[ausbah]

it's probably more like if your school isn't an ivy, stanford, mit, whatever you're resume goes right in the trash. also that logic is super self perpetuating and I imagine could be used to justify other worse forms of discrimination (not saying at Jane Street but in general)

[filoleg]

False. When I was in college, about 8 years ago, Jane Street not only hired from our school, they came to our career fair on regular. I interviewed with them myself at the time for an internship, but fumbled because my combinatorics knowledge was severely lacking at that time, and algo wasn't quite up to par either.

My college was a public state school (Georgia Tech). While it is a great school, it was public and affordable (could be done for nearly free in-state). But it definitely was not some super difficult to get into exclusive ivy club or the likes.

So it seems like they indeer attend a rather wide variety of schools, given the size of their company. But they aren't a mega giant like Microsoft/Amazon/etc. that can afford to directly send people to recruit from almost every school in the US, their headcount was under 1k total iirc, and significantly.

[Jtsummers]

GT is a top-5 engineering school in the US across many different disciplines, it's not just any public state school. A lot of places recruit heavily from them that would be less interested in other state schools (including most other state schools in GA).

EDIT:

Some context for people unfamiliar with GA: GA Tech, historically, was the public engineering university for the state. For other public universities with engineering programs, most of them were distance versions of GT with students transferring to GT for the last couple years into the 00s (changed by the mid-00s with some students finishing at the host university but graduating with a degree from GT). UGA has only had a College of Engineering since 2012. But prior to that, since the 1930s, UGA had no major engineering program outside of agricultural and a couple other things, with the primary focus of engineering education in the state being at GT.

Other schools had other focuses, but not engineering until very recently.

[heartbreak]

C’mon your counter example is that they recruit from Georgia Tech. How much recruiting does Jane Street do at UGA? George State? Spelman?

[hpkuarg]

There's about four thousand four-year-degree-granting institutions in this country. How much recruiting should Jane Street do at all of them?

[mxkopy]

When I was college shopping, Georgia Tech was near the top of the list for CS. I think it was actually at the top for robotics.

[ausbah]

sorry my list should've included some public schools georgia tech or cal berkeley. my point they would be more preferential towards top tech schools

[wyager]

Definitely not the case. I used to work there - lots of colleagues from outside the ivies etc. Lots of people who didn't go to college for CS, and in some cases did not go to a traditional college at all. Are there a lot of people from e.g. MIT? Yeah, because MIT is a good school and produces lots of people you want to hire.

[ausbah]

I think this is more in regards to university recruiting, especially with internships? I have no doubt about your experience with post grad hiring, college name doesn't matter as much after you have experience under your belt

[wyager]

I think in general smaller companies have to prioritize on-campus recruiting, but if you sent in your resume and you had some random no-name school (or a school that specialized in some completely unrelated industries), I doubt that would disadvantage you beyond the fact that it doesn't necessarily communicate much information to hiring staff who aren't familiar with it.

[hpkuarg]

That's fine. Considering the business Jane Street engages in is highly competitive (maybe even the most competitive in the world), if their hiring practices cause them to have lower productivity, the market will force them to correct their practices or go out of business.

In fact, historical evidence shows amply that the more competitive an industry, the less discrimination (of the sort that we talk about now, like on racial or ethnic grounds) is to be found; and the most regulated, monopolistic, or anti-competitive the field, the more such discrimination is found.

[woodruffw]

Independent of Jane Street, this is absolutely not true of investment or finance as a whole: there are dozens of large firms where entire management layers are made up of the corporate equivalent of "legacy" admissions.

Finance isn't a purely deductive field: you can't purely compete and reason your way past dumb luck and overwhelming access to liquidity. Institutional players have both, and are more than happy to hire their top performers' mediocre sons and nephews to keep them happy.

[pyb]

A classic rebuttal : https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/

[hpkuarg]

Thank you for pointing me to this -- apparently it's not so classic that I have read it already. ;-)

Since I assume you didn't write it, I won't go into a point-by-point rebuttal of the points raised in this piece, but in the interest of keeping up the debate I will mention a few things.

Like many who think along these lines, there is a base fallacy assumed here by the author, which is that absent discrimination, the distribution of tech workers will resemble the distribution of the larger population. Perhaps it is the classical liberal tradition (that "all men are created equal") that leads us to believe this, but there is no reason to believe that any slice of the population must reflect the broader whole, no matter the subject at hand. Over half of the players in the NFL are black and only 0.1% Asian, out of about 13% and 6% of the general population respectively. About four-fifths of all cab drivers in the US are male. Billions of people enjoy running around the world and many millions compete in it, but the Kalenjin of Kenya comprise a stupid number of those at the very top levels of distance running. It's entirely plausible that Chinese, Indians, and Vietnamese (as mentioned) enter the profession at higher rates and succeed at higher rates than other groups without involving a cabal that favors them over other groups, or indeed even personal biases for or against.

This isn't to say that personal biases don't exist and the numerous anecdotes of objectionable behavior encountered by individuals who don't fit the typical "tech bro" mold are invalid. But words like "discrimination" must be precisely defined, and I favor one where it means legal or policy-based exclusion or subjugation of certain groups, contrasted against personal biases ("racism" when it comes to ethnic groups, "sexism" in gender, etc.). When older folks get fewer callbacks from interviews or women are seen as girlfriends at tech conferences, that's personal biases at play, but it is not the same thing as being discriminated against. When you conflate the two you head down a dangerous path that we're treading as a society now, which is the tendency towards totalitarian control of people's thoughts; and this cost must be weighed against any benefit.

It's interesting that the author specifically mentions the Townsend-Greenspan firm vis-a-vis the gender pay gap among economists, because that was a very example of where capitalists motivated by profit took advantage of the fact that women were paid less for equal work, hired such women for slightly more than their competition while still getting the same output, thereby both raising women economists' wages and making out with a handsome profit. It's an argument for letting the market play out. (I do question why the firm dissolved when Greenspan was appointed Fed chairman, instead of continuing on with their more competitive labor.)

This is getting long, so I'll conclude by reiterating what I see as two very salient points from the essay: "The market is just humans. It's humans all the way down", and "We can fix this, if we stop assuming the market will fix it for us".

Yes, the market is humans all the way down. The beauty of free markets is that it leaves the decision-making to the individual humans involved, and not an enlightened group of elites who think they can fix it by meddling. History is littered with examples of people who thought they can "fix this" and ended up making it worse -- so much so that we have a saying about it.

If you're interested in exploring this angle more, I'd be happy to point you to a few works in the literature who have made the argument way more clearly than I ever could.

[ausbah]

I highly doubt a multibillion company engaging in more widespread recruiting practices would be the difference between them succeeding and failing

[ceeplusplus]

I think you grossly overestimate the percentage of candidates at lower tier schools who would be qualified to pass a Jane Street (or really any HFT firm) interview. Even at the top schools the pass rate is incredibly low. In expectation you would be getting probably <5% of your new graduate/intern class from the entire bottom 80% of schools.

The quality level drops off very sharply after you go below the top 20-30 CS schools. It's just a matter of limited resources for recruiting. The common path taken by people who go to "lesser" schools is to grind really hard to get into a good MS or PhD program and then go to these firms.

[ausbah]

to be upfront, I don't buy that a company with such large resources couldn't recruit from a larger pool of school. I'm also not under any illusion about the caliber of student at upper vs lower ranked schools, I see it as a matter of equity and meritocracy

[hpkuarg]

Why not? Having a company with multiple billions of dollars doesn't in itself produce any returns without high quality labor to work it, especially in competition against other such multi-billion dollar companies. It might not fail this quarter or next, but inevitably they'll be chased out, if in fact the recruiting practices lead to lower productivity.

[iskander]

I got an internship offer from Jane Street back when I was at NYU, so at the very least the criteria are (or used to be) broader.