fix this is to tell HR that you want the unfiltered CV list and do it yourself. The problem with that is if you work at a large well known company you'll get 100's if not 1000's of applicants for any job you advertise and most applicants don't appear to have even read the job description. So you are committing to a very large amount of work.

rahulshah2002 3mo ago

[dead]

hoshi73 3mo ago

This clearly falls under the definition of automated individual decision-making per Article 22 of the GDPR and would be blatantly illegal if it were done in the EU. The GDPR is explicitly designed to outlaw this kind of algorithmic profiling and exclusion in hiring. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X4BBTPFO000000/international-data-privacy-compliance-professional-perspective-g https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X4BBTPFO00000...

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

jameson 3mo ago

I wonder how they determine an applicant's ethnicity. Is it by the name?

madcaptenor 3mo ago
From a glance at the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27371 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27371) it looks like they're using self-reported ethnicity. "We only attempt to identify adverse impact based on self-reported racial information and do not impute data, noting that we do not have access to features like applicant name. 62.35% of all applicants in the data do not self-report race as belonging to one of the four racial groups we study."

ameypandey 3mo ago

[dead]

innocentoldguy 3mo ago

I've found that if I apply for any company that uses Workday, it's an immediate rejection, so I don't bother with them anymore.

sublimefire 3mo ago
I would not be surprised if their system breaks somewhere between us clicking submit and some storage system. Their HR stuff is terrible.

swiftcoder 3mo ago

I thought this was going to be about how the whole software industry has been cargo-culting FAANG coding interviews that are heavily reliant on algorithms trivia...

po1nt 3mo ago

If I had to make an algorithm that would correct these injusticies, I would end up just hiring that algorithm as it's way easier than hiring a human.