A question primarily for those against Affirmative Action

[Ensign Edison]

Note: I don't mean this as a rhetorical trap, because I understand how futile such devices are. I'm truly interested in the responses, and those pro-AA are welcome to answer too. I would supply my own answer, but I'm asking in part because I don't know what it would be.

You're the boss of Foobar Inc. Your HR folks need to fill a slot, and they've passed the decision your way. Two applicants with identically impressive resumes, both of whom scored equally well on their interviews and so on, wish to work for you.

You've been given their information, and find yourself unable to rank one superior to the other as a potential employee. You only know one difference: one of the applicants is named Smith, and you have 45 Smiths in the company already; the other is named Jones, and you don't have any Joneses at all.

How do you decide which to hire?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Note: I don't mean this as a rhetorical trap, because I understand how futile such devices are. I'm truly interested in the responses, and those pro-AA are welcome to answer too. I would supply my own answer, but I'm asking in part because I don't know what it would be.

You're the boss of Foobar Inc. Your HR folks need to fill a slot, and they've passed the decision your way. Two applicants with identically impressive resumes, both of whom scored equally well on their interviews and so on, wish to work for you.

You've been given their information, and find yourself unable to rank one superior to the other as a potential employee. You only know one difference: one of the applicants is named Smith, and you have 45 Smiths in the company already; the other is named Jones, and you don't have any Joneses at all.

How do you decide which to hire?
If it were me, and the potential new hires were rated that equally, it would come down to personal interviews, asking relevant, telling questions and basing my decision solely off that. What else do you have to go by? Adding another employee of the same name (and I'm assuming you mean race) shouldn't matter, especially if they are both determined to be exactly equally qualified.

[Ensign Edison]

Why do you assume I mean race? AA also applies to gender.

[Bobotheoptimist]

I'm not sure I'm 100% against affirmative action, I tend to think things are shades of grey rather than black and white, but I suppose since I'm against hiring someone based only on skin color or some other unimportant and uncontrollable thing like that, I could say I'm against it. So -

Call them both in for another interview and choose the one that seems to have a personality most likely to fit in with the department.

If I can't get another interview, and/or all other variables are identical, I'd suspect one or both of them of falsifying their resume. Both went to the same school? Both graduated with the same GPA? Both worked at the same companies for the same amount of time? Both born and raised in the same town?

If not - I'd hire the one that either went to a school I like, worked for a company I respect, lived longer in the area, had hobbies I can relate to, was married with kids, wore a masonic symbol, or something. There's gotta be a difference besides their name. I wouldn't hire one just because of the name.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Why do you assume I mean race? AA also applies to gender.
Because the controversy surrounding the AA issue is largely relegated along racial lines?

[Bryan Ekers]

I'd hire the Jewish guy, hands down.

[atomicbadgerrace]

You're the boss of Foobar Inc. Your HR folks need to fill a slot, and they've passed the decision your way. Two applicants with identically impressive resumes, both of whom scored equally well on their interviews and so on, wish to work for you.

You've been given their information, and find yourself unable to rank one superior to the other as a potential employee. You only know one difference: one of the applicants is named Smith, and you have 45 Smiths in the company already; the other is named Jones, and you don't have any Joneses at all.

How do you decide which to hire?

Certainly not by basing my decision on their last name. In the case you've described, where interviews have been done and their qualifications are identical, I would bring both back in for further interviewing. Since I already know their professional qualifications, I would focus the interview on determining personality-type things-- how well will each candidate get along with the other staff? How motivated does each seem about the position? How many other companies have you applied with/are interviewing with? Just general "get to know you" kinds of questions. I'd probably throw in some other "business needs" questions; does either candidate anticipate needing specific time off in the coming year? When, and for how long? Is there any potential for conflicts of interest; perhaps a spouse working for a rival?

If you tighten your criteria a bit and absolutely refuse to allow me to further interview the candidates, I'd have to choose something a bit more arbitrary but (IMHO) fair. Say for example, you're just throwing both folders down on my desk and saying "you have 1 minute to pick one." Everything else being identical (unlikely, but hey, it's your hypothetical), I think I'd go with "whichever one applied first."

I'm really not sure how AA fits in here.

[Indistinguishable]

If they really do have absolutely no significant, relevant differences, then, well, I'd be happy to flip a coin, and no one could reasonably hold it against me.

[Lust4Life]

I'd get them to fight each other in the carpark at lunchtime so as to provide some entertainment for the staff and then when the fight had a winner and a loser I'd hire the loser just to mess with their minds.

Lateral thinking we call it.

[Noone Special]

In this situation? Toss a coin.

But -- were it true that people named "Jones" had been discriminated against in the past (or were still discriminated against contemporaneously), (ETA) based only on the fact of their name, then I'd hire Jones.

[Napier]

I think being unable to find any advantage of one over the other even after speaking further with them, seeking further recommendations, having other employees meet them, and so forth, is implausible. But to answer such an implausible hypothetical, I think I'd prefer a coin toss to any strategy based on name.

[John Mace]

I've heard this joke before. The answer is easy: You hire the one with the bigger tits!

Seriously, though, I've never bought into this "two identical applicants" hypothetical. I've done a lot of hiring in my lifetime. A LOT. And I've never had a situation where there were two identical applicants. People are different, and that's a fact.

[Ensign Edison]

I've heard this joke before. The answer is easy: You hire the one with the bigger tits!

Seriously, though, I've never bought into this "two identical applicants" hypothetical. I've done a lot of hiring in my lifetime. A LOT. And I've never had a situation where there were two identical applicants. People are different, and that's a fact.

I'm not asking you or anyone to "buy" it as realistic. It's an ethical hypothetical for the purposes of discussion. I'm not looking for a particular answer, and I don't yet know what mine would be. I do know that flipping a coin doesn't seem like the right solution. Also, I tried to note in the OP that the candidates aren't identical but are identically qualified, which doesn't seem so impossible to me.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Isn't it customary, to ensure the maximum silliness of the exercise, for one of the names to be "Hitler"?

[you with the face]

The scenario as written suggest a high number of Smiths relative to Jones. Two possible reasons for this observation: 1) a pattern of pro-Smith nepotism (discrimination) and/or 2) a high number of Smiths among the population of people applying for jobs at Foobar relative to Jones. The latter reason could be because there are so few Jones in the population period. Or it could be that Jones are less likely to go into work related to Foobar's mission, for various reasons (including #1).

Regardless of which reason is at work, I would probably lean towards hiring Jones. Companies benefit from diversity in the long-run, I believe, because 9 times out 10, their customer base is diverse. Of course, more information is needed to really come up with a firm answer to this question.

Glad to see you back EE.

[John Mace]

I'm not asking you or anyone to "buy" it as realistic. It's an ethical hypothetical for the purposes of discussion. I'm not looking for a particular answer, and I don't yet know what mine would be. I do know that flipping a coin doesn't seem like the right solution. Also, I tried to note in the OP that the candidates aren't identical but are identically qualified, which doesn't seem so impossible to me.
Well, you said "identically impressive resumes".

Anyway, if they are not "identical", then you can find a reason why one is better suited. Maybe you hire the less qualified one if the other is overqualified for the job and might get bored doing it. I've made that hiring decision before.

[XT]

I'm with John on this one....I've NEVER seen two applicants that came out exactly equal in resume, experience AND in the personal AND professional interviews. There is always some distinguishing difference that makes one candidate more suited than another. Sometimes it simply comes down to personality...who did the interviewers LIKE more? Who did they think would fit in with the team better?

If there ever was a situation where two snow flakes really were identical then I suppose I would flip a coin as well...or, if the budget allowed hire them both and expand the contract (I've actually done this in the past). If one really talented and exceptional applicant is good, two can be better. Or I'd pass the second resume along to the corporate office for further review (assuming the theoretical company I'm working for in the OP's scenario is a big company).

These kinds of unrealistic scenarios however don't really illustrate anything. Simply put they ARE a trap...the OP is trying for a 'gotcha!' moment. Will posters pick a 'Smith' (a not so veiled reference to The White Guy(tm)) or a 'Jones' (an equally pitiful reference to The Black/Hispanic/Asian/Martian Guy/Girl/TransGender(tm))?

If they really were equal then I think most people would flip a coin. Of course, no two snow flakes ever really ARE equal...and no two applicants are either.

-XT

[Indistinguishable]

I do know that flipping a coin doesn't seem like the right solution.
Why not?

[you with the face]

I think the better question is why would flipping a coin be the best solution.

I can come up with a valid reason for hiring Jones over Smith: "Diversity is good." You can agree or disagree with this reason, but at least I'm making a decision based a positive objective.

What's flipping a coin gonna get you? Randomness? How is randomness good?

[XT]

I can come up with a valid reason for hiring Jones over Smith: "Diversity is good." You can agree or disagree with this reason, but at least I'm making a decision based a positive objective.

Well, why wasn't 'diversity' one of the criteria used during the selection then? If 'diversity' is desired, then it WOULD be one of the selection criteria...and then the candidates wouldn't be equal, would they?

What's flipping a coin gonna get you? Randomness? How is randomness good?

If the candidates really ARE dead equal in every respect why not leave it to chance if you can only hire one? If there are other criteria that are important (such as your assertion about diversity) then they aren't equal.

-XT

[you with the face]

Well, why wasn't 'diversity' one of the criteria used during the selection then? If 'diversity' is desired, then it WOULD be one of the selection criteria...and then the candidates wouldn't be equal, would they?

"Diversity" comes from factors that are usually beyond the scope of qualifications that get put down on paper, so no that wouldn't be the case when it comes to the way we usually judge candidates.

If the candidates really ARE dead equal in every respect why not leave it to chance if you can only hire one?

But they aren't dead equal in every respect. Their names are different, remember?

[Indistinguishable]

What's flipping a coin gonna get you? Randomness? How is randomness good?
Just as one tiny thing, if you don't have any other selection criteria to distinguish them at all, even diversity based ones, then randomness will accomplish better the goal of avoiding systemic bias than, say, always going with the candidate whose name comes first alphabetically in such situations.

[you with the face]

Just as one tiny thing, if you don't have any other selection criteria to distinguish them at all, even diversity based ones...

(bolding mine)

But can you say that about the situation presented in the OP? I'd say hold off on the flipping the coin option until you can rule out the diversity question.

[XT]

"Diversity" comes from factors that are usually beyond the scope of qualifications that get put down on paper, so no that wouldn't be the case when it comes to the way we usually judge candidates.

And yet you are using it to make your determination as to who does or does not get a job. Sort of a back handed way to interject it into the selection criteria yet not acknowledge that openly. I think your way is highly unfair, while leaving it to random chance if it comes to two candidates so equal that 'names' would be used seems a much more fair way to decide things.

But they aren't dead equal in every respect. Their names are different, remember?

The 'names' being difference is a meaningless differentiator between two supposedly exactly equal candidates. Maybe their cock/breast size is different to...should we measure those things as well? Or maybe one has a cock the other a pair of breasts. Perhaps we should go based on a difference in hair or eye color? Nose length or exact number of nose/ear hairs? Shoe size?

Random chance seems a much more fair way to distinguish between two exactly equal candidates than their NAMES being different. Of course, we aren't really talking about 'names' here, are we?

-XT

[you with the face]

And yet you are using it to make your determination as to who does or does not get a job. Sort of a back handed way to interject it into the selection criteria yet not acknowledge that openly.

Nothing backhanded about it. If someone asked me how I justifed my decision, I would feel perfectly great about saying "the two candidates seem equally capable of doing the job, so I decided to lean towards diversity in hiring Jones because I believe it benefits us more in the long run to have a workforce that looks like the people we serve*."

That sounds more nuanced and thoughtful and than saying "the two seemed equally capable, so I flipped a coined."


*if this situation applies

[John Mace]

Nothing backhanded about it. If someone asked me how I justifed my decision, I would feel perfectly great about saying "the two candidates seem equally capable of doing the job, so I decided to lean towards diversity in hiring Jones because I believe it benefits us more in the long run to have a workforce that looks like the people we serve*."

That sounds more nuanced and thoughtful and than saying "the two seemed equally capable, so I flipped a coined."
Not if you said you flipped the coin because you wanted to avoid any bias you might have against people with certain names. That sounds as nuanced as saying you thought different names might add diversity.

[you with the face]

The 'names' being difference is a meaningless differentiator between two supposedly exactly equal candidates.

Not necessarily. I think that's why more information is needed here. Names track very closely to qualities we associate with diversity. In this example the names are Smith and Jones. But we could be just as easily talking Smith and Garcia-Rodriguez.

[you with the face]

Not if you said you flipped the coin because you wanted to avoid any bias you might have against people with certain names.

I think this a good reason to justify the flipping the coin option.

[Lust4Life]

I think being unable to find any advantage of one over the other even after speaking further with them, seeking further recommendations, having other employees meet them, and so forth, is implausible. But to answer such an implausible hypothetical, I think I'd prefer a coin toss to any strategy based on name.



Actually being serious,coin tossing could well be a good idea.

Say you decide to employ Smith for whatever reason theres a very good chance that Jones will,if only to save face tell himself and other people called Jones that the only reason that he did'nt get the job was was because of blatant Namism within the company which could make the company look bad and even cause other people called Jones to boycott their products.


But lets say that Jones gets the job,Smith to save HIS self esteem tells himself and others that the only reason he did'nt get the job was that the company was giving in to tacit P.C. blackmail or the usual term is "Political Correcteness gone mad" so that he feels resentment and the Smiths already employed by the company start wondering if Jones and future employees called Jones (and I really really am starting to get pissed off with these cover names we all know what we are talking about here really)
will get promoted over their heads purely to keep the P.C. community quiet

So,bearing in mind that theses people have identical skills and experience a coin toss may annoy some people but at least they cant be accused of namism.

Over here in the U.K AA is called positive discrimination and has caused significant amounts of anger amongst the majority community because it is NOT perceived as all things being equal etc. but employing less qualified applicants because they are members of a minority over and above those better qualified applicants but who unfortunately for them are white,males.

In some employment areas such as the Police a quota system set in place means that the police service is understrength even though there are sufficient numbers of qualified people applying for jobs they are WMs and they cant be employed until for example the requisite amount of Afro Caribbeans are on the strength.

But there aren't sufficient numbers of ACs applying and many of those that do are below the educational standard required.

Personally whenI see a copper ,I see a copper,not an Indian,Chinese or Afro carib,
Maybe other people do I dont know but I do know that when people need a copper to stop being raped or mugged or beaten up they couldn't care less if the person is an African Muslim who wears dresses at the weekend just so long as he/she is there and can do the job.

[Vinyl Turnip]

This is a tough case. I was going to suggest having the candidates arm-wrestle, but obviously they would also be perfectly equal in arm strength, so the match would go on forever without a winner.

[Ensign Edison]

This is a tough case. I was going to suggest having the candidates arm-wrestle, but obviously they would also be perfectly equal in arm strength, so the match would go on forever without a winner.

Except they aren't, as I said, identical. They're identically impressive. So it's more like one would win the arm wrestling, but the other would win at darts, and both games are essential to their jobs.

[Shagnasty]

Which one is taller?

[Bryan Ekers]

[Peter Griffin] Wrong! The ugly one. [/PG]

[Vinyl Turnip]

Except they aren't, as I said, identical. They're identically impressive. So it's more like one would win the arm wrestling, but the other would win at darts, and both games are essential to their jobs.
What if they could arm-wrestle while jabbing each other with darts?

[Ensign Edison]

What if they could arm-wrestle while jabbing each other with darts?

Then they wouldn't be looking for work.

[Ensign Edison]

The scenario as written suggest a high number of Smiths relative to Jones. Two possible reasons for this observation: 1) a pattern of pro-Smith nepotism (discrimination) and/or 2) a high number of Smiths among the population of people applying for jobs at Foobar relative to Jones. The latter reason could be because there are so few Jones in the population period. Or it could be that Jones are less likely to go into work related to Foobar's mission, for various reasons (including #1).

Right. Someone mentioned "evidence of discrimination" -- 45 Smiths and not a Jones in sight isn't automatically evidence of that, but it's certainly worth examining. I think rather than coin-flipping -- which I agree makes sense in the "impossibly identical" scenario, but that's not what I'm after -- I'd start my decision-making process by figuring out which of the above reasons accounted for the Smith/Jones discrepancy.

Regardless of which reason is at work, I would probably lean towards hiring Jones. Companies benefit from diversity in the long-run, I believe, because 9 times out 10, their customer base is diverse. Of course, more information is needed to really come up with a firm answer to this question.

Let's assume we find that the number of Joneses in the company is disproportionate to the general population, because that's more interestingly complex to think about. (In the other case, diversity seems to me a better reason for the decision than no reason at all, which isn't particularly managerial. Well, not in a perfect world.) Say we then look at the questions ywtf outlined above, and find that we interview very few Joneses at all. Either they don't hear when we're hiring, or they think we won't hire them, or they don't want us to, like she said.

I'm starting to think I'd ask Ms. Jones why and how she decided to apply with us, and maybe try to figure out what the Joneses had to say in general about why they weren't working for us. If they said they wanted to but felt that we only hired Smiths, I'd probably hire Ms. Jones so I could begin to change that impression, because in looking for the best talent possible I naturally want the largest pool to draw from.

[atomicbadgerrace]

I can come up with a valid reason for hiring Jones over Smith: "Diversity is good." You can agree or disagree with this reason, but at least I'm making a decision based a positive objective.

How is "diversity of last names" a good OR bad thing?

[Vinyl Turnip]

It's a Jones thing. You wouldn't understand.

[ManiacMan]

This is one of those examples where everyone loses.

Both are equally qualified? In every way?

Doesn't matter who you hire, because if they are both so good then it is plausible that your company would miss out on something that the person who you didn't hire would end up working on, or discovering something really great for you company.

[raindog]

I think the better question is why would flipping a coin be the best solution.

I can come up with a valid reason for hiring Jones over Smith: "Diversity is good." You can agree or disagree with this reason, but at least I'm making a decision based a positive objective.

What's flipping a coin gonna get you? Randomness? How is randomness good?
It's only a positive objective for Jones.

[raindog]

Note: I don't mean this as a rhetorical trap, because I understand how futile such devices are. I'm truly interested in the responses, and those pro-AA are welcome to answer too. I would supply my own answer, but I'm asking in part because I don't know what it would be.

You're the boss of Foobar Inc. Your HR folks need to fill a slot, and they've passed the decision your way. Two applicants with identically impressive resumes, both of whom scored equally well on their interviews and so on, wish to work for you.

You've been given their information, and find yourself unable to rank one superior to the other as a potential employee. You only know one difference: one of the applicants is named Smith, and you have 45 Smiths in the company already; the other is named Jones, and you don't have any Joneses at all.

How do you decide which to hire?
I'd hire the one with tiny wings that would allow them to fly about the room and land on my paper weight.

In other words, in 25 years of interviewing and hiring hundreds, if not thousands, of people I have never found 2 applicants exactly the same.

[Ensign Edison]

And for the ten billionth time, they're not exactly the same. Have you never had a problem deciding between two equally qualified candidates?

[you with the face]

In other words, in 25 years of interviewing and hiring hundreds, if not thousands, of people I have never found 2 applicants exactly the same.

My, my that's a case of protesting too much.

[brazil84]

I'm not dead set against affirmative action, but I'll take a shot at answering your question.


How do you decide which to hire?

I would take whoever would have the shorter commute. (Or does that go against the spirit of the question? Should I assume that their commutes are exactly the same?)

[Ensign Edison]

I would take whoever would have the shorter commute. (Or does that go against the spirit of the question? Should I assume that their commutes are exactly the same)

Nope, that's fine, and I find it to be a reasonable (and clever) answer. Commute distance could effect all kinds of things -- maybe you're a green type, maybe you need to make sure they're close by. I welcome this kind of answer which looks outside the scope of qualifications; it certainly seems better than just random chance.

Out of curiosity, would you also look into the Jones discrepancy in the company? This is quite different from AA in that nobody is mandating your response, of course. (And I'm honestly not trying to set up some kind of trap whereby you admit you secretly love AA and want to marry it. I know this kind of hypotheticalizing is not at all useful as a rhetorical tool in that way. I'm trying to understand a mentality which I don't think I have enough of a grasp on to form an opinion about yet).

[Justin_Bailey]

The fact that people are taking this seriously amazes me.

What does last names tell us about anything? One of the whitest white boys I've ever met has the last name Sanchez. Based solely on your question, he'd get the job because he's Hispanic and you want to diversify even though the only Hispanic thing about him is his last name.

[Ensign Edison]

The fact that people are taking this seriously amazes me.

What does last names tell us about anything? One of the whitest white boys I've ever met has the last name Sanchez. Based solely on your question, he'd get the job because he's Hispanic and you want to diversify even though the only Hispanic thing about him is his last name.

I used last names precisely because they don't come with baggage that might get in the way of the discussion. Obviously I'm not suggesting there's any real problem with companies hiring too many people with the last name. I could have just as easily said Smiths were people who always wear hats and Joneses were people who always wear sunglasses.

That the discrepancy arises concerning an apparently arbitrary trait is all that matters for the purposes of the question. The point of which is that, all other things being equal, one would not expect a statistical surplus on Smiths entirely because there's no obvious, rational reason we're hiring so many Smiths. Smiths and Joneses can both make equally good employees regardless of their names, so it becomes potentially useful to question why we're only hiring Smiths.

[Justin_Bailey]

I used last names precisely because they don't come with baggage that might get in the way of the discussion. Obviously I'm not suggesting there's any real problem with companies hiring too many people with the last name. I could have just as easily said Smiths were people who always wear hats and Joneses were people who always wear sunglasses.

That the discrepancy arises concerning an apparently arbitrary trait is all that matters for the purposes of the question. The point of which is that, all other things being equal, one would not expect a statistical surplus on Smiths entirely because there's no obvious, rational reason we're hiring so many Smiths. Smiths and Joneses can both make equally good employees regardless of their names, so it becomes potentially useful to question why we're only hiring Smiths.

But the hypothetical is so utterly pointless, so why even ask it.

As you said, names mean nothing, so why not use an example that actually means something? Yes, you've avoided the baggage of race or gender, but you've also made a question that can't be answered intelligently by anyone.

In this situation, flipping a coin is the only rational answer as you've set up everything else to be equal.

[Ensign Edison]

I don't really have to repeat the thing about them not being identical yet again, do I? Just read the thread. Hell, someone has already come up with a better solution than coin-flipping (which for the love of god is clearly the opposite of 'rational', that is, something which involves a process of reasoning).

[Justin_Bailey]

I don't really have to repeat the thing about them not being identical yet again, do I? Just read the thread. Hell, someone has already come up with a better solution than coin-flipping (which for the love of god is clearly the opposite of 'rational', that is, something which involves a process of reasoning).

If you choose someone based on "shorter commute" then they're not equal are they? There could be some business reason behind choosing the guy with the shorter commute, say the shorter drive makes him more alert for the job because he gets to sleep later.

Or you're choosing the guy with the shorter commute because you're trying to be nice to him, at which point it makes about as much sense as flipping a coin.

[Ensign Edison]

Okay. Thirty billionth time.

They're not meant to be identical. They're not identical. They are identically qualified for the job. Their qualifications might be different -- just equally impressive. Got it?

[Justin_Bailey]

They're not meant to be identical. They're not identical. They are identically qualified for the job. Their qualifications might be different -- just equally impressive. Got it?

But if anything about them is different (like with the distance of the commute), one becomes more qualified (or impressive) than the other and your whole hypothetical falls apart.

Do you honestly not understand how someone can find fault with this question?

And why was the person who's picking the winner not involved with the interview process before the decision. Because if the picker was the interviewer, then the two applicants CANNOT be equally impressive and they CANNOT be blank canvases with only last names. Race, gender, conversation skills, cleanliness, sense of dress and other things begin to matter.

[Ensign Edison]

I understand the fault you're finding, but it's not with the question I was trying to ask, Justin. The premise is that these potential employees match up on all the things measured in the interview process -- experience, personality, hygiene, etc. I suppose some jobs might have distance of commute in the description, but I assumed this one doesn't and that this, therefore, is looking outside the bounds of the professional requirements for the answer.

Within those bounds, the candidates are the same, but things like, say, their favorite colors are not. "Favorite color" generally has nothing to do with qualifications, so if you are going to base your decision on that, you've moved outside the area of similarity covered by this hypothetical, so you're not violating its rules/invalidating its premise in doing so.

The question becomes, in that scenario, what traits do you look at, and why? I'm starting to think that my dog in this race isn't about AA at all, but the idea that a randomly generated answer is preferable to one with /any reasoning at all/ behind it. Frankly, I think it would even be better to start with "I'll go by favorite color" and /make up/ a reason, but that may just be me.

[Rick]

I've heard this joke before. The answer is easy: You hire the one with the bigger tits!

Seriously, though, I've never bought into this "two identical applicants" hypothetical. I've done a lot of hiring in my lifetime. A LOT. And I've never had a situation where there were two identical applicants. People are different, and that's a fact.
::: shakes fist:::
Damn you, I came in here to post that.

Getting back to the OP, besides never having seen identical resumes, I have never seen equally qualified applicants.
There is always a difference. I have never had a problem picking up on that difference.
Look for the one that is the best fit.

[Ensign Edison]

Getting back to the OP, besides never having seen identical resumes, I have never seen equally qualified applicants.
There is always a difference. I have never had a problem picking up on that difference.
Look for the one that is the best fit.

Okay. I'm happy to accept this as is if you'll bear with me for some more questions, then?

Let's say this applied for you in this scenario as well. You review the candidates and find that Smith is clearly the best fit. But in the process, you discover the Jones discrepancy. Do you take any action to find out the cause? Of the possible causes we've already outlined -- there are only four probable enough to consider -- would you find any of them problematic, and if so, what action would you take?

Please believe me that I will accept answers other than "I would institute AA exactly as it is now, of course!" I'm hoping for them, in fact.

[Rick]

I want the best person for the job. I don't care if that person is white, black, brown, yellow or purple. I don't care if they are a man or a woman. I don't care if they are gay or straight.
All I care about is can they handle the mission, and do the job.
So no, I would not even consider why we didn't have any people named Jones working for us.
Rick
Former manager for SmithCo. Inc. ;)
Just kidding!

[atomicbadgerrace]

Okay. I'm happy to accept this as is if you'll bear with me for some more questions, then?

Let's say this applied for you in this scenario as well. You review the candidates and find that Smith is clearly the best fit. But in the process, you discover the Jones discrepancy. Do you take any action to find out the cause? Of the possible causes we've already outlined -- there are only four probable enough to consider -- would you find any of them problematic, and if so, what action would you take?

Please believe me that I will accept answers other than "I would institute AA exactly as it is now, of course!" I'm hoping for them, in fact.

Well, I'm not the person to whom you directed this question, but I imagine the overwhelming majority of those who would reply on this board would be that no, I would not consider the "Jones discrepancy" when hiring. I would select the best suited candidate for the position; be they white, black, male, female, 6'10" or 4'2".

I would be doing a disservice to the company if I hired someone who did not meet the criteria of being the best suited of the available options solely to "fix the Jones discrepancy."

[ShibbOleth]

I'd hire the one with the last name Chevapravatdumrong*, not just any Smith or Jones.


*Yes, that's a real last name. 10 points whoever can tell me where they've seen it before, without Google.

[Ensign Edison]

Well, I'm not the person to whom you directed this question, but I imagine the overwhelming majority of those who would reply on this board would be that no, I would not consider the "Jones discrepancy" when hiring. I would select the best suited candidate for the position; be they white, black, male, female, 6'10" or 4'2".

I would be doing a disservice to the company if I hired someone who did not meet the criteria of being the best suited of the available options solely to "fix the Jones discrepancy."

You're doing that thing where you're reading political agendas under my scenario I didn't intend. I admit by choosing my title as I did, I was inviting this. But I also knew there was no disguising the similarity and it was better to acknowledge it.

I find your defensiveness interesting, anyway. The question you're responding to now assumed that you already hired the best person for the job. Without reservation, I have agreed with Rick that he can tell which of these candidates is best. I am not in any way advocating not hiring the best candidate, as you've implied for some bizarre reason.

[atomicbadgerrace]

You're doing that thing where you're reading political agendas under my scenario I didn't intend. I admit by choosing my title as I did, I was inviting this. But I also knew there was no disguising the similarity and it was better to acknowledge it.

I find your defensiveness interesting, anyway. The question you're responding to now assumed that you already hired the best person for the job. Without reservation, I have agreed with Rick that he can tell which of these candidates is best. I am not in any way advocating not hiring the best candidate, as you've implied for some bizarre reason.

Oh, no, sorry if it came off that way. I was more replying to your question

But in the process, you discover the Jones discrepancy. Do you take any action to find out the cause?

So, no. :)

[Jragon]

I'd have them both meet with the department they're going to be working with, or at least the people on their level/in their small office area and see which ones had the best chemistry with the group. If there was a dead split in opinions I'd ask them to make a comprimise or re-review the resumes, in fact maybe re call some references. "So how does so and so work under..." or "has he ever had any social issues in the past to you knowledge?" I'm sure there are plenty of aspects I could turn up calling their references around a bit.

If they STILL pan out the same, and I'm talking exactly the same down to disturbing clone level here I may choose the Jones for the fact that otherwise I start having to call the smiths by number. I'm not sure what this thought experiment is supposed to prove though. There's a huge difference between putting a guy with different names in a place with people all named one thing and the represented-by-this-experiment putting a black guy in a white run department or a woman in a male run department etc.

I'm not saying I'd actively or negatively try to discriminate against anyone I'm just saying I can see many issues arise when injecting a white into a predominately black workplace, or a woman into a male workplace or a whale into a sea lion workplace etc. In some cases due to the hired person (they may feel uncomfortable), in some cases if the existing staff may heckle them (or whatever). In this case though I don't feel it's a majority/minority issue so much as a chemistry issue (that happens to be influenced by said qualities) . Put a computer geek in a room full of jocks and you'll get a similar effect. That said, if the different one is more qualified than the other one the different one wins.

Also, with AA, it's the adjustments that get me. Diversity is fine and all, it really is, it's just that I don't care what minority needs a boost, if they're taking a medical enterence exam I'd really really prefer to not have the test scorer ranked at 86 operating on me over the person who was number 30 before the score adjustment (who was then knocked off the 'passed' list). I have no issue with the goal of AA, so much as a few of the means and potential side effects of doing it. Though at the same time I'm not betting that doing nothing about the issue it
s trying to solve would do us any better.

I'm sure I missed the point of either my debate or this question though so feel free to ignore me or chew me out or whatever.

[Ensign Edison]

Oh, no, sorry if it came off that way. I was more replying to your question

So, no. :)

Okay. Thanks for answering, then. If you'd bear with me for one more question...What if you found out that your competitor was starting to hire Joneses like crazy? Would you then begin to investigate the Jones discrepancy? Either way the more explaining of your answer the better.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Okay. Thanks for answering, then. If you'd bear with me for one more question...What if you found out that your competitor was starting to hire Joneses like crazy? Would you then begin to investigate the Jones discrepancy? Either way the more explaining of your answer the better.

If we're still going along with the premise of your OP:

You only know one difference: one of the applicants is named Smith, and you have 45 Smiths in the company already; the other is named Jones, and you don't have any Joneses at all.

where the only difference in the candidates is their name, then I can't say I much care about what my competitor is doing. If ALL of the employees in my company were named Smith (let's assume that none of them are related), I'd have the same answer.

As a hiring manager, my job is solely to pick out the best candidate to do the job, and that's the extent of my involvement in the process. Their names are completely irrelevant to me, given that both have proven experience. I'd get both to spend some time with the folks in the department they'd be in, and then ask the existing employees how they felt about each candidate fitting in.

If both get equal reviews, then I feel comfortable choosing them with some arbitrary, but fair way. I'd go with my original choice of picking the one who applied first. If both applications were submitted online at the same second, I'd go with a coin toss.

It may be interesting to throw this hypothetical in as an interviewing question, just to get a scope of the candidates' personality. "Imagine yourself faced with choosing two identical applicants for a job; one named A, one named B..." If we throw that in as a judge of personality, my bias would be to go with the candidate whose decision is more closely aligned with my own.

Let me ask you... as a person solely in charge of hiring, why should I care about the Jones discrepancy?

[Justin_Bailey]

Let me ask you... as a person solely in charge of hiring, why should I care about the Jones discrepancy?

And what if the Jones "discrepancy" doesn't require any investigation, but is so obvious to the people doing the hiring that it's pointless to worry about.

Let's "go there" and talk about race and your hypothetical shall we? In the past year I've been in charge of hiring for a certain position where I work. In that time I've hired three people. Before I had hired anyone, a co-worker remarked that we only employed one African-American even though a good percentage of our patrons are AA.

I informed this co-worker that it is rare for AAs to apply for jobs here, even though they patronage us a lot. And sure enough, in the past year I have received only two applications from AAs and both were less qualified than the people I eventually hired.

You can talk hypotheticals all day, but real life situations CAN'T fit into that neat little box.

[atomicbadgerrace]

You can talk hypotheticals all day, but real life situations CAN'T fit into that neat little box.

100% agreed.

[brazil84]

Out of curiosity, would you also look into the Jones discrepancy in the company?

It depends. If there is an actual racial or ethnic disparity, I would want to investigate it in order to make sure that the company is not vulnerable to a discrimination complaint. Also, if there are 50 Smiths because of nepotism, I would want to know about that too.

[What the .... ?!?!]

What's the problem with another "Smith" when you already have that many?

OTOH I'd probably hire Jones so we can make fun of him for having such an odd name.

[Ensign Edison]

100% agreed.

Funny. I agree too. I've said it maybe not thirty billion times, but twelve billion or so. But go ahead and keep ranting at people who aren't here holding positions I don't trying to do things I'm not. It's getting amusing.

[Justin_Bailey]

Funny. I agree too. I've said it maybe not thirty billion times, but twelve billion or so. But go ahead and keep ranting at people who aren't here holding positions I don't trying to do things I'm not. It's getting amusing.

That's fine. As long as it's OK for it to also be amusing to me that you refuse to even acknowledge how ridiculous your hypothetical is.

[Ensign Edison]

That's fine. As long as it's OK for it to also be amusing to me that you refuse to even acknowledge how ridiculous your hypothetical is.

I can't believe you still don't get it. Of course it's ridiculous if it were meant to be an accurate analogy to reality. It's not. At all. It's not meant to prove any point, and it's certainly not, as I have in fact acknowledged repeatedly, a realistic scenario in the sense that it actually duplicates reality. It wasn't designed to. That is not its purpose. It's a thought exercise that reduces the terms to simple units in order for the questions involved to be more easily examined.

Other people who agree with you politically don't seem to be having trouble understanding this and answering accordingly. Your obsession with the idea that I'm trying to score a rhetorical point by invoking an impossible hypothetical is getting tiresome. Yes, I know people do that thing you're complaining about. As I have already said, I don't like it either. It's not a valid way of debating. But I didn't open this thread because I had a point to make and a conclusion in mind. I was trying to clear away some of the detritus that collects around the issue so I could focus on the key ethical, philosophical and managerial questions involved. It's possible to do this without building a model that is scaled perfectly to life...Why am I even bothering to type this? You won't read it.

[Justin_Bailey]

I can't believe you still don't get it. Of course it's ridiculous if it were meant to be an accurate analogy to reality. It's not. At all. It's not meant to prove any point, and it's certainly not, as I have in fact acknowledged repeatedly, a realistic scenario in the sense that it actually duplicates reality. It wasn't designed to. That is not its purpose. It's a thought exercise that reduces the terms to simple units in order for the questions involved to be more easily examined.

I get it, I understand what you're trying to do. But what I'm saying is that if the applicants have exactly the same job skills and were equally impressive in the interview, everything becomes a coin flip.

If all of the important factors are the same, then anything you use to separate them becomes important. And if something is important, then they're not the same in all of the aspects that matter to the job. And the name thing is just a bad example all around if you're not trying to paint one as "the other."

There's no debate here because you've set a question where the only answer is flipping a coin. And feel free to replace "flipping a coin" with choosing a favorite color, playing rock-paper-scissors, holding a Halo tournament, having a Simpsons trivia contest or any number of other arbitrary tiebreakers.

[Ensign Edison]

If all of the important factors are the same, then anything you use to separate them becomes important. And if something is important, then they're not the same in all of the aspects that matter to the job. And the name thing is just a bad example all around if you're not trying to paint one as "the other."

Okay, this helps me isolate part of the misunderstanding, the bolded part above. I do agree with you there, but I think it's a semantic quibble. I already said that by "qualifications" I meant "the usual set of things used to determine this", and that answers which look outside that set are acceptable.

There's no debate here because you've set a question where the only answer is flipping a coin. And feel free to replace "flipping a coin" with choosing a favorite color, playing rock-paper-scissors, holding a Halo tournament, having a Simpsons trivia contest or any number of other arbitrary tiebreakers.

Yet, once again, others have answered it reasonably in non-random ways. You seem to be saying their answers ("commute distance" was one) are invalid because they "break" the hypothetical, but I feel like I've covered why they don't.

In the other cases you mention, my question becomes /what/ random thing do you personally choose, and why? Do you pick the one whose favorite color is the same as yours? Is rock paper scissors a way to test impulses? Could an officewide Halo tournament improve morale? That's a big part of what I'm curious about -- how do people react when faced with a situation where their usual tools haven't supplied the answer alone?

Then of course, as I asked others, I'm curious about what reaction if any there would be to the discovery of the Jones discrepancy in the process, and whether they think it matters at all, and if not why not, and if so why so, etc.

[BrainFireBob]

Assuming in terms of employability there's no disecernible difference in ability to do the job, and that they are both sufficient psychological fits for the department if the data's available (in the absence of sufficient capability difference, default to personality fit into both company and department), then introduction of an outside characteristic, such as commute (or desired salary), if sufficiently different, will suffice. If none of these things, then the applicant that applied first for the position.

The Jones-Smith thing presumes there's no difference in the local population, unless you want to start modifying the scenario. Insufficent African-American employees in Chicago or Hispanic in south Texas is a far different story than the same in Oregon or Washington state. That requires further assumptions.

[Huerta88]

I will grant that the OP raises conceptually useful question -- if only for the structural assumptions that are built into (and that bedevil) the fact-pattern that the OP assumes or implies.

Bakke started the whole game of positing "two just about equally qualified candidates come to your door." One of its principal rationales for using race to distinguish them was the implication that in most cases in which AA was employed, you'd be dealing with just such a dilemma: however to distinguish between the honors Yale Greek major (member of Glee Club) and the honors Harvard Latin major (and marching band drum major)? Oh, all right, you can consider race, but only as a "plus factor."

As the later Hopwood case showed, though, race-based AA usually ends up being not a tiebreaker, but a single-issue trump card that leads to a preference for a candidate who would otherwise have little to no chance of being chosen (the stark statistic in that case was that the same score that would get a white candidate presumptively denied entry to the school would get a minority candidate presumptively admitted). Any black student with standardized test scores in the top 5% and good grades from a good school would hardly need even to tick the race box. Repeating the "two just about equally qualified people" meme is unhelpful, then: for the situations in which it is truly the case, then a decision will be made for the same somewhat-arbitrary (but then, life is arbitrary) reasons that govern decisions between two equally-impressive "Smiths" (or two whites of similar background). Maybe one has dandruff. Maybe the other joined Toastmasters and so is more at ease speaking. Maybe a coin flip. Also, if both truly are similarly-impressive, the moral qualms about which to hire can be lesser, as one can be fairly confident the rejected candidate will land on his feet somewhere, no?

If instead of just about equally qualified, the two candidates or cohorts of candidates are separated by literally standard deviations worth of objective qualifications, then the "plus factor" rationale seems increasingly attenuated and not-fair.

Second, the OP (deliberately) provokes questions as to what "diversity" is and how it might (or should) be cognizable. The assumption that being named "Jones" brings any meaningful or useful "diversity" to the table is question-begging, and in a way not so far removed from reality, either. What if Jones is Mrs. Jones, who comes to her interview straight from her City Hall marriage ceremony, prior to which she spent 35 years as Miss Smith? Does she really bring "Jones diversity" to the table? Believe me, these are real-world issues when, for instance, we evaluate "Hispanic" candidates whose qualification as such is (a) merely a surname; (b) a background in some privileged wine-swilling Euro community around the River Plate -- hardly the barrio cred that some are thinking of when they espouse helping out La Raza.

Finally, I have to discount the "well, diversity is good because all else being equal, we probably have some customers named Jones." I discount it not in the first instance because similarity of surname may fail to map one to one with customer satisfaction; not because certain (many) aspects of customer satisfaction have nothing to do with surname, race, sex, but instead, with getting the damn fries out on time, spelling my name right, not selling me the wrong insurance policy, etc., etc. An even simpler reason to reject the facile "Well, our customers are diverse, and they want a diverse workforce" is: (a) what if they aren't? What if half my customers are named Ogunwale and half are Sigfridsdottirs? Am I A-okay, ethically and legally, in limiting my hiring to Nigerian dudes and Icelandic chicks (sweet, sweet Icelandic chicks)? (b) what if they don't value diversity? Can I invoke the prejudices or preferences of my 55 year old Korean guy clients to justify not staffing their projects with blacks or women? Can I echo Uncle Junior from the Sopranos when he was in need of a heart specialist? "Get me a Jew." All I'm saying: the proportional, color-blind gorgeous mosaic customer base, who demands the same in their vendors' workforce, is largely illusory, and customer preferences could (if given undue pride of place) just as easily work against, as in favor, of AA.

[Ensign Edison]

Thanks for re-iterating many of my own points for me, Huerta, and demonstrating that you didn't read the thread.

[ArizonaTeach]

Well, I know from past experience that I'd kill any number of Smiths to save my child's life...

[Huerta88]

Thanks for re-iterating many of my own points for me, Huerta, and demonstrating that you didn't read the thread.
Don't be an ungrateful git. Of course I read the thread, and, I'd submit, added something to it. In fact, I actually tried to give you props by re-phrasing your rationales and assumptions for those who really didn't understand them. Geez.

[Shodan]

I think the problem with your hypothetical is that it is impossible, Ensign. Either the hiring manager can find something that makes one candidate better qualified than the other, in which case he can make a valid decision based on a relevant criterion. Or he can't, so he can't.

The two rationales behind AA are "These people have been discriminated against in the past, so now we need to discriminate in their favor to make up the difference", and Diversity conveys some benefit to the company, so we need to hire a diverse workforce.IIUYC, your hypothetical is addressing rationale 2.

But that contradicts the premises of your hypothetical. If hiring a Jones conveys some benefit to a company of Smiths that hiring another Smith cannot, then Smith and Jones are not equally qualified. If there is no benefit to hiring a Jones, then choosing to hire for reasons of diversity of last name is meaningless. You might as well flip a coin.

But that applies equally to AA. If hiring blacks or women or Hispanics or some other selected factor preferentially conveys some benefit, then blacks or women have an advantage to the company. And notice that AA is not necessary - a smart manager will hire a diverse work force and reap the benefits of diversity and thus out-compete the less enlightened. But if the racial or ethnic background of an applicant does not affect his qualifications, then the second rationale loses its potency.

If a black is really and truly equally qualified to a white or Asian, then there is no advantage in diversity. You then need to argue in favor of AA based on the first rationale.

But you can't have it both ways, even hypothetically. If they are equally qualified, then the company gains nothing by hiring Smith over Jones, because we have already ruled out any advantage to hiring a diversity of last names.

Regards,
Shodan

[Justin_Bailey]

But that contradicts the premises of your hypothetical. If hiring a Jones conveys some benefit to a company of Smiths that hiring another Smith cannot, then Smith and Jones are not equally qualified. If there is no benefit to hiring a Jones, then choosing to hire for reasons of diversity of last name is meaningless. You might as well flip a coin.

Uh oh. Ensign's gonna blow a gasket now.

As much sense as the "flip a coin" argument makes, I don't think Ensign wants to hear it.

[Gangster Octopus]

Of course Jones. I mean seriously, how confusing it already to say, "Talk to \Smith about this." or "I need to talk to Smith." or "Email this to me and CC Smith, Smith, Smith and Smith."

Who needs that aggravation.

[foolsguinea]

I'd hire Jones.

Anyone who wouldn't hire Jones is clearly an anti-Welsh bigot.

No, seriously, I could see someone finding it amusing to bring the Smith count to 46. I'm not sure that's criminal.

What I'm more disturbed by is this:If I can't get another interview, and/or all other variables are identical, I'd suspect one or both of them of falsifying their resume. Both went to the same school? Both graduated with the same GPA? Both worked at the same companies for the same amount of time? Both born and raised in the same town?

If not - I'd hire the one that either went to a school I like, worked for a company I respect, lived longer in the area, had hobbies I can relate to, was married with kids, wore a masonic symbol, or something. There's gotta be a difference besides their name. I wouldn't hire one just because of the name.A. How is which school one went to or which town one lived in, etc., a meaningful variable? That tells you nothing about the individual's character.

B. If you'd pick someone just because he's a Mason, I think that's disgusting. (Though Masons I've known have been pretty decent guys.) Well, I hope you understand me not employing anyone from a secret society. Good grief!

[Bobotheoptimist]

What I'm more disturbed by is this:A. How is which school one went to or which town one lived in, etc., a meaningful variable? That tells you nothing about the individual's character.

B. If you'd pick someone just because he's a Mason, I think that's disgusting. (Though Masons I've known have been pretty decent guys.) Well, I hope you understand me not employing anyone from a secret society. Good grief!A) If one went to Yale and the other went to Metro State, then I'd be inclined to hire the Metro grad. Not a fancy school so the person has done more with less.
If one is from the area and the other is from ... oh, New York or something, I'd hire the one that is more likely to add to the group.

B) If all else is equal. I know some things about the Mason (or Eagle Scout, Knight of Columbus, Phi Tappa Keg, or whatever) based on his membership in the organization. One mentions that he's KKK, flies RC planes, has his Ham radio license or publishes conspiracy theory newsletters, that also would tell me something about the person.
All of those are more relevant than his last name.

[Vinyl Turnip]

The manager would likely hire Jones purely out of fear of legal action by the NAAJ, who would surely levy accusations of systemic antijonesism, regardless of whether there was any real evidence of it. Under threat of boycott, the company would acquiesce in hiring enough Joneses to meet or exceed the proportion of Joneses in the general populace. The company would do its part to find the best Joneses available, but filling the Jones quota would (at least tacitly) be emphasized over finding the absolute best qualified and experienced candidate.

Whispers would begin to circulate among Smiths, who now find themselves working with an influx of Joneses, some of whom excel, others whose qualifications appear painfully suspect. Sensitive to their colleagues' clannishness and discontent, the Joneses withdraw into their own clique. Hostility grows as morale plummets. The door to the Human Resources office groans on its hinges. A physical confrontation takes place (whose origin fails to be determined from contradictory witness accounts) that results in the dismissal of one Smith and one Jones.

Soon after, the company is named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit. Faced with certain financial ruin, they close all offices, laying off the entire workforce, and move their entire operation to India.

Months later, the hiring manager finds himself with a quandary: two candidates of equally impressive qualifications. One is named Patel, and the other Singh, a surname shared (as coincidence would have it) by all the other current employees...

[Ensign Edison]

Uh oh. Ensign's gonna blow a gasket now.

As much sense as the "flip a coin" argument makes, I don't think Ensign wants to hear it.

You have yet to explain the sense it makes. I'd love to hear how it makes sense, but all you do is announce that in your own personal hypothetical world, taking an action for no reason or a random reason is preferable to taking an action based on any rationality at all.

[Ensign Edison]

Don't be an ungrateful git. Of course I read the thread, and, I'd submit, added something to it. In fact, I actually tried to give you props by re-phrasing your rationales and assumptions for those who really didn't understand them. Geez.

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to call me a git in GD, but since I was pissy at you first I'll let it pass without a report, and just ask you to please not call me names outside of the Pit.

You did add something to it, much more than many, and I'm glad for that. I'm frustrated because you still geared your response as if my OP was a rhetorical argument in favor of AA rather than a sincere question. Also, I never said "diversity for diversity's sake", that was face, so you're misdirected on that point. You also pointed out what I had done already -- that absent a qualifying factor one can discern in the hiring process one has to look outside it. My question became how do you do that without being completely arbitrary -- the idea of the Halo tournament, for example, while silly, at least would be a measure of something. I've already addressed the point that this just expands the qualification process to include the new criteria; that's just a semantic quibble to me, not something which prevents the question from being answered in general.

[Justin_Bailey]

You have yet to explain the sense it makes. I'd love to hear how it makes sense, but all you do is announce that in your own personal hypothetical world, taking an action for no reason or a random reason is preferable to taking an action based on any rationality at all.

I have explained it, you just don't like my answer. You have set up the question where it doesn't matter if we pick Smith or Jones. Both would do equally well at their job and the last name diversity thing is just ridiculous enough that it can can be ignored. So either candidate would be the "right" choice.

So anything you do to separate the two is random. Unless the job is at a video game store, a Halo torunament would have no bearing on the job. So using it as a benchmark is effectively being random. Halo skills were not part of the interview so you have no idea what Smith or Jones' skill in Halo is. Smith may have sat outside GameStop at the midnight launch to be get the Legendary Edition of Halo 3 while Jones might not even like video games. So the performance of either person in such a torunament is totally random.

How you can't see this baffles me.

[Ensign Edison]

I have explained it, you just don't like my answer. You have set up the question where it doesn't matter if we pick Smith or Jones. Both would do equally well at their job and the last name diversity thing is just ridiculous enough that it can can be ignored. So either candidate would be the "right" choice.

I have not set the question up that way. You keep insisting that, I keep explaining why it's not so, and you keep coming back to insist it some more. Yes, both would do equally well at their job -- surely this is true of many, many people employed right now. Again, I didn't suggest the "diversity of last names" thing, that was face, but I would like to see why it's sillier than random chance. What I don't get is that you seem to be insisting that it's actually better to flip a coin than to employ any reasoning at all.

So anything you do to separate the two is random. Unless the job is at a video game store, a Halo torunament would have no bearing on the job. So using it as a benchmark is effectively being random. Halo skills were not part of the interview so you have no idea what Smith or Jones' skill in Halo is. Smith may have sat outside GameStop at the midnight launch to be get the Legendary Edition of Halo 3 while Jones might not even like video games. So the performance of either person in such a torunament is totally random.

Look, I keep saying "what would you do if you had to go outside the usual qualifications to find the best employee" and you keep saying "anything outside the already laid out qualifications is just as random as a coin flip". It's obviously false. There are many character qualities which can be adjudicated outside one's resume, and which ones a manager might choose to consider important isn't random at all, but based on his or her understanding of the company, human nature, and so on.

[Justin_Bailey]

I have not set the question up that way. You keep insisting that, I keep explaining why it's not so, and you keep coming back to insist it some more. Yes, both would do equally well at their job -- surely this is true of many, many people employed right now.

This is a quote from your OP, where you set up the "equally impressive" idea:

You're the boss of Foobar Inc. Your HR folks need to fill a slot, and they've passed the decision your way. Two applicants with identically impressive resumes, both of whom scored equally well on their interviews and so on, wish to work for you.

From your own words, it sounds like Smith or Jones would both do equally well at their job and that neither has any distinguishing characteristics.

Look, I keep saying "what would you do if you had to go outside the usual qualifications to find the best employee" and you keep saying "anything outside the already laid out qualifications is just as random as a coin flip". It's obviously false. There are many character qualities which can be adjudicated outside one's resume, and which ones a manager might choose to consider important isn't random at all, but based on his or her understanding of the company, human nature, and so on.

But here's where your question falls apart. It's based on the premise that the resume and answers to the silly standard interview questions like "What is your biggest weakness?" (stock answer: "Well I just work too hard Bob!") are all that matter.

I don't know about you, but I've never felt an interview worked that way. Stuff like conversation skills, demeanor, word choices, sense of dress and other intangibles all matter in an interview. It's not "going outside the box" to use them. As I explained above, deciding an applicant's worth on a Halo tournament is no less random than a coin flip. Others have said the same thing I have, yet you refuse to even consider it.

[Ensign Edison]

Smith or Jones would both do equally well at their job

Right.

and that neither has any distinguishing characteristics.

Not only wrong, not only not implied in what you quoted, but specifically and repeatedly repudiated by me subsequent to the OP.


I don't know about you, but I've never felt an interview worked that way. Stuff like conversation skills, demeanor, word choices, sense of dress and other intangibles all matter in an interview. It's not "going outside the box" to use them. As I explained above, deciding an applicant's worth on a Halo tournament is no less random than a coin flip. Others have said the same thing I have, yet you refuse to even consider it.

I think addressing practically every post you've made is not "refusing to consider it" at all. Anyway, of course those intangibles matter. You agree that the "set of things which are usually considered" does not encompass the entire universe, right? I agree that the set thusly defined is also wider than the resume qualifications, and have all along.

As for "others", "others" have said lots of things, the majority of which don't, in fact, support your position that it's better to employ random chance than no reasoning whatsoever. If I were a manager, I would hope that when I had to make unusual decisions I wouldn't immediately throw the whole thing to blind chance or insist that any choice I make is exactly equal to doing so.

[Justin_Bailey]

Not only wrong, not only not implied in what you quoted, but specifically and repeatedly repudiated by me subsequent to the OP.

If they have defining characteristics that would be useful on the job, then any one of those would be used well before the idea of a Halo tournament (or commute time or last name) was even considered.

If they're NOT equal, then there is no discussion, one has to be "better" than the other in some way that is meaningful to the job. And if they ARE equal, then choosing one over the other is a completely arbitrary decision.

[Ensign Edison]

If they're NOT equal, then there is no discussion, one has to be "better" than the other in some way that is meaningful to the job.

The discussion I've been trying to have is how one would determine which was better. I think you're just not getting that my question is different from the one where the candidates are literally identical.

[Justin_Bailey]

The discussion I've been trying to have is how one would determine which was better. I think you're just not getting that my question is different from the one where the candidates are literally identical.

I get what you're asking, I just don't think we approach the idea of a resume/job interview in the same way.

I think what you're asking is a question with no answer. You think otherwise. We can't reach any common groud to debate the question because we both see the question as being interesting (you) or pointless (me).

It was fun man, but I think this'll be the last round of back and forth for me. Unless someone else can enlighten me on what Ensign is trying to say.

[Vinyl Turnip]

It couldn't be simpler, Justin_Bailey: how would you, as a real person in the real world, determine which of two fantasy-world job candidates was the better choice, when the scenario has been painstakingly defined so that neither of them is better than the other?

[Ensign Edison]

It couldn't be simpler, Justin_Bailey: how would you, as a real person in the real world, determine which of two fantasy-world job candidates was the better choice, when the scenario has been painstakingly defined so that neither of them is better than the other?

Show me, with quotes, how this is true, or stop. Won't be a problem, right? You're completely able to back up this position? You can easily demonstrate how your characterization of my argument is true, or else you wouldn't be so amusingly flippant about it? Or will you just drive by and feel good about how clever you've been without contributing anything of substance or having to work in any way to demonstrate your point?

[BrainFireBob]

Show me, with quotes, how this is true, or stop. Won't be a problem, right? You're completely able to back up this position? You can easily demonstrate how your characterization of my argument is true, or else you wouldn't be so amusingly flippant about it? Or will you just drive by and feel good about how clever you've been without contributing anything of substance or having to work in any way to demonstrate your point?

Okay!

Okay. Thirty billionth time.

They're not meant to be identical. They're not identical. They are identically qualified for the job. Their qualifications might be different -- just equally impressive. Got it?


See that? The scenario is that, all qualification to perform the job being equal, do you or do you not hire to increase diversity in your company.

As was extremely adequately stated above, if one employee adds more diversity that is of benefit, the two candidates are not equally qualified. If the diversity they add is not of benefit, then that diversity is irrelevent. Only factors of relevence to the job determine qualification. If those are all truly equal, then any non-random method of hiring leaves the potential employer liable for legal prosecution on grounds of discrimination, since it applied discriminating procedures in its hiring practices. Hence, either they're not actually equal, or the scenario is only solvable by use of random determinants, specifically items such as coin-flipping.

[Justin_Bailey]

Wow, look at that. Other people have read it the same I have.

We all must be delusional, right Ensign?

[Sage Rat]

I can't say how AA has much of anything to do with the OP question.

You've given an example where both applicants could just as easily be chosen by the flip of a coin for all the effect it has--and this is supposed to represent what exactly about Affirmative Action?

To answer though, I'd probably go with the one who applied first. Again, I don't really see how that answer has any relevance with the potential plusses or minuses of AA.

I think that AA was historically a negative, helping to re-inforce the idea of "you can't succeed under your own power" into a group of people who had had that idea forced into their culture for a couple hundred years. And when you're battling the culture of poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty), you don't need to get unqualified people into the same schools as the Smiths, you need to get them into schools that will get them competitive with the Smiths. AA was a cheap alternative to building good schools in bad neighbourhoods.

[Ensign Edison]

Wow, look at that. Other people have read it the same I have.

We all must be delusional, right Ensign?

What? Where did I say that? WHere did I say anything like that you were delusional? Why are you taking the fact that some people here agree with you as evidence and discarding the fact that some people don't? That's a very strange way to approach supporting your position, which seems to me like it should stand or fall on its own merits. I'm not using the fact that others have read it my way as evidence, so you shouldn't do the same thing in reverse.

[Ensign Edison]

Okay!
See that? The scenario is that, all qualification to perform the job being equal, do you or do you not hire to increase diversity in your company.

Only if you completely ignore pretty much everything else posted to this thread, how I've agreed with various other objections and versions of the scenario and even happily ACCEPTED several responses as valid and good that did not rely on the diversity issue. Which I wasn't even the one to bring up, by the way, and was never championing. It is very clear that some people have seem something vaguely similar to this scenario before and are just jumping in without paying much attention to complain about that other argument they once had with someone else making similar but different points.

[Vinyl Turnip]

You can easily demonstrate how your characterization of my argument is true, or else you wouldn't be so amusingly flippant about it?
Actually, I might anyway. But yes, I could easily demonstrate as much, but given BrainFireBob's post, it would be redundant.

You have created a hypothetical in which two non-identical job candidates are identically qualified for a job. From the company's perspective, there is no advantage whatsoever to hiring one over the other. (This is necessarily true, because if one did have an advantage, any advantage relevant to the job, they would no longer be equally matched.)

You continue to deride the coin-flip solution because it "throws the matter to blind chance," and insinuate that there is some better, more rational method of choosing, but thusfar you have not hinted at what that might be.

Again, you have set up the scenario so that from the company's perspective, there is no advantage to hiring one person over the other. From the perspective of the candidates, the coin flip (or any other chance method) at least offers a degree of fairness. If you'd like to explain why you think "diversity of last names" is any more just a rationale than choosing randomly in this instance, I would be pleased to read it.

[Ensign Edison]

You continue to deride the coin-flip solution because it "throws the matter to blind chance," and insinuate that there is some better, more rational method of choosing, but thusfar you have not hinted at what that might be.

Several answers have been put forth already. My whole point was to consider what it might be, and several other posters have offered solutions I thought were good. I have, in fact, done more than hint at what it might be, I've outright suggested or agreed with several. Why aren't you reading the thread before posting?

Again, you have set up the scenario so that from the company's perspective, there is no advantage to hiring one person over the other.

Except that I have specifically explained why the scenario doesn't work that way several times now. Why aren't you reading the thread before posting?

If you'd like to explain why you think "diversity of last names" is any more just a rationale than choosing randomly in this instance, I would be pleased to read it.

If you'd like to explain why you're asking me to explain a position that not only did I not take (it was you with the face), but that I have now said two or three times in recent posts I did not take, and why therefore you're clearly posting without reading, I would be pleased to read it.

[Justin_Bailey]

Several answers have been put forth already. My whole point was to consider what it might be, and several other posters have offered solutions I thought were good. I have, in fact, done more than hint at what it might be, I've outright suggested or agreed with several. Why aren't you reading the thread before posting?

And we are saying that these answers are no different than random chance. Sure, it's cute to suggest something practical (commute time) and something silly (a Halo tournament), but neither is any more logical than flipping a coin when it comes to choosing the best applicant for a job.

Except that I have specifically explained why the scenario doesn't work that way several times now. Why aren't you reading the thread before posting?

The same could be asked of you. Why aren't you reading the replies that state that a logical reading of your OP (and your responses) requires the candidates to be equal? As we've said countless times, if they're unequal, it breaks the hypothetical.

If you'd like to explain why you're asking me to explain a position that not only did I not take (it was you with the face), but that I have now said two or three times in recent posts I did not take, and why therefore you're clearly posting without reading, I would be pleased to read it.

If you don't believe in the position, and you agree it was more or less window dressing for your OP, why include it at all? Especially when last name tells us nothing about a candidate beyond... wait for it... their last name.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Why aren't you reading the thread before posting?
Why aren't you reading the thread before posting?
therefore you're clearly posting without reading,

Yes, it's quite remarkable how many posters in your threads (this one, and others in the past) somehow haven't read the thread. It's as though we're all reading one thread, and you're reading a completely different one that exists on some other plane, or perhaps in your own head.

Oddly, I find this little philosophical pas de deux has grown tiresome. You can shrug, dig your finger into your dimpled cheek, and bat your eyelashes all you want, while coyly insisting that you're ever so surprised! that people would assume there's some agenda behind your doe-eyed questioning. You clearly had a predetermined point to make in defense of AA, even though you prefer to continue your ersatz-Socratic tap dance rather than state it outright.

Never been a fan of tap dancing. Best of luck on your voyage of intellectual discovery, and let me know how Jones works out for you.

[Ensign Edison]

Vinyl Turnip, you have accused me of things which are false. You need to stop dancing around and back them up. How do you answer the things I said between what you quoted? How do you answer to the fact that you asked me to defend an argument I never made about diversity? How do you answer to the fact that I have actually ACCEPTED RESPONSES which you have declared impossible and insisted I would never accept? Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertions? Your position is so strong, why not blow us all away disproving me? It would be very impressive, especially with the amount of condescending posturing you're doing. Pretty soon, I'm going to go through myself and quote all the stuff you ignored or never read which clearly shows how little substance there is to your accusations, but I'm giving you a chance to back your talk up first.

And what the hell are you talking about, other threads? I wasn't even posting for six months. This is my first thread in a long time, and I can't remember ever encountering this much apparently willful ignorance before. If you can show me how I have a pattern of it, please do so, or else once again, you're just blowing smoke.