For thia reason I hire based on anonymized data that also discards all place name locations and institutions. The result is quite effective, as you are presented with an applications that show only the bare bones of someone's experiences without context that might bias you.

Do you continue to ignore this information in the interview phase?

Recently I've been thinking about inherent biased towards applicants based on their prior work / educational history, in terms of organizations they have been to.

I get that it acts as a moderate signal of how tenacious and inherently able that applicant might have been in the past if she went to XYZ school or ABC company. But there will be so many false negatives!

A lot of folks who probably would be otherwise capable of the job at hand would be dismissed for not having the right pedigree. Also, past performance is not always the best Intuit if future success.

And then of course is the issue of how do you even define success, especially in case if university graduates. How does a Yale or Harvard define our measure success for its students... Probably in terms of potential impact they have on the world or how good their names may look on the rolls 10 years down the line.

A lot of the issues, especially in terms of job applicators but also applicable in admissions process, ultimately comes down to information and numeric asymmetry between the organisation and the applicant.

If there was a way to somehow capture the readings - however brief - for rejection or selection of applicants or a documented scoring methodology, that itself would bring a lot of change.

I would love to know if some resources to further explore the alternative models of applicant assessment which does not place as much importance on the past organisations / schools they have been to.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated

Score applicants blindly.

Adhere hiring decisions to defined generational imbalance correction mechanisms (in the US, "affirmative action"/EEOC/similar state laws).

No thanks. I am my own person. I don't need or want any "correction" mechanisms because of people I don't know and have nothing to do with. That would be ridiculous.

You bring up a certainly superficially valid point. You may be your own person, but, from a normative sense, your personage benefits from a long history of both benefits and detriments defined and in place long before you were born, and much bigger than yourself.

The goal of these bindings are to remove inherent bias. Some of that is bred into the intercept defined by unchangeable characteristics. Others by the vector field of rewards return for effort, often defined by thar initial condition. The goal with most of these (apparently feared? do I have your emotion right?) corrections is to offset at least the most damning of these.

Fear? No. It's disgust at the brazen rationalization of outright discrimination based on some holier-than-thou moral attitude by saying group X is better or worse than group Y because of history that has nothing to do with the individual. Why must people be considered as a member of a group instead of their personal character and actions that they're actually accountable for?

Perhaps what's most insidious about ascribing group victimhood is that you must also accept the converse, which is group responsibility. Are you suddenly going to be held responsible for any wrongs that your group has ever committed? Are you truly certain that's what you want?

You are ignoring that life is not fair, and never will be. We cannot control the bodies and circumstances we are born into. But every individual has the ability to make the most of their opportunity and achieve their goals, and quite a few in history have proven that they are able to accomplish far more by effort and will than any natural advantage otherwise. That is the best we can do, and unless you create some matrix world where we are all exactly equivalent clones of the same capacity, that is all that is possible.

Ah. I couldn't tell if your approach towards non-autarky approaches was fear or disgust. Thanks for clarifying.

It is important to note that the unfairness you describe doesn't affect the positive (non-normative) observations of bias-preservation that the blind hiring approach persists.

Now, pivoting to moral claims along the lines of your comment:

Discrimination has a long history, of which slavery, carting to reservations, redlining,and so forth favored certain groups consistently above others, in the past and in the present. In my view, repairing at least the present entrenched bias by any name is in order, the question is to what level. Autarky is a feasible outcome, if desired, which is to do nothing. The diffusion of favored and privileged status will always feel like discrimination to the group that had favored status. There is still a moral imperative to at least correct current entrenched bias, which in the US can show up in incarceration rates, ability to invest, etc.etc.

Unless you feel these groups that are historically and currently biased against are somehow responsible for their own situations? If that is the case, autarky or favoring your personal situation has a basis to build on. However, I fail to see how various denigrated groups through time brought their current biased outcomes. You've been shown evidence by other commentators that in the US blacks receive longer sentences than whites. Is that just how it is, or do we have as a society a moral imperative to fix at least the current system, let alone offer historical reparations?

I never said let's do nothing. I'm completely in favor of making hiring as blind as possible, especially to any physical and biological traits. I believe it's your stance that we should not do this.

Anyways, you didn't answer why people must be considered as groups instead of individuals? That seems to be the only lens you consider people, while also only choosing the group identity of the most perceived victimhood over an arbitrary time frame. And again, if you want to say that someone takes on the wrongs experienced by a group, then they must also take responsibility for the wrongs committed by the group. So in your example about US blacks, that group also commits the majority of crimes so they must acknowledge and resolve that too. Are you prepared to say that?

You're changing the argument into something about morality but the reality is that there is no cosmic justice. You can be born with missing limbs, or to a destitute family, or inside North Korea. The best we can do is make sure that if you work hard (and yes, harder than others who might be born to a billionaire US family) that you get the same exact chance to gain a position because you are actually competent and qualified for it, and what you look like and what some group in the past has done has absolutely nothing to do with that.

I think that's more of a problem of degree -- it's hard to pin down where harmful bias starts, but if you can do that, then this makes the anonymization solution even more applicable.

The question is whether the school is offering a harmful bias -- people get screened by school, GPA, etc all the time but at the point that society agrees these are harmful then you can just anonymize them out. It gets murkier on the moral/ethical side but I think that's the nature of the problem, not a problem with the solution.