<p>My understanding is that this assumption is related to the models relying on bias in the observable signal (rather than differential variance or noise of these signals by
race).</p>
<p>Discounting is less likely to apply to more verifiable and harder skills, because they are more verifiable in nature. Therefore an employer may more easily verify the quality of the signal. For example, hard skills such as writing, reading, math or ability to use computer programs are verifiable to some extent.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-12T18:32:56.340Z
I don't know the underlying models. I simply know that affirmative action policies enable African Americans to get to college at a much higher likelihood than asians, whites or hispanics. (given other factors are equal) Thus it makes it easier for them to get these skills. Thus a college degree obtained by an African American is not the same as a college degree obtained by an Asian American, simply because the Asian American needed nearly perfect SAT scores to even get into college...Thus some discrimination should be expected even when controlled for educational status...
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-12T18:35:18.823Z
Given the study explores differences not based on actual skill but on characteristics of the applicants this result does not necessarily provide evidence for systemic racism - contrary to the conclusion of the authors...
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T08:30:33.023Z
@Rubus if two people behave identically in college, why would it matter what they did before college? Today X=5 and Y=5. Last decade X was 2 and Y was 4. Which is better? well, they are the same. Actually you may even extrapolate the growth rate and estimate that X is better, not Y.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T18:14:46.103Z
@user253751 Why would someone care about growth rate? Your reasoning assumes that education is completely repetitive, which is not true.  Education is best modeled as all the knowledge acquired, so past performance does matter.. x1 = 3, x2 = 5, y1= 10, y2 = 5, x_tot = 8, y_tot = 15
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T21:09:49.410Z
@Rubus "I don't know the underlying models." I recommend reading Aigner and Cain (1977) It is very informative and instructive. Otherwise, have I answered your question?
emeryville
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-16T08:03:53.640Z
@Rubus X is already X_tot
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-16T20:37:28.570Z
@emeryville Yes it makes sense. Although I'm not convinced that discrimination should not occur, but I guess that's a separate question.
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-16T20:39:54.957Z
@user253751 Your reasoning only makes sense if you assume that during college you catch up on everything you missed in high school, which in my experience is an unrealistic assumption.
CuriousIndeed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-12T17:41:24.407Z
2021-09-12T17:41:24.407Z
emeryville
<p>I'm reading up on discrimination in the labor market. In this study by <a href="https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bertrand &amp; Mullainathan (2004)</a> they note the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Perhaps the skills of African-Americans are discounted because affirmative action makes it easier for African-Americans to get these skills. While this is plausible for creden- tials such as an employee-of-the-month honor, it is unclear why this would apply to more verifiable and harder skills.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why would discounting not occur for harder and more verifiable skills?</p>

<labor-economics><discount>
Labor market discrimination - help me understand this passage in call-back study
CuriousIndeed
# Labor market discrimination - help me understand this passage in call-back study

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-11)

I'm reading up on discrimination in the labor market. In this study by [Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004)](https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf) they note the following:

> Perhaps the skills of African-Americans are discounted because affirmative action makes it easier for African-Americans to get these skills. While this is plausible for creden- tials such as an employee-of-the-month honor, it is unclear why this would apply to more verifiable and harder skills.

Why would discounting not occur for harder and more verifiable skills?

**Tags:** labor-economics, discount


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-09-12. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

My understanding is that this assumption is related to the models relying on bias in the observable signal (rather than differential variance or noise of these signals by
race).

Discounting is less likely to apply to more verifiable and harder skills, because they are more verifiable in nature. Therefore an employer may more easily verify the quality of the signal. For example, hard skills such as writing, reading, math or ability to use computer programs are verifiable to some extent.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I don't know the underlying models. I simply know that affirmative action policies enable African Americans to get to college at a much higher likelihood than asians, whites or hispanics. (given other factors are equal) Thus it makes it easier for them to get these skills. Thus a college degree obtained by an African American is not the same as a college degree obtained by an Asian American, simply because the Asian American needed nearly perfect SAT scores to even get into college...Thus some discrimination should be expected even when controlled for educational status...  
> **username_0**: Given the study explores differences not based on actual skill but on characteristics of the applicants this result does not necessarily provide evidence for systemic racism - contrary to the conclusion of the authors...  
> **username_2**: @Rubus if two people behave identically in college, why would it matter what they did before college? Today X=5 and Y=5. Last decade X was 2 and Y was 4. Which is better? well, they are the same. Actually you may even extrapolate the growth rate and estimate that X is better, not Y.  
> **username_0**: @user253751 Why would someone care about growth rate? Your reasoning assumes that education is completely repetitive, which is not true.  Education is best modeled as all the knowledge acquired, so past performance does matter.. x1 = 3, x2 = 5, y1= 10, y2 = 5, x_tot = 8, y_tot = 15  
> **username_1**: @Rubus "I don't know the underlying models." I recommend reading Aigner and Cain (1977) It is very informative and instructive. Otherwise, have I answered your question?  
> **username_2**: @Rubus X is already X_tot  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Yes it makes sense. Although I'm not convinced that discrimination should not occur, but I guess that's a separate question.  
> **username_0**: @user253751 Your reasoning only makes sense if you assume that during college you catch up on everything you missed in high school, which in my experience is an unrealistic assumption.  

---

