(Clickbait because it's really not much about eyeglasses)
This is really interesting because not so long ago, photos were frowned upon on resumes because they were too obvious a path to racial, gender or class-based discrimination (not that names wouldn't often give it away but still). So that some companies would discuss removing photos or even names.
Now photos are a good way to keep the recruiting process honest by avoiding someone else doing the interview - other than the candidate. Aaaand perhaps discrimination is encouraged again (?) with things like "looking the part" - and no doubt age? Suprised this paper doesn't mention that? How about a tie? Is discriminating on the basis of tie-wearing okay? A fundamental problem with class-based discrimination law: eyeglasses-discrimination is most likely fine.
But some of what the research "uncovers" is really just good marketing: "For graphic designers, [...] have a high quality, professional-looking photo (with a small plus for glasses). Other hacks for programmers: [...] keep a computer visible". I removed the bits about "female" and "beard" - also marketing but less legally acceptable.
"having particular characteristics is comparable to a 5 percent boost in pay" and
"0.3 percent increase in the stars [...] rating". Now that one is shocking and mostly invalidates the study. Because normally good marketing is worth a lot more than that. That hints to me that customers are actually not paying attention to photos? I suspect it's much more extreme in Bad and Great photos (Great not in Professional but in Fitting.)
This is really interesting because not so long ago, photos were frowned upon on resumes because they were too obvious a path to racial, gender or class-based discrimination (not that names wouldn't often give it away but still). So that some companies would discuss removing photos or even names.
Now photos are a good way to keep the recruiting process honest by avoiding someone else doing the interview - other than the candidate. Aaaand perhaps discrimination is encouraged again (?) with things like "looking the part" - and no doubt age? Suprised this paper doesn't mention that? How about a tie? Is discriminating on the basis of tie-wearing okay? A fundamental problem with class-based discrimination law: eyeglasses-discrimination is most likely fine.
But some of what the research "uncovers" is really just good marketing: "For graphic designers, [...] have a high quality, professional-looking photo (with a small plus for glasses). Other hacks for programmers: [...] keep a computer visible". I removed the bits about "female" and "beard" - also marketing but less legally acceptable.
"having particular characteristics is comparable to a 5 percent boost in pay" and "0.3 percent increase in the stars [...] rating". Now that one is shocking and mostly invalidates the study. Because normally good marketing is worth a lot more than that. That hints to me that customers are actually not paying attention to photos? I suspect it's much more extreme in Bad and Great photos (Great not in Professional but in Fitting.)