goog-anon

> Were you exaggerating?

Only slightly. Very strong candidates will more than likely get a pass, but those are exceedingly rare and haven't seen one yet tbh. It's the majority who are genuinely borderline/just above average who will never get a pass/given benefit of the doubt that are given to others.

Yeah, I'm sure they could all smell my prejudice across the table.

On a serious note, to keep a long winded answer short, I'm well aware of the phenomena that your mindset does indeed effect your behaviour/signals you put out and that in turn does effect how people treat you, and mindset is not something that can easily be faked. I've always been hyper conscious about this going into interviews and have even paid for some in-person mock interviews at some point in my career during a rough patch to spot any anomalies/negative vibes I may be giving off.

Both. But I'd definitely give the edge to Indians. My historical pass rate for Indian interviewers is dismal, like 2/25 (going back to when I was 16 y/o applying at KFC). I've had slightly better success with East asians. We talk about 'institutionalized' racism here in the US, but racism/discrimination is institutionalized in Indian culture and religions, and that's sadly not going away.

I wish there was a tactful way of requesting non-Indian interviewers, but there really isn't. There is no bigger waste of time than when you receive an interview schedule and see the names of the interviewers and 4/5 are Indian. Earlier in my career I'd go for the practice but I wouldn't even bother now tbh.

I think poster was referring to the historical baggage of Asian immigrants. They do come with a lot of historical baggage, especially Brahmin Indians and their reverence to the caste system that allots them special privileges. They openly discriminate against other castes here in the US so not exactly a surprise that they also extend that courtesy to blacks.

edit: op edited post so this response looks a little off.

>I'm Asian, worked at FANG, have never discriminated against someone based on their ethnicity and frankly find your actions shortsided and regressive. You're fighting perceived racism with actual racism.

No one think they have ever discriminated against someone based on ethnicity. Even Donald Trump sincerely believes in his heart of hearts that he is the least racist person who has ever walked this good earth. But actions speak louder than words, and my real life experiences are not 'perceived', nor are the results. If a black candidate has two Asian interviewers in a loop, chances of hire are nil, no matter the skill of the candidate. This is based on a sample of ~15-20. I really wish tech companies collected data about the ethnic background of both the interviewers, candidates and the results to clearly illuminate this glaring problem, otherwise everything I say is anecdotal/heresay.

Even speaking for myself, when I've interviewed the only places I've received offers were during loops where there was a max of one asian interviewer.

As for your first question, I'm getting into murky waters but I'll admit that it is difficult to put aside the fact that every Asian you hire, makes it harder for another black candidate to get hired. But it's definitely not as simple as rejecting every asian candidate, definitely don't want to leave a pattern behind :)

This problem gets written about every other month in the media. While revealing the details of my observations and experiences might be interesting, it's definitely not whistleblower material.

Black engineer here at a FANG. I do this all the time with black candidates who interview. In fact I use my round to coach them on the upcoming rounds and give them stellar feedback afterward. I know many would think this is ethically egregious, but it is only balancing the unbelievable prejudice against them by Asian interviewers who would not pass a black candidate under any circumstance.