Recruitment Season

One year ago, I was trekking to Chicago for my interview at the Fed. In a whirlwind 24 hours, I flew into town, did a Table for One dinner (for the first and last time) at Giordano's, had a series of 6 interviews with 14 economists, and then flew back to Ithaca that night. The whole experience felt like a dream, but with more awkwardness, less nudity, and equivalent amounts of flying.

Recruitment season is once again in full swing, and the Fed is busy interviewing for new Associate Economists who will replace those of us leaving for grad school or other jobs. So far, we've had about 8 or 10 candidates come in for interviews with Micro, Macro, and Payments. My group (Finance) is actually not hiring this year, since we've already asked an intern from last summer to come back for a full-time stint. Essentially, my already limited influence is now down to nil.

The only contact we really have with prospective AEs is during lunch, when they are treated to a meal at the Fed cafeteria and then immersed in a conversation that usually has nothing to do with economics. For instance, lunchtime topics in the recent past have included chupacabras, whether a plane will take off while on a moving conveyor belt, and the difference in behavior between male and female lobsters in a pot.

So, do we lowly AEs have any say on who gets hired? The answer is, not much, but there is still the potential to influence the opinions of hiring economists. One candidate in particular came off as creepy, and after we discussed this in the elevator, a senior economist asked what we thought of the recruit. I never thought I'd be on the other side of the table, and I must admit, it's kind of nice. Moreover, HR is responsible for much of the initial candidate screening, but since they often don't know what to look for, sometimes AEs will help do some screening. That means we read your cover letters, resumes, recommendations, and transcripts..

Good luck to all the job applicants out there, for the Fed and otherwise.

A "War" on Asians

So, the past month is clear evidence that time spent on class substitutes away from blogging activity. I keep thinking of things to write about...and then doing math instead.

Anyway, Jie forwarded an article to me a few days ago, attached with the question "Is America still collectively anti-Asian?" Before reading, I would not have hesitated to answer "no," but this article gives me pause. Perhaps I've been living in yuppie, "progressive" parts of the country for too long?

The United States has a long history of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, beginning with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned and limited Chinese immigration for the subsequent 60 years, the first (and only) instance of federal immigration law targeting a specific ethnicity. This legislation was fully repealed in 1943, and was followed by the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. However, most people are wholly unaware of all this, for a number of reasons. (Personally, I would know much less if I hadn't written a paper on Angel Island for history during junior year of high school.) The first is the prevailing myth of the "model minority," that because a portion of Asians have assimilated and have achieved academic and financial success, all Asians are similarly well-off and don't face the usual minority struggles. The second is the lack of a figurehead to act as a civil rights leader. There is no Jesse Jackson equivalent to advocate for the Asian community, which makes it more difficult for our voices to be heard.

Earlier this week, the University of Colorado Campus Press published a piece titled "If it's War the Asians Want, It's War They'll Get." Now, I fully understand that college newspapers, including the Cornell Sun, often publish silly items and radical opinion pieces. However, this article takes things to an extreme, and masquerades hate speech as satire. It calls for Asians to rounded up and "hog-tied," and then lists a three phase plan for their "reformation," all the while listing a stream of racial stereotypes.

In the morning, the Asians will arrange themselves in rows, if they haven't naturally done so already. I will stand in front of them and hold up a card with the name of an emotion on it such as, "sad," or "surprised." The Asians must then make a facial expression to match the word on the card. Any Asian who remains deadpan or makes the wrong face will be tickled until they pee. When all Asians make the correct face at the same time, the game will end, but then they will be yelled at for being conformists.

Frankly, I'm shocked that this even got published in a campus-wide newspaper. Campus Press editors later issued a statement emphasizing that the article was not meant to offend, but was intended to be satirical. I can take a joke (and I've heard plenty of comments in my day about being an Asian female driver), but this was about as funny as a plan for a mass lynching or a concentration camp. Not only were the article's claims ludicrous, but the proposed plan was chilling in its thoroughness. Everyone else I spoke with was similarly appalled, but in response to the question "Do you think a satire entitled 'If It's War The Asians Want' is racist?" on an ABC-7 Denver poll, 48% of respondents voted "No." I'm not quite sure what to make of that, and whether the use of the word "satire" versus "piece" would have made a difference. (To contrast, for an example of well-written satire, see "Stuff White People Like.")

Not surprisingly, the author has a history of inflammatory writing and inappropriate comments. He also went to Amherst High, which is about half an hour away from my house. (wince*)