> The study simulates the other things being equal scenario by eliminating all other avenues for the hiring manager to judge. I think the issue here is that if

> The study simulates the other things being equal scenario by eliminating all other avenues for the hiring manager to judge. I think the issue here is that if the hiring manager only has one variable on which to judge, of course that variable will be used. Whatever that variable may be. Here is the speech, which is a proxy for class, which is a delicate topic. What if the candidates only differed in the color of their shirt? I think the issue is not so much to see whether certain criteria matter "all else being equal". It probably does, and the fewer different criteria there are, the more a particular one will matter. What's more interesting to me, though, is how much a given criteria matters compared to others. Especially criteria I cannot influence (say my race) versus others I can (say my coding level or even speech). And this kind of study cannot show that. Should we all show up to interviews wearing lime shirts if some study showed that's what a bunch of hiring managers preferred when they had nothing else on which to judge? And how important is that compared to, say, knowing how to code a FizzBuzz? Given limited resources, should I invest in learning to code or in finding the greenest shirt possible?