I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that number, but at a certain distance, the differences on the spectrum of aptitude will be easier to see. What you really end up with is a certain percentage of guys that are over-qualified, a certain percentage that are adequately qualified, and a certain percentage that are under-qualified. Within those general divisions, a lot of the candidates will look the same on paper; and I’m skeptical of anyone in any industry who claims they can make much more accurate assessments than that from a resume, a personality test, or even an in-person interview.

Your stated measuring criteria of a 4 year degree & “basic aptitude stuff” will surely eliminate some from the bottom end, but are unlikely to do much to create clear rankings among the many thousands who will meet those standards. My sense is that United will have plenty of applicants that are either very well or adequately qualified for admission to a flight training program- to the extent they’ll be able to choose a diverse group from among their best options to fill 5,000 slots without needing to draw from the under-qualified ones. (My opinion only.) If they can’t, they’re not bound contractually (or even verbally if you look closely at their statements) to meet any diversity metric. In 2 months, no one’s going to remember they made this announcement- much less in 15 years when we can finally assess whether or not it actually resulted in a more diverse airline- so what would be the benefit to UAL of wasting training dollars on Aviate candidates that are measurably more likely to wash out than their peers?

That’s why I’m not bothered by this. But again, for anyone who thinks aptitude & qualification are as linear and easily apparent as many on this forum seem to, I can at least understand why that leads to outrage over the announcement.