"Jobs should go to the best qualified candidates!"

[Tmy]

Isnt that the typical line you get from Anti-affirmative action types like GW Bush?

Looks like "best qualified to the Dept of Justice means you graduated from some crappy 4th tier law school that happens to have some good political connections.

Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept

"It used to be that high-level DOJ jobs were generally reserved for the best of the legal profession," wrote a contributor to The New Republic website . ". . . That a recent graduate of one of the very worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the DOJ."

Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.




http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._school?mode=PF


Do not post links that lead to spyware or viruses.
.

[Darth Rotor]

To remove link.

Isnt that the typical line you get from Anti-affirmative action types like GW Bush?

Looks like "best qualified to the Dept of Justice means you graduated from some crappy 4th tier law school that happens to have some good political connections.

Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept

"It used to be that high-level DOJ jobs were generally reserved for the best of the legal profession," wrote a contributor to The New Republic website . ". . . That a recent graduate of one of the very worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the DOJ."

Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._school?mode=PF
.
How nice, tmy comes out as an elitist Ivy League snob.

Way to show your school tie, pal.

DR

[Earthborn]

The first link is for a forced download of an executable file. which I am not going to download. The second link is for a webpage that does not exist (I assume the "..." needs to be replaced with something.)

[Just thinking]

To remove link.


Isn't that the typical line you get from Anti-affirmative action types like GW Bush?

I really fail to see the link between being pro-best qualified candidate and anti-affirmative action. Even if someone abuses the fairness of hiring the best qualified, it doesn't detract from the overall practice of hiring the best who apply.

Affirmative action is suppose to level the playing field, not push for lower qualifications to certain groups. Nor should it (in my opinion) ensure that a company's employees match the demographic of a local population. If all is fair and all applicants are equally qualified, the demographic of the company should match that of the application population -- yet I seldom if ever hear that argument made.

[Tmy]

That "jokeonline" link is just a virus that attached to my posts. Ignore it.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

Heres the good link to the story.


My point is that the "best qualified" employee doesnt really exist. most people are hired based on connections and subjective criteria. That is somthing the anti AA crowd always likes to ignore.

[Katana]

Perhaps the "best-qualified" people are smart enough not to work for the DoJ?

Particularly under the Bush administration?

[frank462]

Just for fun, take a look at Alberto Gonzales confirmation vote.
Considering how important the issue Affirmative Action is to the Democrats, the confirmation vote in the senate was certainly interesting.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00003

Yeas - 60
Nays - 36

Of the 60 Yea votes, 6 were democrats and the rest were republicans.
Of the 36 Nay votes, 35 were democrats and 1 was independent.

Now imagine, if you will, the headlines in the New York Times if 35 out of the 36 Nay votes to confirm a minority candidate for attorney general were cast by republicans.

[Just thinking]

That "jokeonline" link is just a virus that attached to my posts. Ignore it.

No problem -- we all can't spot everything.

My point is that the "best qualified" employee doesn't really exist.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this comment. If 10 people apply for a single position in some theoretical example, why is it not possible to have a "best qualified" individual? I have assisted in hiring individuals and looked over qualifications written in resumes and cover letters -- and yes, there will always be subjective biases incorporated (we are human beings) -- but it can be deduced as to who the most qualified individual is.

... most people are hired based on connections and subjective criteria. That is something the anti AA crowd always likes to ignore.

And AA has no subjective agenda? Perhaps you might enlighten us with what you believe their role should be in hiring principles ... I have already mentioned mine. Let's see how we differ.

[Rob Lister]

Employers do not generally hire the 'best qualified' person, rather they hire the 'best value' person. The difference is not too subtle.

[Just thinking]

Employers do not generally hire the 'best qualified' person, rather they hire the 'best value' person. The difference is not too subtle.

Maybe ... can you please explain?

[Rob Lister]

Maybe ... can you please explain?

The 'best qualified' candidate is nice, but by virtue of being the best qualified, is like the most expensive not only in terms of salary but expected benefits, title, etc.

Best Value is the compromise that can encompass everything from meeting your socio-economic goals, staying under salary ceilings, etc.

[Just thinking]

The 'best qualified' candidate is nice, but by virtue of being the best qualified, is like the most expensive not only in terms of salary but expected benefits, title, etc.

Best Value is the compromise that can encompass everything from meeting your socio-economic goals, staying under salary ceilings, etc.

That certainly can be true, but it doesn't have to be in all cases. Someone may very well settle for less in salary if there are no other immediate openings or positions available. Besides, once all that fluff is out of the way there will likely be a choice of candidates -- of which the best qualified will be strongly considered, if not chosen. Plus, your comments still agree with my original premise that Tmy disagrees with ... that a "best qualified" individual does in fact exist.

[qayak]

I don't think the job should go to the most qualified. I think it should go to the person best able to fill the position. There is a huge difference. A highly qualified person with a large ego is worth his weight in aluminium while a lesser qualified person that fits into the organization is worth their weight in gold.

There maybe a minimum standard of qualification but there is a lot more to hiring the right person than just their qualifications. I know several highly qualified people that can't hold a job. Of course it is never their fault, it is always the lousy employer who is out to get them.

[Mobyseven]

There maybe a minimum standard of qualification but there is a lot more to hiring the right person than just their qualifications. I know several highly qualified people that can't hold a job. Of course it is never their fault, it is always the lousy employer who is out to get them.

My mother who holds a BSc, Masters and PhD in Chemistry had to nearly beg for a job as a lab technician at the local university as relocating at that time did not seem like a viable option.

She is unable to find work with these qualifications anymore because the companies she has applied for are only interested in getting new graduates in to do the work for less pay.

She has now had to go back to university to get a second Masters qualification, this time in radiation therapy, in the hope that she will now be able to find a job - even if she has to relocate.

It really can be very, very difficult finding a job if employers consider you to be overqualified. Lets not pick on people who have worked hard their whole life just to be told that they aren't appropriate for a job because they've worked too hard. :mad:

[frank462]

I don't think the job should go to the most qualified. I think it should go to the person best able to fill the position. There is a huge difference. A highly qualified person with a large ego is worth his weight in aluminium while a lesser qualified person that fits into the organization is worth their weight in gold.

There maybe a minimum standard of qualification but there is a lot more to hiring the right person than just their qualifications. I know several highly qualified people that can't hold a job. Of course it is never their fault, it is always the lousy employer who is out to get them.

Excellent points.
Succinctly put.

[Tricky]

I don't think the job should go to the most qualified. I think it should go to the person best able to fill the position. There is a huge difference. A highly qualified person with a large ego is worth his weight in aluminium while a lesser qualified person that fits into the organization is worth their weight in gold.

There maybe a minimum standard of qualification but there is a lot more to hiring the right person than just their qualifications. I know several highly qualified people that can't hold a job. Of course it is never their fault, it is always the lousy employer who is out to get them.
I agree completely. There can even be criteria for filling the post that go beyond the individual qualifications and fit. The employer can want to woo public acceptance by appearing "open-minded" or he may even sincerely believe that it is in the best "big picture" interest to hire a less qualified minority, taking a short-term hit for a long-term gain.

[skeptifem]

i didnt really think that people got screwed out of jobs by affirmative action until i saw it. At one of my jobs long ago, only workers who had been on the floor for awhile could apply for supervisor positions. You were forced into waiting to be considered for promotions. Then about 8 months later about 9 black supervisors (!!!!) were hired off the street. they said they were on the 'fast track' program and didnt even realize they were affirmative action hires.

[Just thinking]

I don't think the job should go to the most qualified. I think it should go to the person best able to fill the position. There is a huge difference. A highly qualified person with a large ego is worth his weight in aluminum while a lesser qualified person that fits into the organization is worth their weight in gold.

Perhaps if the highly qualified person got paid gold instead of aluminum? Anyway, my point is that this is not always the case ... I have come to know very highly qualified persons that did very well in companies, so I can pick cherries too. And as I pointed out earlier (and Mobyseven) there are times when the best qualified individual will settle for a lower salary due to personal situations. When an employer claims one to be over-qualified they are in fact showing their ignorance. Over-qualified means qualified for the job and more. To discriminate against one that meets the job requirements is clearly unfair -- but it is done often. Who are they to determine one's personal career goals? (Perhaps it's better not to work for such an individual anyway. But guess what -- folks need money to live, so maybe they should look at these people as being the best on sale.)

There maybe a minimum standard of qualification but there is a lot more to hiring the right person than just their qualifications. I know several highly qualified people that can't hold a job. Of course it is never their fault, it is always the lousy employer who is out to get them.

Wow ... you seem to speak as if there are no lousy employers, only lousy employees. You might want to look into failed major companies where hundreds or thousands have lost jobs due to lousy management and hiring practices (hiring friends over qualified individuals) and then come back to the real world. There's more than one type of failure out there.

[Just thinking]

i didn't really think that people got screwed out of jobs by affirmative action until i saw it. At one of my jobs long ago, only workers who had been on the floor for awhile could apply for supervisor positions. You were forced into waiting to be considered for promotions. Then about 8 months later about 9 black supervisors (!!!!) were hired off the street. they said they were on the 'fast track' program and didn't even realize they were affirmative action hires.

There is another type of negative discriminatory practice that is done among companies to existing employees -- and that is when one tries to go from a non-professional position to a professional one. (I believe the term is exempt.) Many times these positions require advanced degrees. So if a non-exempt employee goes and gets the required degree at night and tries to move up into an exempt position, they are told (off the record) to go look into another company, as other exempt employees will never look upon them as anything other than what they were earlier -- a non-professional. Nice.

[Tmy]

Methinks the benefit of AA is that it helps combat these non overt forms of racism.

I really just liked this story cause GW Bush has been an opponent of AA, but has benefitted and practiced his own personal AA his whole life.

[Just thinking]

Methinks the benefit of AA is that it helps combat these non overt forms of racism.

I agree that the above should be the desired goal -- it's how it's accomplished that matters most.

[shecky]

Institutions are rarely meritocracies. Especially political institutions. This seems self evident to me. A lot of current finger pointing seems to ignore that this seems to be a truism as far back as I can remember.

[fuelair]

I really fail to see the link between being pro-best qualified candidate and anti-affirmative action. Even if someone abuses the fairness of hiring the best qualified, it doesn't detract from the overall practice of hiring the best who apply.

Affirmative action is suppose to level the playing field, not push for lower qualifications to certain groups. Nor should it (in my opinion) ensure that a company's employees match the demographic of a local population. If all is fair and all applicants are equally qualified, the demographic of the company should match that of the application population -- yet I seldom if ever hear that argument made.
Can't argue the "supposed to be part". If you think that is how it worked in real life, you are sadly mistaken. Your key errors are "all applicants are equally qualified" followed in importance by "fair". That was always the problem with the idea. If it worked the way you suggest, I would never have had a problem with it.

[Just thinking]

Can't argue the "supposed to be part". If you think that is how it worked in real life, you are sadly mistaken. Your key errors are "all applicants are equally qualified" followed in importance by "fair". That was always the problem with the idea. If it worked the way you suggest, I would never have had a problem with it.

I don't think that getting to a group of applicants (through a weeding-out process) that are equally qualified (meaning that they all meet or exceed the job requirements to essentially the same degree) is an error. If that doesn't happen, then the error lies in the selective process for choosing employees. There should be no reason as to why those hired should not pretty much match the application demographic that make it to the final decision maker. Besides, I never said this is going to happen, but what is suppose to happen. The fact that it seldom happens is another issue entirely (have a read on post 19 on another unfair practice that I noted) -- and one of the worst things one can do is reverse unfair hiring choices with yet more unfair hiring choices.

[Tmy]

and one of the worst things one can do is reverse unfair hiring choices with yet more unfair hiring choices.


why not. Fight fire wh fire right.

Let me ask you. Why do employers interview candidates? Cant they just read the resume/applications and hire the "best qualified".

[Just thinking]

why not. Fight fire wh fire right.

Well at least now I know I'm arguing someone who believes two wrongs (injustices) make a right (things better).

Let me ask you. Why do employers interview candidates? Cant they just read the resume/applications and hire the "best qualified".

Do you really think that folks who disagree with you are that naive? But I'll answer your needless question with the all too obvious answer. Anyone can have a resume professionally written for them -- even with false or greatly exaggerated claims. Anyone can claim anything on an application. Once you start talking one-on-one, you can quickly determine just what is and is not true ... especially in technically related fields.

[skeptifem]

There is another type of negative discriminatory practice that is done among companies to existing employees -- and that is when one tries to go from a non-professional position to a professional one. (I believe the term is exempt.) Many times these positions require advanced degrees. So if a non-exempt employee goes and gets the required degree at night and tries to move up into an exempt position, they are told (off the record) to go look into another company, as other exempt employees will never look upon them as anything other than what they were earlier -- a non-professional. Nice.


yeah well they were just call center supervisor positions i was talking about- not that great of a job really.

[fuelair]

I don't think that getting to a group of applicants (through a weeding-out process) that are equally qualified (meaning that they all meet or exceed the job requirements to essentially the same degree) is an error. If that doesn't happen, then the error lies in the selective process for choosing employees. There should be no reason as to why those hired should not pretty much match the application demographic that make it to the final decision maker. Besides, I never said this is going to happen, but what is suppose to happen. The fact that it seldom happens is another issue entirely (have a read on post 19 on another unfair practice that I noted) -- and one of the worst things one can do is reverse unfair hiring choices with yet more unfair hiring choices.Not actually what I meant - I agree that they should have been looking for all qualified/equally qualified. My point was, if you assume that was the case - that they were truly doing that-you are in error. Proving that would be functionally impossible because it would require numbers of people admitting questionable tactics that they were required to do/follow. Because of my specialty, I got lucky and twice was told specifically why I couldn't have a position and it had to do with my race in one and race and sex in another. In a third case, I was told by one of the people on a selection committee for a high level state position (not one I was up for) that the clearly most qualified candidate (male) would not get the position - but a woman who tied for distant third would. The governor had told him in a semi-private setting "X, if you can find me an important position in this government where a woman can do less harm you can have him!"

I should add, with all fairness, the Governor was under pre-PC pressure and the woman really was much less qualified - it's my field and there was no question of that.

[Just thinking]

Seems then that we're pretty much on the same page, here.