It's a big ol' world, and I'm sure you can find an example of _anything_ working at least once, but this is not a good idea. This isn't because its right, wron

It's a big ol' world, and I'm sure you can find an example of _anything_ working at least once, but this is not a good idea. This isn't because its right, wrong, or indifferent, it isn't because how you look should or shouldn't make a difference. It's because this is the way the world works. The conceit is that someone is being considered based upon what they've done, not on the way they look. I've known HR departments to block out faces with markers on resumes under review. When I'm confronted with a resume with a face, at least for the first cut, I have to worry whether I'm selecting for the face or the accomplishments. Later, when I actually meet the person, _thats_ when that all important first impression happens. First impressions should be based on the way someone _acts_ not on the way they _look_. (And personally, if I'm impressed with their stats, even if they make a poor or mediocre first impression, I try to go back and give them another chance; a potential good employee is worth the extra effort.) The only type of job for which this would be a good idea is for a job as an actor/actress/performer. In their industry including a photo is routine.