Just like the dotcom bubble, the democratic portrayal of big tech has burst.

A recent feature in the New York Times showcased the elitism and inequity pervasive in the big tech recruiting process. Students with pre-existing connections, access to robust interview prep resources, and name brand elite school degrees — so, to an extent, the already wealthy — do well. Meanwhile, underprivileged students face a lengthy uphill climb for a limited number of spots.

To be sure, there are democratic aspects of the recruiting process worth celebrating. Online communities are treasure troves of information on methods of preparation and interview questions. Many big tech firms have created programs tailored to younger students from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

But as a whole, the big tech recruiting process requires sweeping structural reform.

At age 18 or 19, when many college students are first trying their hand at recruitment, there is no meaningful programming expertise to evaluate. At that age, coding skill is a direct function of one’s background. Did they grow up with well-to-do software engineer parents? Did they start out in an elementary school with a furnished computer lab? Those with early exposure to tech will appear as better candidates at this stage, but that appearance doesn’t get at the underlying talent that recruitment seeks.

Identifying talent is a nebulous and difficult task, which may be why big tech recruiters have an affinity towards elite college admits: They’ve already gone through an analogous talent-filtering mechanism.

But this recruitment strategy mistakes privilege for potential.

Harvard doesn’t have a monopoly on tech talent; Harvard doesn’t even have a monopoly on collegiate talent. Recruiting from elite schools like Harvard only perpetuates the blatant unfairness of college admissions, compounding injustices onto students from marginalized backgrounds who are already underrepresented in their college environments.

To break the cycle of inequality, big tech recruiting must divorce from notions of prestige. Reduce the weight placed on internal recommendations that favor the well-connected. Push back the recruiting timeline from early fall to give overwhelmed students — particularly low-income students also juggling jobs and school — more time to learn the interview game. Offer open-source resources for any interested student to learn more about the tech industry and its hyperspecific recruitment process.

College career offices should also learn the specialized recruitment process, so that they can recommend preparatory websites like LeetCode to prospective techies.

But the best way to democratize tech might not be in the hands of big tech recruiters at all.

The true spirit of technology is building, collaborating, and problem-solving. While big tech definitely pays in big checks, the world outside of big tech yields promising opportunities rife with these same ideals.

Of course, there are heaps of solid reasons to go into big tech — including stability and pay, which no student should ever feel morally bankrupt for valuing. Still, we remain concerned about technology-inclined Harvard students’ chase of big tech over the plethora of viable options.

Harvard’s techies often fall blindly into big tech without deeper inquiry. Harvard, in part, nudges them down that path: Career fair panels are stacked with big tech names. But students also drive themselves and their peers down these avenues, as the pursuit of prestige intersects with the desire to compete.

Opening our eyes to alternate paths requires a cultural shift towards social good. Harvard, as an institution, should exist to engender good. Big tech, in contrast, seems rarely to serve the public interest; in fact, for-profit tech companies often oppose the social good in profoundly unethical ways.

We’re deeply concerned about the harms of bias in developing technologies, from algorithmic racism to the existential risk posed by misaligned AI. Diversity in tech recruitment is necessary to cultivate the assorted perspectives that can first recognize issues of biased tech, and second conceive creative solutions to these issues.

We encourage our fellow tech-inclined students to go into areas aimed at reducing such harms. Even though one’s career is not the only way to do good, we hope that the value of public service touches, in at least some small part, all aspects of one’s life — including work.

With virtually every organization in need of and willing to stably compensate tech talent — except perhaps Elon Musk’s bird app — big tech is not the end-all, be-all of a Harvard Computer Science degree. However hard it may be for us Harvard students to broaden our sights, we can adjust our vision to focus on an equitable tech industry, doing good for the world.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.