Prakat Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Attractive women should not include a photo with a job application AT WORK, as in life, attractive women get a lot of the breaks. Studies have shown that they are more likely to be promoted than their plain-Jane colleagues. Because people tend to project positive traits onto them, such as sensitivity and poise, they may also be at an advantage in job interviews. The only downside to hotness is having to fend off ghastly male colleagues; or so many people think. But research by two Israelis suggests otherwise. Bradley Ruffle at Ben-Gurion University and Ze’ev Shtudiner at Ariel University Centre looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent fictional applications to over 2,500 real-life vacancies. For each job, they sent two very similar résumés, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness. For men, the results were as expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was reversed. Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average before getting an interview; an equally qualified plain one just seven. At first, Mr Ruffle considered what he calls the “dumb-blonde hypothesis”—that people assume beautiful women to be stupid. However, the photos had also been rated on how intelligent people thought each subject looked; there was no correlation between perceived intellect and pulchritude. So the cause of the discrimination must lie elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers’ unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates. So should attractive women simply attach photos that make them look dowdy? No. Better, says Mr Ruffle, to discourage the practice of including a photo altogether. Companies might even consider the anonymous model used in the Belgian public sector, where CVs do not even include the candidate’s name. SOURCE Have you ever hired someone because of their looks? Good or plain? And if had nothing to do with the job (like modelling/front office etc.), why?
Prakat Posted April 1, 2012 Author Posted April 1, 2012 mod pls change title to - Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful tx
akshayxyz Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 I was about to clear a very pretty girl, who was below average skills wise, but then I noticed her ring finger in-time.
Old guy Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 I was about to clear a very pretty girl' date=' who was below average skills wise, but then I noticed her ring finger in-time.[/quote'] but now a days i dont think these thing matter much :headshake:
achilles Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 HRs are scumbags. Now I know why. 93% of them are women
Magneto Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 HRs are scumbags. Now I know why. 93% of them are women MCP and coolest don't go hand in hand. :headshake:
achilles Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 MCP and coolest don't go hand in hand. :headshake: I don't get the MCP business to be honest. Women are chauvinists too. But well, you can't call them that. It is a different leash to hit the man with and a different to hit the woman with. :beee:
yoda Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Could be a culture thing as opposed to discrimination based on just looks. May be in Israel if a woman includes her photo, it is viewed unfavorably. I can't imagine it being an issue in a country like the US.
vvvslaxman Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RnDmTkhwMs]George Picks a Secretary - seinfeld - YouTube[/ame] :cantstop:
EnterTheVoid Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Who the hell includes a photo in their resume in the first place? Maybe for a beauty therapist but not for a serious office job :hahaha:
achilles Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Who the hell includes a photo in their resume in the first place? Maybe for a beauty therapist but not for a serious office job :hahaha: Bradley Ruffle at Ben-Gurion University and ZeÃÆv Shtudiner at Ariel University Centre looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia.
EnterTheVoid Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Still, moronic stuff. I have seen people put their DOB, marital status and citizenship status on their resume :WTF: What the hell, why does the employer even need to know any of this in the first place.
achilles Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Still, moronic stuff. I have seen people put their DOB, marital status and citizenship status on their resume :WTF: What the hell, why does the employer even need to know any of this in the first place. Photo adds credibility. It shows you are not scared to be 'judged'. DOB because many jobs have age limits, atleast in India. Marital status because of the fringe benefits that may be required to be meted out. And citizenship status because it kinda states the point that you have reached in your personal/professional life, w.r.t residing.
akshayxyz Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 Still, moronic stuff. I have seen people put their DOB, marital status and citizenship status on their resume :WTF: What the hell, why does the employer even need to know any of this in the first place. That is the first thing I look for, when I am reviewing resumes to suggest changes.. and when interviewing, it gives me some idea ( most times not wrong) about the candidate I am expecting (experienced ones)
Recommended Posts