epeeist

Members
  • Content count

    5948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

epeeist last won the day on October 4 2016

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1743 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

  1. Came across this Slate piece with some interesting points and examples including musical auditions for orchestras behind a curtain boosting hiring of women. "... As Shapiro suggested, however, these measures go only so far in preventing bias, especially when the process isn’t blind from start to finish. That’s what Stanford doctoral student Sharon Jank discovered when she studied the effectiveness of GapJumpers, a technology platform that employers can use to swap traditional résumé screening for work sample submissions stripped of any personal identification information. She found that this strategy did increase the proportion of underrepresented groups that made it past the first screening. But when employers continued the selection process with more traditional interviewing, this, according to Jank, “neutralized” the positive effects of the first blind process, in part because they weren’t following best practices to reduce and understand their implicit biases. Still, the point is not that all biases are necessarily bad, according to Rory Gerberg, a diversity and inclusion specialist who runs workshops and trainings in the San Francisco Bay Area. “The problem with unconscious bias isn't that any bias you have is inherently wrong. It's that bias operates at an unconscious level, influencing your decision-making, whether or not you're aware,” she said. “The answer is to bring your biases to a conscious level, so you can be aware of the factors influencing your calculus and decide whether those are still the conclusions you want to reach.”..." http://www.slate.com/blogs/better_life_lab/2017/05/23/you_re_not_blind_to_race_and_gender_but_your_hiring_process_can_be.html
  2. I'm biased in favour of Queen's as an alumnus (and against UOttawa for other reasons...), but based on the limited information, it seems: 1. You were happily surprised to be accepted at Queen's despite months-ago Ottawa U acceptance; 2. You think Queen's law has a better reputation, ranking, employment prospects, and possibly administration; 3. You are from (have family/friends in?) Toronto, and plan to return to Toronto/GTA to work; 4. The only positive thing you have to say about Ottawa is it seems like a better city to live in. So why in the world would you choose Ottawa? Based on the factors you've described. And bearing in mind that visiting Kingston or Ottawa as a tourist doesn't really give you a flavour for living there while studying.
  3. Often the people screening applications initially at least are not the ultimate interviewers, and may even be an outside service hired to reduce the applicant pool to a manageable size. So while I'm iffy on the methodology of a study re interviews (as discussed above), something that tried to distinguish between in-person discrimination versus at the screening stage might usefully identify where the problems more often lie. So while I suspect the problem lies at both stages, it is possible that at the extremes one business might have perfectly non-discriminatory application screening that falls apart in the interview, another business might have unbiased interviews and selection at that stage, but screeners or an outside screening process that stopped minority candidates from even reaching that stage (in the latter case, name-blind applications would 100% solve the problem). Also, I'd quibble with "want". While there is certainly deliberate discrimination, there's also unconscious discrimination, either (or both) at the application screening or interview stage. Whether by ethnicity (or presumed ethnicity) or gender (or presumed gender) or disability, or other factors, there is significant unconscious as well as deliberate discrimination. I think one simple example discussed a while ago on this board was, if you have two candidates, and candidate A has a name that is easy to pronounce, and candidate B does not, at the application screening stage might there be an unconscious, non-deliberate bias to choose the person with a name that's easy to pronounce, or otherwise seems more familiar to the screener? This is obviously not good, but may be unconscious. Or for that matter what if candidate A has an unusual (to the screener) name but puts e.g. "John" in parentheses (or contrariwise "John" with their name in parentheses afterwards) and candidate B has the same name but no "John", is there an assumption perhaps unconscious that the former is to be preferred?
  4. I think things like the Federal government pilot project - and some companies - with blinded application processes may give (if data becomes available, and government is significantly different from private sector) a set of data re hiring if demographics are tracked, because then you have a pool of interview candidates selected without reference to name, gender (I assume), etc., you could track hiring from those interviews. Hopefully pilot project does that even though it is public not private sector.
  5. If Josh Donaldson is 2.5 times as likely to be interviewed than Harnarayan Singh, that's a problem. Because Josh is more likely to get a job than Harnarayan (unless you think there's some reason why at the interview stage the magic of the name Harnarayan will somehow make them more likely to be hired than Josh, at the few interviews they get). If your argument is that a Josh Donaldson who's a Punjabi man is more likely to be hired, okay, that's an interesting question and that question could, I agree, in theory be studied though the methodology might be suspect since you'd have a set only of places that offered interviews to both Josh and Harnarayn (though I think there would also be ethical and possibly legal concerns about sending people to interviews with real businesses under false names - what happens if you have an interview at a law firm say, and the firm finds out they had fake interview subjects who never intended to work there, and they sue the researchers based on the hourly rate of all the lawyers involved in interviews? And what's the definition of personation? Etc.). But until this post of yours I thought we were discussing equal-on-paper white guy Josh and visible minority Harnarayan (who is also visibly a minority based on their application). And really, why does that matter? If the Harnarayan is less likely to be interviewed than the equal-in-all-ways-but-name Josh, that'a s problem regardless of Josh's or Harnarayan's skin colour.
  6. Although your later post said you were mostly kidding, there are so many more variables by having different people go to interviews. On paper you can control all the variables save name, so that they're truly identical except for that. In person, you can't. Your proposal doesn't make sense unless maybe you have the same applicant show up disguised as another race (which raises many other issues, ethical, moral, and practical relating to race, let alone the issues of sending someone on false job interviews which is even more an imposition on a business than sending a false application). And obviously if you don't get an interview you don't get the job (nepotism etc. excepted). When the only difference between getting an interview (and the chance at a job) is your name and its perceived ethnicity, by a factor of 2.5 times, that's deeply concerning. I very much doubt that the fewer blacks and asians who got interviewed would be disproportionately hired ahead of the equal-on-paper white applicants. From a quick search from 2006 some lists: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/top-20-whitest-blackest-names/story?id=2470131 We've had some discussion about the Federal government pilot project to anonymize resumes in which I brought up the Rooney rule (NFL teams must interview at least one minority candidate for head coach and other senior positions), though Blocked was unconvinced. I think many people think that at least if you take measures that make interviews more likely, you're at least addressing part of the problem and businesses may hire more minority candidates on their own, even if the fact of the interview was compelled but not the hiring. So as long as there's no obvious deception (if your name is e.g. DeShawn and your application says Shawn, at the interview you say you go by both but your legal name is DeShawn, is that a problem ethically or otherwise? Or is it only if it's something more extreme e.g. your name is DeShawn and you say in your application that your name is Quentin Hereford III or something? Obviously you don't want this to be needed, but if it gets you the interview and you change minds there and when hired, is it personally justified?
  7. I thought this was the most recent thread this was appropriate for, I like how they phrased it: "Black and Asian students who find ways to erase evidence of their race from their résumés are more likely to find jobs, according to a new report, “Whitened Résumés: Race and Self-Presentation in the Labor Market,” and a lesser-known report authored by the entirety of black America entitled, “We’ve been saying this shit for years!” ... In one study, researchers sent out whitened résumés and nonwhitened résumés to 1,600 employers. Twenty-five percent of black applicants received callbacks when their résumés were whitened, compared with 10 percent of the job seekers who left their ethnic details on the same résumés. The results were the same for employers who advertised themselves as “equal opportunity employers” or said that “minorities are strongly encouraged to apply.” From the study (pdf):..." [emphasis added] http://www.theroot.com/minorities-who-whiten-resumes-more-likely-to-get-inte-1795374315 I knew there was a difference, I still disagree with OP (but they do too, don't want to keep hammering), this is jobs generally, but still, 25% versus 10%, that's huge. I haven't yet looked at the paper itself re methodology.
  8. Years ago they had unlimited attempts and high scores weren't a dime a dozen. This is merely returning to what the situation used to be.
  9. I can recall some friends making the best of things saying that at least with a D+ they had a plus, in a way it seems better than a C-... While I agree with all the posters re meeting with profs and discussing your exams and why you got the marks you did, I'd just like to emphasize meet with all your professors including the B-, to find out what you did better. I assume (but figure out yourself from meeting with profs) that your marks were probably due more to problems with the exams and analysis, not so much the knowledge. Or maybe as simple as exam stress, I knew all sorts of people who had to be pushed by their friends to get help dealing with that, they hadn't had a problem in their previous university studies, but got more stressed with law and then didn't want to get help. Also, my recollection and experience was that it takes some time to figure out what profs are looking for, most value being concise and consider long answers suggestive of lack of analytical skill, but some consider shorter answers signs of lack of knowledge, etc. What I'm getting at is that different professors you meet with might give you different reasons, maybe even conflicting reasons, for why you did poorly, because they're looking for different things. And in future classes, you need to figure out what type of answers your prof wants before the exam (in 1L I got my worst mark in the subject I knew best, I think in part because I knew the material so well and it was my first exam I wrote answers that were much too long [!] and I was quite unhappy; but in 2L or 3L I took another course with the same professor and got a course prize, in part because I made more of an effort to write the style of answer the professor wanted).
  10. You already informed them, so concealment is off the table (not that I think it was a good idea, or necessarily possible, I agree with prior posters). And you might want accommodation for something in future at law school which would require informing them anyway. And also, please stop - for your own protection - revealing so much information here. I do hope that for your sake that the resolution is something like, deferring your acceptance for a year to give you the time to graduate (or admission without an undergraduate degree). But please seek out counselling and academic help if you haven't already, and I mean before you make up your failed courses (if that's the resolution), because many people (not all) find law school tougher than their first degree. And if the response you receive from the law school is unsatisfactory to you, then there are free or low-cost initial consultations (depending upon your province) with lawyers available. I'm not saying you would or should proceed in such a fashion, I'm just saying if you don't like the response, get professional advice. EDIT: Also, if the response is they require further explanation or details, I would strongly advise you consult a lawyer. In part because at least your posts here seem to be saying more than is necessary, and suggesting things like misrepresentation which no-one was thinking of until you brought it up. Doesn't necessarily mean the lawyer would communicate with the law school, but they might advise you and help you phrase your responses accurately without self-blame (obviously, this would go beyond the free initial consultation!).
  11. Actually, I was wondering whether they might if not initially then later, propose an approach similar to Lakehead, integrating the LPP practical experience into the law degree, so that students could graduate eligible to write the bar without articling. And even if the LPP were not extended by LSUC later, they would be able to use the resources they'd invested in that program to be a Toronto law school (Lakehead is much more remote) that would have a significant difference in that respect at least, from the other two. With placements in the GTA, I expect that lawyers would be much more familiar with the no-articling-required program than they are re Lakehead. But this is all speculation.
  12. Ontario has lawyer referral service with up to 1/2 hour free consultation with a lawyer (I assume Ontario given your reference to Upper Canada but this website summarizes the info across Canada for looking for a lawyer). If you want advice that would seem the best, discuss specifics confidentially with a lawyer, not on this board. Which may help inform your decision whether you should proceed further, which involves non-legal factors also. Depending upon the details - which you should not give here - my own non-legal, personal opinion could be anywhere along the spectrum of prior posters.
  13. Well, you could say, just as they don't want you to discuss whether or not you applied to work for them, if you did have any other applications anywhere else, it would be inappropriate for you to disclose such. Joking aside, assuming that by the time of your interview you haven't heard back re law school and you're asked - would it be fair to say (i.e. truthful? - I don't know you) e.g. "Well, obviously I want to work here which is why I applied, but I like to plan ahead, so I've looked at alternatives if you don't hire me, such as whether more schooling or a different career might be in the cards." But whatever you say, have a prepared, rehearsed so well it sounds natural, honest, response. But if you do hear back re law school before your interview, then that's different and I think you need to decide. Re the above, please listen more to others who've gone through the government process, as noted I have virtually no experience in that area.
  14. Years since I interviewed, not Federal government, etc. I agree with others here, no need to disclose (and you shouldn't). You're still at the pre-interview stage. They could tell you tomorrow they've decided not to interview you more, hired someone else, leave you dangling for weeks/months/years (the job equivalent to ghosting), whatever. They could put you through months of interviews and checks and then drop you. You don't owe them more consideration than they give you, except to the extent it may be wise to do so since you want a job from them. And it's not wise to disclose you might not be interested in the job if something else comes to pass. Now, it's worth thinking about how you would disclose diplomatically if you are accepted into law school hopefully without burning too many bridges, but that's an if and when and then, not a now.
  15. Not that South Park was the first to make fun of redheads, but: "...For a class presentation, Cartman delivers a hate speech, against what he calls "gingers": people with red hair, freckles, and pale skin due to a disease called "Gingervitis". He describes them as being disgusting, inhuman, unable to survive in sunlight, and having no souls. When Kyle points out that he too has red hair, Cartman says that there is a second class of redheads, the "daywalkers", who have red hair but not pale skin and freckles. ... The episode inspired "Kick a Ginger Day" at Wingfield Academy in Rotherham, Yorkshire, where red-headed students faced discrimination based on their hair color. Parents of the discriminated students launched a Facebook group protesting the offending students in an attempt to end the bullying. One mother pulled her 13-year-old son from the school until she could be assured that the discrimination would stop, saying "My son rang me and said kids were kicking him, saying it was National Kick a Ginger Kid Day. He was scared so I went to get him out of school." One father was disgusted with the way students treated his 13-year-old daughter based on her hair color, and reported that she received bruised legs from beatings, stating "She should be able to go to school without having to worry about being kicked in the corridor." School staff "strongly reprimanded" the offending students.[5] A school spokesperson declared the incidents "deplorable acts" and stated that the entire institution was warned that students who continued such discrimination would also be punished.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Kids