[serge2k]

> There were also the Hiring Committee meetings that became contentious when I advocated for diverse candidates. Candidates who were dinged for not being fast enough to solve problems, not having internships at ‘strong’ companies and who took too long to finish their degree. Only after hours of lobbying would they be hired. Needless to say, the majority of them performed well.

Why is it needless to say that?

[dcole2929]

Because they have been proven time and time again to have very little affect on the quality of an engineer. Simply put these are often poor indicators of success even among like candidates. When you're specifically talking minority or low income candidates, which unfortunately often go hand in hand it doesn't make sense to think that any of these factors speak to a candidates suitability for a given role.

[mentat]

Because the interviewing process is fundamentally broken most places and that the listed items were irrelevant to actual productivity.

[MBCook]

They wouldn't be useful anecdotes if they weren't?