
Untalented rich still earn more - neverminder
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39444993
======
steego
This conclusion is consistent with a tenuously related finding in a recent HBR
article. The study cited in the article sent virtually identical but
fictitious resumes to top law firms from fictitious students coming from 2nd
tier law schools. Where the resumes differed were subtle cues that referred to
students extra-curricular activities and financial status.

Here's the gist: If your personal interests are sailing and polo vs. pickup
soccer and country music, you're 13 times more likely to get an interview if
you're a male. In other words: 13/80 resumes indicating a high socioeconomic
status were called for an interview vs. 1/80 resumes for low socioeconomic
statuses.

Personally, I suspect many of us like to think we're meritocratic, but our
mind betrays us by favoring people who match our subconscious idea of what
talented people look like or sound like on paper or in person. Evaluating
people is hard and our minds like to take shortcuts to save energy.

[https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-
can-b...](https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-backfire-
on-your-resume)

------
valuearb
I'd like to see the "science" behind this questionable assertion.

~~~
andrew-lucker
"Children from high-income backgrounds who show signs of low academic ability
at age five ..."

I have no problem with the science, probably taken out of context. But the
article, wow! If you can determine education outcomes at age five, then why do
you even go through the motions of K-12.

~~~
CyberDildonics
> then why do you even go through the motions of K-12

To learn things I would guess.

