I have a worry about one of the implied conclusions, though. The high-status women were clearly discriminated against based solely on gender. However (and trying to tread carefully here), it is at least possible that a high status woman would be more likely to leave for family reasons than a high status man. That doesn't make the discrimination any better, but it also means the employers aren't necessarily acting economically irrationally (of course, there is also the chicken-and-egg problem, in that these high-status women might be more likely to take up a domestic role because they're being discriminated against in the first place). I say this not to give the employers a pass, but to suggest that any real, durable solution to the discrimination shouldn't automatically assume those social factors are imaginary.
Not saying this is an easy fix, but many other liberal people I know seem shockingly uninterested in even treating this as a problem.
Damn that hits close to home
who does this, and why?
However, I'd certainly encourage any sports fans who specifically dislike football to read what Hunter S. Thompson wrote on the subject. His passion has sold me on the merits of the game - even if it's still not my personal cup of tea.
Believe it or not, some of us are actually completely unfamiliar with it. I watched the Superbowl once about ten years ago, and that's literally the extent of my lifetime exposure to football.
"Did you see last night's game?"
"Were they playing sportsball again last night?"
"Oh yeah, you don't watch sports"
This conversation works without me having to know which sport is in season.
"Poor black males might skew more criminal and violent.."
Suddenly the problem isn't how reliable a citation might be. There are few groups you're allowed criticize with statistics.
Might in that context is, a substitute for 'while it is true that' not a weasel word like probably.
That really is the elephant in the corner: the variations in privilege by gender for the white university-educated middle and upper-middle classes are barely a rounding error compared to the gulf in privilege between them and the working class, or the non-whites even of the middle class, which the framework of analysis used by their article glosses over. That is why, outside of their bubble, cries of "male privilege!" ring so hollow. Nobody likes to be lectured by someone who spends more on a coffee, than they earn in an hour. Or who drops a quarter-million dollars on a degree of no vocational use.
I don't agree with most of Marx's conclusions, but he was absolutely right in that class is the lens through which to understand societies.
But that's not true. Men got 1.8x as many callbacks as women, and upper class candidates got 2.6x as many callbacks as lower class candidates. Even if the class divide as a somewhat greater impact, the gender divide is not a "rounding error."
The other way to look at it is that the callback rate for upper class women was the same as the average callback rate for lower class applicants, and both rates are much lower than for upper class males.
Again, I'm responding to a comment that called the gender discrimination a "rounding error." It clearly is not--there is both gender and class discrimination happening and upper class women aren't better positioned than lower class applicants.
What the study shows is that upper class men have a clear advantage, and everyone else is roughly in the same boat. (The callback rate among upper class women was the same as the callback rate among lower class applicants.)
There is no reason that the concept of "privilege" cannot embrace economic privilege as well as gender and racial privilege (and it should, because discrimination is happening along all those dimensions). However, at a certain point the theory comes into conflict with political reality. The current trend in American politics is various marginalized groups (women, LGBT folks, racial and religious minorities) all congregating under the same tent, even though they otherwise don't have all that much in common. The notable exception is lower class white men, who (as a generalization) are very resistant to the idea of being a part of that tent. And they disproportionately vote against the interests of the other folks in that tent.
So it appears to me that the exclusion is at least in part self-imposed.
> The differences in callback rates for higher-class women, lower-class men and lower-class women were not statistically significant, but higher-class men received significantly more callbacks than all other categories
It is very suspicious that the wording was "significantly more" instead of "statistically significant", especially when she specifically called out statistical significance for the other groups right before it.
If the difference was not statistically significant, that fact is intentionally and malevolently obfuscated.
"The higher-class male applicant had a callback rate of 16.25 percent, more than four times as high as the average callback rate for the other three applicants, who collectively generated just nine interview invitations from 235 applications, a callback rate of 3.83 percent. This fourfold difference is significant not only statistically (p < .001) but also substantively, and its magnitude is especially striking when considering the fact that applicants’ entire law school records and all academic and professional experiences were identical".
So no need for conspiracy theories.
My point still stands. Statistical significance for upper class men vs. upper class women is never mentioned.
The statistics in this instance are cooked and very misleading. It does not prove the author's point. The major claim in this article is that upper class men did much better than upper class women:
> Why did the higher-class man do so much better than the higher-class woman?
Yet the statistic only compares upper class men to everyone else.
Why did the authors choose to only mention the p-value for one category vs. everyone else? Why not other data slices?
The authors clearly calculated the p-value between individual groups (from their "not statistically significant" comment). Why did they not list these values?
It's a choice between negligent data analysis or intentional omission.
Because that's the only part that I quoted - go read the academic article yourself if you want the full analysis.
Let's just do the p-value comparison of upper-class men to upper-class women for you just to settle this. The null-hypothesis is that both categories are equally interviewed. Total of 18 people interview (13 of 80 men, 3 of 79 women). If all null-hypothesis is true, the 16 interviews would be randomly distributed into the men and women categories. The chance of getting at least 13 men would then be sum_(i=13)^16 (16 choose i) * (80/159)^i * (79/159)^(16-i) which equals p = 0.011. So much for malevolent omission!
And they stated that UM is significantly different from the other three, but that LM, UF and LF are not significantly different from each other. What more do you want?
It clearly expresses that the only one of four categories whose callback rate rises to the level of statistical significance (presumably something like p < 0.05 of null hypothesis that all rates are the same) was the rate for high-class men. The reason the sentence doesn’t include the word “statistically” in the second half is that it would sound incredibly awkward, and is not necessary to repeat.
But the point is that lower class men DID receive a lot fewer callbacks than higher class men, so clearly it is a mistake to attribute "male privilege" equally to both groups.
What we can safely say is that this study did NOT support the hypothesis that there is gender privilige for men within the lower classes in landing top law jobs, and that it would be interesting to repeat this study with a larger sample size.
This kind of observation ("high status women are more likely to leave for family reasons therefore it is an economically rational choice to prefer men, given equal skills") seems logical on the surface, but when you start looking into the nuances of real life it just doesn't hold.
I once had a CEO say directly to me: "honestly if one of my female employees got pregnant, i would take it personally. We're a startup, we can't afford people who do that". He had no problem pushing several great engineers to burnout and firing them when their productivity tanked though.
He did give an anecdote as evidence, but the claim he was justifying was that:
> This kind of observation ("high status women are more likely to leave for family reasons therefore it is an economically rational choice to prefer men, given equal skills") seems logical on the surface, but when you start looking into the nuances of real life it just doesn't hold.
This is too strong a statement to be described as merely "stating it's an observation from personal experience".
Anyway, what's nice is that this is a forum and another commenter might answer with the data if such data/argument exists.
I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's definitely a disincentive for people to move up. Modern workplaces have unnatural expectations for employee availability.
For white shoe law firms, I don't necessarily disagree that hiring wealthy candidates doesn't make sense to the business. If your client is some Rockefeller heir, being able to chat about squash, sailing and modern art has a value.
When the industry as a whole makes a conscious effort to be more diverse in hiring, the short term incentive to put a thumb on the scale for the preferred background gradually disappears. For example, a third of all GCs and CLOs at F500 companies are now women. It makes little sense to put a thumb on the scale for men in that environment.
Is it a cause or is it an effect?
"I might agree that hiring wealthy candidates makes sense to the business"
Just parsing out those double negatives for reference.
And to do that, we first have to come to agreement, in the clear light of day, whether corporations do want that (potentially unacceptable) thing or not. Which seems to be a large problem in discussions like this: trying to talk about the way the world is butts up against people who want to talk only about the way the world should be, and don't want to acknowledge that you have to talk about both "before" and "after" if you want to get from one to the other.
That's usually regulation. Child labor is useful, no vacation time is useful and 16-hour days until your workers literally start dying is extremely useful. You would make a ton of money that way. There is no way you can spin the argument such that the company would always derive higher profits by taking the moral choice.
No, because it's nearly impossible to get even two people to always agree what the moral choice even is.
But your examples are fairly easy: all of them are clearly net negatives for society, and would only be profitable for companies if they don't pay the true costs of their behavior.
Child labour carries a huge opportunity cost for the child: it can't get proper education, potentially costing it millions in lifetime earnings. Given a lack of immediate financial pressure, the economically rational decision for a child would be to demand far higher pay than an equally skilled adult because the salary has to offset the labor cost.
Similar arguments can be made for working people to death and giving them no vacation, but the payment schemes become complicated. Luckily they are even easier to solve: if unemployment is an acceptable condition (little stigma, decent unemployment benefits, etc), then the pool of people willing to work such jobs vanishes.
Of course regulation also works. Sometimes it's the sensible option (much easier to outlaw child labour than to teach economics and long term thinking to small children). But it is always valuable to first check if we can fix the root causes of a complex problem before we start with medicating the symptoms.
Also, I'd point out that, in fact, market mechanisms did not work to stop abuses like child labor.
For example: $1000/year for a D, $2000/year for a C, $4000/year for a B, $8000/year for an A. (probably better to use national test score percentile though)
If it's irrational, educating employers may be a great option. If it's rational, we probably need to level the playing field somehow (e.g. make it just as ok for dads to stay home as it is for moms or something).
Consider the possibility that maybe men just don't want to stay home as much as women, even if it's acceptable.
For anyone in a competitive work environment who wants to get ahead, though, it's not surprising that someone would feel pressure to take less time off even if they had a very supportive employer. It seems kind of obvious to me that I would feel less "behind" in work if I took 4 weeks off instead of 8.
Most men don't sleep with other men, but that is again not considered abnormal or socialhttp unacceptable.
In computer-type jobs it's normal for men to take plenty of parental leave, and no stigma. Many work reduced work weeks too, right up until the youngest kid is 8 years old.
I know builders and such who do the same. And I've seen a few young female builders around too.
So I'm racking my brains trying to think what type of people in what type of job can be skewing the statistics.
Sweden is not a prejudice free country, but it's way better than Britian and, from the awful impression I've got from many short visits, the US.
Presently the best we can say from the data is that men seem to take close to the bare minimum of required time off, so it makes sense to increase that time if the goal is men spending more time with the newborn and/or supporting their partner.
Another conclusion may be that while it it /legally/ acceptable, it is not yet socially acceptable.
Finally, maybe an alternative to that approach would be better. Something like a year where both parents are /required/ to be home taking care of the baby.
It may not surprise you that I would prefer to make my own choices.
That does indeed make parents incapable of making family decisions.
Your mistake is in assuming that the legislation targets individuals.
It doesn't. It targets corporations that take advantage of individuals.
Legislation does target individuals; it forbids me from choosing money over time. As a person with no desire to stay home for long periods, this directly harms me.
Right, and find a job with completely different terms, which, uh, very likely doesn't exist.
This kind of "everything's a choice" BS really bugs me. There are plenty of situations where regulation is the only solution, and I suspect this is one of them. Since employers use willingness to work long hours as a signal of commitment/productivity, very few people get the choice to work shorter hours, even if almost everybody would be happier that way.
That solves the problem (?) that men spend less time with the newborn, but I have my doubts that it solves discrimination problems. Employers would just start hiring people who are less likely to have children (big data will make that even easier) and discourage their employees from getting families and thus children. Now the discrimination is just shifted around instead of removed, and on top of that it decreases the already low birth rate.
The point wasn't the example of paternity leave anyhow. The point is that some kind of leveling would need to happen if we want to equalize on some rational form of discrimination.
I highly recommend Misbehaving by Richard Thaler, particularly the chapter of the American football draft in this instance.
Outside of some limited cases, such as small groups of economists, there is no evidence that anyone, anywhere, had behaved 'rationally'.
In that case you might find that upper class women in their 30s are indeed more likely to leave the workforce than single men in their 20s, but less likely than men in their 50s. At that point, the "economically rational" argument becomes to only hire single men in their 20s, which I guess is what Silicon Valley does.
I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws. They probably worked better for manual labor and other commodity jobs. A compromise would be to limit them to these kinds of jobs.
Some men are married.
You almost quoted him.
No discrimination necessary. Every job has bullshit for everyone. An engineer friend got a new boss she doesnt like and her project manager job is stressful, and not what she likes (engineering), but the only way up the career ladder. She now thinks about getting kids as a way out.
As if men don't have this problem...
But to me the problem is companies working employees too long. Salary before meant putting in your 9-5 and leaving early on Fridays. Now if I don't put in 12 hours a day I look bad. If I do I look average.
This choice is not gender neutral, we can see clear differences - and this shows up in all kinds of places, choice of profession being one of them; taking time off for family - another.
And yet hiring managers (of all genders) continue to suffer from this bias. I've always just chalked it up to an excuse for sexism.
If the wage gap is happening and is really so drastic, if women are being undervalued so hard, etc, then there should be a massive Moneyball-style opportunity for people to start companies that correct this error. With the advantages you'd gain by adjusting hiring, you'd completely trounce the competition.
This hasn't happened yet though. Either people are being slow to do it, or the wage situation is not as straightforward as it is being put in these arguments.
If you hire an all-female sales staff, and each employee is technically better in every way than average men, but your customers simply do not want to be sold to by women, then it doesn't matter how good the women are, how many extra skills they have that aren't priced into the market, you will fail.
That's the thing with systematic bias: it's systematic.
That all said, there is still a way to capture the moneyball-style giant pile of cash (and yes, I do believe it is there. There's one for black people too, and every group we think is less employable for certain jobs than white men):
You have to create a feminist company and a feminist market and spin them up simultaneously.
The reason this doesn't happen all the time is it's much harder to create a 2-sided market than a 1-sided one.
And frankly, due to the systemic nature of sexism, a 2-sided market probably isnt enought. You really need to create an n-sided market. You need suppliers and partners and sister companies and clients all on the same page, at least to the extent that your interface with those organizations is human-rich enough to permit sexism.
This is the same reason why anarchist (property-free) businesses have been hard to create, even though the fundamentals should be more efficient than a capitalist company. For it to work you need to spin up n-anarchist companies at once so they can feed off each other. Instead people try to create them one by one, so they fail. They are chewed up by the fundamentally antagonistic world around them... Same as pro-women organizations are.
It's a hard startup problem, but we are getting good at solving those. I wouldn't bet against this being solved within 20 years, at least in proof of concept.
I don't know that you can blame anything on "the fundamentally antagonistic world" since all businesses face a fundamentally antagonistic world and their goal is to overcome that.
One could certainly imagine a law firm matching their hiring practices to the prejudices of their clients, and having this actually be the rationally optimal strategy, i.e. the impact on customer relationships is larger than the inefficiency of rejecting many otherwise good candidates.
It would make sense if your lawyers roughly mirrored the demographics of your customers - having the same social values, regions, schools, hobbies, accents as your customers do. And customers of the expensive law firms are quite different from the general population.
Take software engineering instead as an example, you should be able to hire an all women team of top engineers by paying regular market salaries. There would be no downside and all upside if the gap between male and females of the same skill level is true.
To change the decision would require changing either the statistics or the assumption in reasoning.
A "perfectly rational AI" might also kill of disabled people as unproductive, but we as a society will need to introduce bounds and constraints and objectives in line with our human values.
Which is what governments usually do.
My main point is that sometimes discrimination is not economically irrational. If that's true, but we as a society think that these forms of discrimination are still bad, we need to come up with better, stronger solutions to make sure discrimination of this sort doesn't happen.
The "rationality" you are talking about is false rationality. It's rationalisation- an excuse that people tell themselves to justify their inability to give up on the prejudice they've been taught.
This is true in a strictly material sense but it may not be true from a social/cultural/identity perspective. Traditional masculine identity at its very core is about being the root of the tree: the one your family depends on. Today, fewer and fewer men are in that situation. There are countless articles out there about men's withdrawal from the workforce. More and more women are getting college degrees and the gap over men is growing. Women with a college degree rarely date, let alone marry, men without a degree.
I'll be the first to say I don't automatically want life to go back to the way it was in the 50's. I just can't claim that everybody benefits equally from the new world order. Honestly, I don't know what we as a society ought to do about men who have checked out because they feel that life has left them behind.
I have no idea to what extent that's true, but let's say it's 100% correct.
The obvious thing to do is to make sure as many men as women have degrees. Ideally, that would mean _all_ men (and therefore, all women).
Of course, we could equalise the numbers by making it so fewer women get degrees but that's retrograde and unproductive. Although it does seem to me that sometimes, that's what people are asking for, when they say "more and more women get degrees these days" like it was a bad thing.
>> Honestly, I don't know what we as a society ought to do about men who have checked out because they feel that life has left them behind.
Make sure they get an education every bit as good as that available to men from more privileged backgrounds and create the environment and the opportunities for them to have a fulfilling and rewarding working life.
There are still quite a few very important jobs out there which do not need a degree (such as the trades). There are also lots of men who don't want to spend the time or the money on a degree, especially if they can get one of these jobs.
For various reasons, women aren't going for these jobs much at all. Women, moreso than men, seem to operate on the basis that a degree is the only path to a successful life.
Overall, it just seems like large numbers of women and men have inadvertently decided to go their separate ways. I don't know what the end result of this will be, but it sure seems lonely to me.
The fact that there was such a large, significant difference between high status men and low status men, but on the other hand low status women had 5 times the callbacks of low status men, strongly suggests you are incorrect.
There is a lot of handwaving here.
>Women benefit, because duh,
Certainly on one specific variable it's an improvement, but is it a benefit, all things considered? One of the things I find interesting about this is: I don't want to work at a white shoe law firm! I have no desire for 90-hr weeks, suffering culture, etc. And in general, women don't either. Can you blame them?
"But I'm not talking about forcing them, just offering them the choice. They don't have to take it." Absolutely true, and in general they've decided: hell no. "But that's because of discrimination..." which occurs because of that choice. How do you impose economic equality and freedom of choice if people make different choices?
White shoe law firms aren't happy with this: they'd keep employees locked in forever if they could. Maybe they have some horrible nightmare good reason for this that makes it work for them, I'm not a white shoe law firm. But the way they function apparently requires high-class workaholics. As long as that that's true, you will find difference ("equity" is a retarded and reductive concept. Men and women will only ever be equal if you see them as income numbers rather than men and women. I weigh 165 pounds. Am I equal with a 165-lb weight? How about a 165-lb version of me that doesn't know how to program and went into sales instead?).
>men benefit because their female relatives don't depend on them,
Imagine a world where no one depends on Google. Does Google benefit? This obviously has some troubling connotations and it's a more complex situation, but that's exactly my point. You're handwaving like this is elementary arithmetic ("Does the number on one income statement match the other?"), and oh it's so obvious what the real rationality is, how do these sexists talk themselves into these contrived beliefs, when you're dealing with complex phenomena.
Not all is well at prestigious law firms. Not all is well in the tech sector. But they will only get worse if you add reductionist thinking to the mix.
The OP was arguing that women have a lower expected work output over their career at a company, which is why "economically rational" was used.
So the employers would technically be better off hiring a male over a female with the same skills.
I was disagreeing with that on the basis that only looking at your bottom line when trying to decide what is "economically rational" is short-termist and self-defeating, because everyone benefits from living in a society where women have the opportunity to be as productive as men- and that includes employers who don't have to look at the gender of candidates to make a decision.
The benefits may be harder to measure, but that's why rationality is required, rather than rationalisation of unjustifiable bias ("women have lower expected work output").
The genuinely rational thing to do is to try and ensure that both women and men are equally productive, as workers.
If you want law firms to make their hiring decisions differently, then you have to change the incentives and rules that apply to them, not make false claims that they're being irrational.
Being a churn-and-burn testosterone fest is starting to look like it might have some negative long term consequences.
We're finally deciding as a society that this sort of discrimination is bad, so we need to provide an economic incentive to make it a rational choice for the company to equally weigh a man and woman.
Additionally, businesses get money from the state to pay the wages of their employers on maternity leave, and I think (hope) they do the same for fathers.
I believe other European countries also have similar arrangements in place.
"Statistically insignificant" means just that - this data is not sufficient to conclusively say if lower class women receive less callbacks than lower class men; maybe they do, maybe they don't.
So while upper class men have it the best, lower class men have it the worst. But the author seems to be ignoring this entirely.
Since that's what the article about, and since it's not about women being universally discriminated against in law, I think it's fair they don't point out that lower class women have it better than lower class men. Although that result is somewhat surprising, it's not what the article is about. The investigation behind that result would possibly warrant another article.
The person reviewing your resume will likely be over 30 years old, maybe over 40. And they probably have more money than you. This makes it more likely that they participate in sailing or golf and less likely that they do track & field.
You may benefit from sharing an interest with your hiring manager or recruiter, and maybe it just happens they like things enjoyed by adults with money. Rather than judging you because you like cheap stuff.
A rich man's sport that doesn't favor older folks so much is crew (rowing). That would have been a better choice than sailing IMO.
This isn't an error in the study in my opinion, it's a reason why discrimination happens, which you've highlighted. People are more likely to hire someone like them, who they can relate to. It's the same category as "culture fit". It's something that people hiring need to consciously be aware of and account for. That's a very reasonable conclusion from this.
It's kind of concerning that when I talk about sailing, people read that as a signal that anyone in my family is rich enough to own and maintain a boat.
The idea that there are even more subtle clues is fascinating. When hiring engineers, such clues have remained entirely subliminal to me. There must be some but honestly it wouldn't have occurred to me that there is a class difference between those interested in sailing and those who like track and field. I would probably guess that a track athlete would get along better in my company. Perhaps we are just low class.
Would you resent a resume from an applicant named "Mengying Zhou"? Would that carry less information than membership in the Asian American student association? I claim it carries more.
Rather than expect applicants to take measures to whitewash their résumés (which also gives an advantage to those applicants whose extracurriculars are already "generic," i.e. upper-class and white), it seems we should be educating employers to be aware of their biases when reading these résumés, and teaching strategies for overcoming them.
Someone who deliberately and unnecessarily provides that information unasked for is puncturing that protection.
Now, I don't hire people, but this seems to me like a perfectly rational reason to be annoyed to know your applicants sexuality that has little to do with personal bias.
If you're a woman, statistically you're more likely to work for the firm for a brief time before you retiring to being a wife in your late 20’s or early 30’s - a huge sunk cost for an elite firm that invests heavily in its employees.
If the firms were outright discriminating against someone unjustly due to some kind of shadowy and insidious patriarchy or class hierarchy preservation desire, they would get crushed in the free market for making systematically wrong decisions. But given that they're the top 5% law firms, it looks like their heuristics are correct - high class males are more often than not going to make them a ton more money than other groups.
So you agree with the concept of patriarchy in feminist theory.
If you're suggesting that laws be created to satisfy a personal fantasy, you must realize you're unavoidably advocating for creating artificial market effects which put law firms out of business and increase prices for other law firms, putting their availability further out of reach of poor people, and women.
Surely that would be perfect for a law firm? If they left after the first year, yeah that would be bad, but the engine-room of a law firm is made up of the senior associates. It would be ideal for the partners if some of them were to leave just as they were to come up for partner.
For better or for worse, though, it turns out these law firms (as many firms) like to hire people the same as themselves so much that it can swamp their liking to hire based on ability. Which is short-sighted on their part, really; a smart, hard worker could be taught to blend in with these people in a month, someone would struggle to learn how to be smart and industrious in a month.
Speech patterns and accent, gestures and mannerisms, dressing the same, hair cut and shaving, appropriate topics of conversation and the correct opinions to offer on those subjects, experiences to pretend to have had and fraudulent stories about those experiences, pastimes to pretend to engage in outside the office and another handful of fraudulent stories about them. Food to like, how to eat it, places to say you've eaten that food before. Confidence tricksters are all about this. People see what they expect to see and mentally discount things that don't fit.
Inside a law office (and indeed, anywhere else), to fit in as a fresh graduate, there is nothing apart from how you look, how you talk, and what you talk about (and as a fresh grad, you'd actually have the genuine level of legal knowledge expected, so there'd be no problem getting by on the actual work).
Fortunately, we are to a large extent who we pretend to be. Say something enough times, you'll start to believe it. Start getting it right and pretty soon you won't be pretending to fit in anymore.
why do CV's even have an 'extracurricular activities'/'Personal interests' section? (asking because i never had one in my CV) Is this exclusive to first job applicants? another question: is having no awards better than having 'low class awards' ?
(Ah, got it: they are looking for signs of a first impression bias - these biases are likely to play a role during the interview process (given that these biases exist) )
The advice seems to be "don't include things that hint you might be low class (in some situations, at least)" - but did they actually include that data point in their analysis? Maybe a lack of class clues is treated as lower class as well.
Second, the athletic component of the "lower-class combo" involves competing against a smaller pool of other students, and might rightly be seen as less impressive. If you're in the top 10 of all students, you're clearly also in the top 10 of those on financial aid.
Third, pretty much all of the "lower-class combo" involves quite a few more words. I'd be a little surprised if that had a big impact, but I sometimes find myself surprised by the weird shit we react to.
Upper class women are not selected for interviews because there is a perception that they won't be as committed, implying they might get married and stay home with the kids.
It's a different kind of sexism, but a higher-class one.
edit: Lol. My goodness, HN does not like that idea much.
Wait till they talk to me on the phone. That will be a huge clue.
I've always been fascinated with sailing but have never done it, so I'm going to put that in my interests next time I update my resume.
I will need to remember to remove competitive spitting.
We're not exactly talking about manned space missions where a 99% mission failure rate wouldn't be tolerated. Or imagine if 99% of aircraft landings ended in a fireball. We're talking about the small details of a system that on a large scale is a miserable failure.
The author thinks they found the golden boy who everyone loves, but the reality is virtually everybody is uninterested in those people.
I would theorize if I had 400 people with medical dwarfism apply to the NBA to be pro basketball centers and then I abused the heck out of SPSS or R I could eventually find a correlation between average skin color and callback rates or perhaps maternal income and callback rates or presence of the father during childhood or whatever. I'm sure it would be an absolutely fascinating paper. But don't miss the forest for the trees, the real story is the people at the NBA who hire pro basketball players hire approximately rounded down to zero people under 4 feet in height, so even if they're subtlety or not so subtlety biased about various demographic characteristics of dwarves, it really doesn't matter because they don't hire dwarves to begin with. Of the people they intensely and strongly dislike and will not hire, they dislike certain demographics slightly less, but virtually all of them are still disliked enough to have approximately zero chance of being hired anyway so it doesn't matter.
Its like asking a Catholic convent of nuns what they like to see in a male applicant, and they respond they slightly prefer Catholic male applicants over, say, Jewish male applicants. Which superficially sounds like an incredible religious discrimination scandal, until you point out that Catholic nun convents accept essentially zero male applicants anyway, so ... if a discrimination tree falls in a forest and no one hears it ...
I think that this experiment indirectly showed how ineffective "cold-calling" via resume-dropping really is for even highly qualified individuals (although they'd have to do it with other industries perhaps for better validity, for example). Meanwhile, I'm sure callback rates are probably higher for industries with no shortage of demand for highly qualified individuals such as software engineering. Law and medicine are a bit overwhelmed with more students than there are jobs for them last I heard.
Among the well-heeled, the MRS degree is not quite dead.
I would find the former more succinct and might intuit that this person were better at expressing the essence of information. I'm not saying there isn't bias but I'm not convinced that you can distill the conclusion to purely class. People are complex and any attempt to fake a resume is going to trigger spidey senses. Again I'm sure class-bias is there, but just questioning this study's approach.
It helped me get my first job offer after college. I didn't know the common activity was so essential to getting the CTOs approval until a coworker told me after I had the job for a while.
often they can indicate positive traits- passion, involvement, ownership, leadership, responsibility, etc..
certainly a good idea to list activities and achievements that come from 'hobbies' on your resume.
Example: why do you think you always have the same people getting multiple board seats for prominent companies? It's a small group of people who bond over similar interests and look out for each other. Merit, more often than not, has nothing to do with it.
For example, if I was applying for a programming job working on the billing system at a company that does electronics, I could add a hobbies section to my resume and list there that I have an extra class amateur radio license.
That would let them know that I probably know something about electronics. That's not relevant at all to working on the billing system, but it would let them know that I might also be able to work on other programming tasks they might have that do need a knowledge of electronics (for example, working on diagnostics software for their service technicians).
Here's a fun thought: elsethread age discrimination is discussed. If an employer shouldn't be allowed to discriminate by age, should they be allowed to discriminate by class?
I don't necessarily agree, but note this Malcolm Gladwell argues in Outliers that this is exactly what happened to Jewish lawyers in NY in the mid 20th century. White shoe firms wouldn't hire the Jewish lawyers, so they started their own firms and focused on "distained" but ultimately highly lucrative areas of law.
Also I'm pretty suspicious of Gladwell. He spins a good yarn but his work is less than rigorous.
Historically, the marked exploiting cheap resources was so pervasive that we generally needed the government to prevent it. For example, to prevent employers from hiring cheaper negroes over whites, we passed Jim Crow and Davis Bacon laws.
Of course we assume, in this thought experiment, that all the other things Company Bigot could do to become more competitive (invest in more employee training, better infrastructure, etc) are also available to Company Diversity. This isn't always the case. Maybe Company Diversity's hiring practices have alienated it from potential suppliers or clients who prefer Company Bigot's views.
Specifically I'm thinking of Japan, where (apparently; source: this site) the cultural emphasis on the salaryman paradigm means that hiring from the significant pool of contract labor can hurt your company image as far as working with the established corporations is concerned.
Wouldn't surprise me. Considering we're talking about legal firms, a good chunk of the job is social interactions: with the clients and their partners, the judges, etc. If we make the not-exactly-absurd assumption that white men are more likely to be perceived as sound, then they could in fact "perform better" than others of the same ability.
Which is why it's often considered even more problematic than individual discrimination, but also often easily dismissed, since the actors don't consider themselves as biased, they're just doing what's "reasonable".
"Instead"? We have one now.
My understanding was that it had been thoroughly debunked.
Currently California farmers are desperately raising wages in the hopes of finding workers. Yet millions of able bodied men continue to sit at home playing video games and consuming oxycontin, paid for by the social safety hammock.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
I wonder, by the way, how carefully you read the article claiming "In our era of no more than indifferent economic growth, 21st–century America has somehow managed to produce markedly more wealth for its wealthholders even as it provided markedly less work for its workers" before linking it to prove your claim that the unemployed are just too damn lazy to work.
If you believe welfare is "stingy", can you name a good or service that non-workers lack? (Remember, I have a secret power - I sometimes read Census and BLS reports and pull them out in internet arguments.)
I wonder, by the way, how carefully you read the article claiming...
I read it carefully enough to separate the factual claims from the mood affiliation. You should try it sometime.
Inflation adjusted hourly compensation has done nothing but rise.
For the bottom quarter by income, real wages are largely flat between 1979 and the publish date of that pdf.
And to be clear, I'm not taking either of those claims as true or false, just highlighting the dissonance.
Anyway, It'd be interesting to see a binned version of the real compensation information. And also I think instructive to look at percent of income spending for things like housing and healthcare for the same bins over time.
A UBI does not suffer from this same issue.
For example, many benefits are withdrawn when people make over a certain income, basically punishing earning. Likewise, many benefits are cut off when a couple gets married, punishing people who officially form stable families.
It's not about gaming the system or preferring being on the take. It's about economic incentives producing predictable outcomes.
These are all arguments people make for minimum incomes and negative income taxes. They economically encourage people to pursue growth instead of punishing them for it.