![]() |
Originally Posted by hummingbear
(Post 3369351)
And once again, the fallacy of the “most qualified candidate” pops up among a bunch of white guys who are sure the system is rigged against them. Sure, if you could accurately rank 10,000 applicants from 1-10,000 you’d always do best to take however many you need straight off the top of the stack. That isn’t even remotely possible. The standard for ranking airline pilot aptitude to that degree of accuracy simply doesn’t exist.
The reality is there are usually a handful of standouts at the top, and an under-qualified group at the bottom. Once you give preference to the former & discard the latter, what you're left with is a big group in the middle that all look essentially equal on paper. To put it another way, there’s a big difference between #1 & #2,000. But no discernible difference between #2,000 & #7,000. Essentially, any of us who had to make the final decisions on selection would have to rely on some arbitrary metrics to do so. I’m not saying UAL’s diversity initiative is perfect in its conception or application, but if you see intrinsic value to your company in a well diversified labor force, there’s no reason you shouldn’t build that into your metrics for sorting equally qualified candidates- as long as you’re not promoting discernibly under-qualified candidates. Anyone who feels that diverse demographics in hiring necessarily means that more qualified white males have been passed over should probably examine why they feel that way. The “free lunch” effect could have skewed the number of applicants from the norm also, but we’ll never know. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3369372)
That is only true if you set the bar low.
I’d assume there are far more candidates who meet those criteria than slots available, but you seem to be suggesting that if the bar were raised higher, there would necessarily be more white males selected- why is that, exactly? |
Originally Posted by hummingbear
(Post 3369819)
We’re talking about zero time guys being admitted into a flight training program- how high does the bar need to be? Decent high school transcript with general STEM aptitude (most of us are not Rhodes scholars); a “good 4-day trip” personality, & passion for flying. Most of the specific skills & knowledge needed for the job they’ll learn in training.
I’d assume there are far more candidates who meet those criteria than slots available, but you seem to be suggesting that if the bar were raised higher, there would necessarily be more white males selected- why is that, exactly? |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3369832)
If the bar were raised higher and the applicant pool consisted of mostly white males, yes it is the expected outcome that the pool of accepted candidates would also be mostly white males.
As to hiring standards, is it even wise to set the bar so high that you’re only taking the “cream off the top”? My opinion only, but a good airline pilot needs generally above average intelligence, a particular temperament, and a passion for the job. Yes, you could ratchet up the hiring requirements, but at some point, you’re just picking the flashiest resumes in search of the mythical “best of the best”. You have to ask whether someone is necessarily going to be the greatest front-line employee 20 years from now (not to mention the type of guy you want in your cockpit or flying your family around) because he aced his SATs or was an Ivy League-track student. Again, my opinion, but I don’t want the bar set so high that we get a bunch of uber-linear intellectual types who aren’t particularly invested in the job. My contention is that there are a lot of guys who can do the job & do it well, so from there it becomes a simple question of whether there is enough value in a diversified workplace to make it a priority. The answer I’m hearing from most guys on these forums is no, it is not; which, if that’s the argument you want to make- fine. For my part, I’m only pointing out that there is a big difference between prioritizing diversity among generally equally qualified candidates; and actively promoting under-qualified candidates in the name of diversity. I certainly hope the latter is not happening, although admittedly I don’t know for a fact that it’s not. But I do find it telling that so many here take diversified hiring statistics as hard proof that it necessarily is. |
Originally Posted by UASCOMPILOT
(Post 3367024)
Well unless you a minority or a woman I wouldn't bother...just read the most racist flight opps update of my life. 80% are minority and women right now in training...
I'd guess there are going to be various other percentage breakdowns in future classes but as hummingbear mentioned, a straight breakdown of a class in line with the demographics would be 30% white male. That's literally it. 30%. It seems this first class was far closer to that mark than a snapshot of literally every single newhire class ever in the history of US commercial aviation. But hey, get angry. |
Originally Posted by hummingbear
(Post 3370000)
But do we know that the applicant pool is mostly white males?
At the same time, this has not deterred white females as being the largest demographic of applicants to elite colleges and as a result, having the lowest admittance rates. The only reason we even have a sense of that is due to lawsuits over the years. The same would be required to ever get a real sense of how this small program at United is selecting applicants, so it's really just academic. I don't see a very small group of young pilots-to-be banding together to file a class action, so it's more likely we'll never know unless the company sees it in their best interest to showcase that they are selecting the best of the applicants. |
Originally Posted by Chuck D
(Post 3370047)
The program has been given more exposure and advertising than anything pilot training related I've ever seen - articles in WSJ and mentions on the major news networks to name a few.
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3370089)
No, which is why I said that the free lunch effect may have affected the demographics of what would be expected of the typical applicant pool.
Again, white males make up around 30% of the country’s population, so why should they make up the majority of what you consider to be the “typical” applicant pool? |
Originally Posted by Explizer
(Post 3370202)
Finally! Someone has figured it out and written it down for all to see.
|
Originally Posted by hummingbear
(Post 3370211)
“Free lunch effect”… 🙄
Again, white males make up around 30% of the country’s population, so why should they make up the majority of what you consider to be the “typical” applicant pool? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:15 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands