maxucho
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
It's easy, as a product of good education and a safe environment, to look at people in poverty and say "I guess they're not as smart as me." This hides a far more uncomfortable truth, which is that everyone who doesn't grow up in poverty has access to better education, better opportunities, and a better environment than those in poverty. Try as you might to claim that people in poverty are just "stupider", it's simply impossible to make this comparison given that people on opposite ends of the financial spectrum grow up in totally different environments. It's short-sighted to attribute this to genetics and nothing else.
I'm just going to hazard a guess that you didn't grow up in poverty, am I right? If you had, I'm sure you would have a very different idea about how difficult it is to grow up without all the advantages of a middle-class upbringing.
[1]: http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-carne...
You make a really interesting point, and I think the reason for this is that each college's solution is different in tiny ways. In my opinion this is not an insurmountable problem, as seen with Facebook's success. Clearly not every single person has the same exact needs with a social network, but the key is 1. Facebook is typically "good enough" for most people and 2. Everyone uses Facebook, so people look over tiny inconsistencies with their own usage to be on the same network as their friends.
However the difference, as I see it, between Facebook and something like a Craigslist for campus, a campus chat board, or campus event system is that there is only pressure to use it within distinct communities. For instance, if our site grows to dominate this space at Penn, then only students at Penn feel the pressure to use the site. A student at college X will have different classes, different events, and different needs, so even if all his/her friends at Penn use it, they would get no utility out of hopping onto the College X version of our site, if no one at College X used it.
What we have there is a situation where instead of Facebook's virus-like growth, you have distinct bubbles that need extensive, personal attention to break into. You can't just launch to a new college and immediately have users rolling in, you need a personal "in" for each college, someone (ideally multiple someones) to get real students to use it. This, naturally, requires much more effort and a lot of connections, and it's to this that I'd attribute your observation that no one product has grown to dominate this space.
For now, we're considering our site a simple experiment for Penn, and if we do end up expanding, it would only be if we could justify-—with profit from the site—-the effort needed to expand to other colleges.
For now, we're focused on keeping the posts as general as possible with only Title, Text, and Category options. In future I could see introducing different parameters for individual categories (price for selling something, location for events, etc.) but for now our priority is in making the new post process as frictionless as possible.
Thanks for the input though! I really appreciate another pair of eyes on a new product.
I set the preload to occur on mousedown rather than mousover, as per the docs, but even with this I noticed near-instantaneous page loading.
If instead, as the recruiters in the article suggest, pedigree of college and other factors are being prioritized, then that's a problem. Criteria like this disproportionately disadvantages URM candidates in particular, which is how Facebook ends up with only 1% black and 3% latino tech workers, even after prioritizing diversity at the recruiter level.
> I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist.
I recommend you read up a bit on [individual vs. systemic racism](1). An important point to note is that even if individual actors don't exhibit what you consider to be racism, the system that they make up can itself be racist. This is a really important point that often gets lost in discussions like this on HN, especially since the largely-white largely-male population here is unlikely to ever directly feel the effects of systemic racism.
> Trying to make it fair for one demographic will likely end up making things unfair for another.
Just to be clear, I think what you are trying to say is that adjusting for bias against URM candidates will inherently lead to bias or disadvantages to white folks. I would question any notion of "fairness" that relies on another group being treated unfairly. To borrow a common expression, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
(1): http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism