[lazyasciiart]

The first link describes it as one half of a two-step screen where there are known biases in the second step, and there are far more applicants than positions. So the entire point of this quiz is for it to have a deliberate designed complementary bias, so that the outcome of the two tests combined gave a score that was statistically correlated with the desired results and NOT statistically correlated with characteristics they did not find useful.

Is your argument that this is a bad goal to have, or a bad method of approach, or that the quiz created cannot possibly achieve this goal?

[comeonbro]

“We’re going to flip a coin and if it’s heads and you guessed tails then you're fired, but it’s okay because our research shows that people of your racial group are more likely to guess tails and we think there are too many of your kind around”

[lesuorac]

It's not DEI though; it's just standard corruption.

The answer key wasn't provided to _any_ black candidate. It was provided to National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees. Members of that group had an advantage while black candidates not of that group didn't.

corruption is still bad but much like if I stab you it's not a mugging unless I also steal something (both still crimes).

--

Also, are they using an AI image? The woman's head in the bottom left table is like exploded (and DALL-E in the URL)?

https://thenbcfae.com/

https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/1f146012-d119-44df-9fea-5cb...

[lazyasciiart]

Yea - if the end goal of "there are >x qualified applicants, so give me x acceptances where all of them are qualified and the ratio of group1/group2 in acceptances matches the ratio in the applicants" was met, and nobody could see how race came into the test, I don't think anyone would complain. (For instance if they'd waited 20 years and wrapped it in AI, or maybe if they'd just added it as an additional section in the test. It seems that everyone agreed some qualified applicants weren't going to make it through because there were more of them than acceptances.)

My understanding is that people complained a) because it did not meet that goal of all acceptances going to qualified applicants, but I certainly haven't read enough to judge that and b) the rollout sounds like a chain of poor decisions - even just splitting it into two separate result steps was guaranteed to raise ire from people who got rejected at that new first step, which would have been reduced if they'd simply made it an internal factor calculated at the same time as the exam result.

edit: but I take it that your argument is "that's a bad goal to have"

[flir]

You have many qualified applicants. Your hiring process is biased, and lets more green people through than blue people.

Your task is to fix your process so the proportions of green and blue are closer to those of the general population.

How?

You can probably come up with a better design. But I'm not sure that, at core, it would be much different from this.

[FredPret]

> Your task is to fix your process so the proportions of green and blue are closer to those of the general population.

No, your task is to ensure airplanes don’t collide.

[flir]

You already have oodles of qualified applicants.

I guess what you're trying to say is that you don't consider it a problem if the hiring process is biased towards one group.