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

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