It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Twisted Imaginings - A Horror And Gore Themed Blog http://bit.ly/2DF1NYi
Happens all the time in the sciences that are generally dominated by men (physics, maths etc), a woman and a man with the same quals, the woman will get the job at 2:1 because they are desperate for more women. Same with men and teaching, in primary and secondary schools there is a massive lack of male teachers so they are prefered, even with equal quals.
I would have thought it would be worse with bigger companies because diversity helps with PR and the brands image. Not saying it did happen in this case, but it does happen, even if it is illegal, it is almost impossible to prove.
A place like that is also a place I probably wouldn't want to work.
And I'd also want to hear the harsh truth so I can improve myself.
Good luck in your quest
My YouTube Channel
https://www.rt.com/usa/362002-yahoo-ceo-discrimination-lawsuit/
... oh fuck.
Being on the other side of the process, it can be difficult to give honest feedback so it's safest to say 'there was a better candidate' - which can mean many things. I once gave feedback that a candidate had good knowledge in one area but did not demonstrate enough knowledge in an area that we were specifically looking for, and they were also somewhat guarded and unforthcoming, and I went into a bit of detail in these areas, and they went ballistic and it caused me all sorts of grief for a while.
So the actions of a minority of candidates can spoil things for everyone else who would appreciate constructive feedback, which is a shame, and can result in organisations being reluctant to give it.
As @Mkjackary says, it is almost impossible to prove. That also means it is almost impossible for you to know it happened. So maybe it didn't. For example:
One of the recent rounds of interviews I did we interviewed 6 people, and 5 were women. It would have looked like a clear case of positive discrimination. But, actually, we didn't know the gender of the candidates and in one case everybody on the panel was shocked when a woman walked in because somehow we'd guessed it would be a male candidate (her name was Chinese so we couldn't tell the gender, and the area is hugely male dominated). There were at least two other shortlisted candidates where the names didn't give away the gender, again partly because all the candidates were from overseas.
But no, I'm not arguing that every panel obeys the law. But I've seen a lot of traditional prejudice ("we can't employ her, she might get pregnant" is one quote that sticks in my mind), and no positive discrimination.
I've seen the BBC advertise jobs that were for BME people only.
And you're flat out wrong when you said before that positive discrimination would be illegal. It simply isn't:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-doesn-t-count-as-discrimination-at-work/discrimination-at-work-positive-action/
Effectively our law is written around:
diversity == always good
equality == parity of outcome
Which is just short sighted and dumb. You have to account for people's CHOICES and DESIRES.
In an equal society, you'd expect all sorts of disparity in all sorts of fields. Because when people have the widest choices, they tend to think on a more individualistic level than when they don't.
It was quite disconcerting.
Now if you ask me, THAT is racist and pretty damn ignorant.
But even that CAB page shows the legal position is subtle, and it seems clear that employing someone because they are black/female/vulcan is only legal if the candidates are equal in all other aspects. And it looks to me as if the BBC advertising for BME candidates only would be illegal.
As we've discussed before, measuring equality by parity of outcome is a pretty crude way of doing things. In the processes I've been involved in, the attitude has always been one of trying to make the selection process as fair as possible, and then accepting whatever outcome arises, whether that leads it more diversity overall or less. Que sera sera.
Your block capitals supports the last sentence in my previous post - no-one ever recruits the needy candidate.
You are at Uni to listen and learn? Yet your first evaluation of feedback is emotional reaction and condemnation of the person giving the feedback. The interviewers will detect that in your interview and in a sober nerdy environment like IT I guess they are going to probably prefer an analytical response rather than an emotional response.
Interview technique? Be confident and friendly, listen carefully to the question and make sure you answer it first before widening your response. Body language? Mirror the interviewer in body and vocal speed and tone. 90 percent of being successful is whether the interviewer feels they could work with you ok.
Despite being a fuckwit and cretin according to you, I never asked for feedback because I got the job more than 20 times out of the maybe 30 interviews. Took the jobs too, almost every time.
Sure I remember some of my interview failures. Failure is tough only because of your lack of emotional discipline. How do you think a sales guy copes with being turned down by potential customers day in, day out? They feel that rejection almost everyday. Do they go back and beg for feedback as to why the customer didn't buy from them? Of course not. They review what they think wasn't great, tweak their approach accordingly and move on to the next one. Emotional maturity is a wonderful thing - get some.
Have a nice day