|
computer parts posted:That's not usually the type of nepotism that shows up though, it's typically "I know a guy that's qualified for this position, could you give him an interview before/while you're posting this ad". For some reason people in D&D think that the only valid way to land a job is to submit anonymous applications online. Finding jobs through networking isn't a problem that needs to be stamped out.
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's great if your family is well-off enough to have those kinds of connections or you went to an Ivy League, but the size of your useful network is pretty much directly proportionate to your income, so it tends to lead to jobs being snatched away from the lower class to be given to the wealthy. Also, the personal connection tends to lead to the person getting more generous pay than someone of their experience might otherwise be getting in that position. You're really strawmanning what actually happens in real life and only focusing on top-tier jobs. Going to an Ivy League school or being wealthy isn't going to help you network into an average blue collar job. The average case is a lot closer to "I know a guy in the local union/shop/etc. so I can get an interview because someone vouched for me." ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem is that networking takes time and travelling. Networks aren't built overnight and, in some cases, a person with a network will be faced with a situation where nobody they know knows somebody that is looking. Sometimes your bank account is empty, your unemployment just ran out, and you need a job right goddamned now, which leads to just spamming applications and resumes to anyone you can think of. I'll agree with this. If anything, networking rewards people who are established in a field. However, from an employer's perspective, it's a far less risky prospect to hire someone that one of your employees knows or has worked with and can vouch for how they actually perform on the job.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Poorer people are less likely to know someone at a decent company with the authority to inform hiring/firing decisions, especially early in their career. When you grew up in a lovely neighborhood and went to a lovely college, you've got a much less useful network because most of the people you know are working shitjobs like mopping floors. When you don't have much opportunity, odds are good none of the people you know have much opportunity either. Hell, almost the entire value of fancy colleges like Harvard is in having the opportunity to network with the upper class. While we're saying that networking at your university is inherently unjust and is nepotism, can we also shout down poor black people networking through their churches as nepotism and unjust? Finding jobs through networking isn't a bad thing. It's a thing with plusses and minuses. To act as if the only valid way of finding employment is to send an anomyous resume to a job board is incredibly shortsighted and ignores reality. The problems that you are bringing up are symptoms of much larger problems in the economy or society and would be better addressed elsewhere. By all means, go ahead and denounce actual nepotism. However, trying to classify a random mid-career professional finding a better job at another company through his or her lifetime of contacts in an industry as nepotism is laughible. Branman fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I literally just pointed to a book which shows that black people's social networks are generally less profitable and useful for getting positions with any sort of advancement potential. All groups have social networks, but not all social networks are inherently equal, don't draw false equivalencies. The value of your network has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not getting a job through networking is "fair" or is "nepotism." There will always be someone that has a less valuable network than you. If the Yale or Harvard grad getting a job through a network over a person from State-U is a bad thing, wouldn't a member of a black church getting a job through his or her church-based network over a non-churchgoer also be a bad thing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That's literally the definition of nepotism. Not a very severe case but still nepotism. If you're OK with that fine, I'm not going to pretend that that's something we can, or even want to, completely get rid of, but call it what it is. Finding jobs through networking is actually a bad thing if you consider an anonymous meritocracy to be a good thing. I guess acknowledging that upper middle class white society runs on connections more than merit is some sort of existential threat to you, to the point where you felt compelled to burst in here and complain about people attacking that system (they weren't even really doing that though?) Nope. I'm saying that they should be doing it. That's how you find a job. I'm trying to call out that this happens on all levels of society and cannot be ignored. Seriously, poor black people utilizing social captial through their churches is a good thing. So my belief is the opposite of what you think my belief is. My belief is that we should acknowledge that all levels of society run on connections which are more important than merit. Saying that this is a bad thing is (EDIT) ignoring reality. Also, that isn't nepotism. Nepotism is defined as staying within a family. Branman fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is a bad thing, because it reinforces that whole 'levels' thing. Obviously, nowhere is going to be able to do a perfectly objective measure of merit, but there's a lot of legitimate reason to call in-networks that promote because of who your daddy is or what prep school you went to are harmful, both to the organization they're part of and society as a whole. The problem is that this is a strawman. Yes, hiring someone because of their dad's connections is most likely a bad thing for both the organization and society. That's nepotism. My point is that conflating professional networking with this type of neoptism and saying that "finding jobs through networks is a bad thing" ignores reality. icantfindaname posted:I think most people ITT and most people in general are of the opinion that the ideal society is a meritocracy. Obviously there are very big problems with achieving that and defining 'objective merit' but to come out and literally say "we shouldn't be a meritocracy, success should be determined by who you know, not what you know" seems like a very strange position to me. My position is more nuanced than that. It's not a binary meritocracy or nepotism. Connections can be a very good way of finding talent simply because it allows you to weed out less-talented applicants. Hiring through networks can be a more efficient way of producing a meritocracy. From an employer perspective, knowing that a potential applicant is a useful worker through a recommendation by a trusted 3rd party dramatically decreases the risk of hiring a new worker. For some reason everyone assumes that networks are based off of your parents' connections as opposed to people you've met through a career.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 19:55
|
|