Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Alternative Action
Message-ID: <1462@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Jun-85 23:37:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1462
Posted: Sun Jun  9 23:37:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 22:10:54 EDT
References: <1447@watdcsu.UUCP> <657@fisher.UUCP> <1456@watdcsu.UUCP> <663@fisher.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.politics:9350 net.women:5672
Summary: 

In article <663@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) writes:
>>       ... a second interviewer, spot-checking the first interviewer's
>> work by reinterviewing a random sample of interviewees.
>
>> This scheme fails only if both of the interviewers are dishonest.  The
>> second interviewer can be (a) borrowed from another branch of the
>> company, or (b) rented or borrowed from another company, or (c) from
>> the government.  This reduces the likelihood of the interviewers
>> getting chummy and covering for each other.
>
>First, if it employment decisions could be adequately made through the
>"spec-sheets", there would be no need for interviews at all.

Yes, it would seem so.  If the set of relevant criteria was that
well-defined, it would only be necessary to send job applicants a
questionnaire...  Your objection is close to a valid objection.  Close
but no cigar.  See my next posting.

>                                                              The
>interviewer need not lie on a spec sheet to effectively reject an
>applicant.

The interviewer's only way to influence the hiring decision is by
what he writes on the spec sheet.  How can he do that other than
by lying?

>Second, a single biased interviewer can still effectively reject
>marginal applicants.  If the first interviewer, e.g., expresses his
>bias only on those who are on the margin, he will not be evidently
>abusing the process, and the company is likely to select those
>marginal applicants recommended by BOTH interviewers.
>
>Third, it is not at all unlikely that BOTH interviewers will share the
>same prejudice, thus subverting the applications of some types of
>applicants who are well above the margin.

The second interviewer, if "borrowed" and employed in the way I
have suggested:
1) only checks on the work of the first interviewer, and has no
   influence on the hiring process
2) doesn't know the first interviewer, and so wouldn't care if the
   first interviewer is fired for falsifying the data
3) is bound to notice systematic innacuracies, even when they only
   happen to marginal applicants
--
David Canzi

"With the exception of victimless crimes (which need not concern us
here) every single crime committed in this nation of ours involves a
victim." -- San Francisco Chronicle