4 ms·

> In terms of practical implications, the authors say these results reconfirm why photographs are usually absent from traditional resumes or CVs. As such, they

> In terms of practical implications, the authors say these results reconfirm why photographs are usually absent from traditional resumes or CVs. As such, they suggest that removing photos from LinkedIn might make job-seeking fairer. The lack of photos might cause recruiters to focus more on information that is more relevant to the job. I would be curious if Linkedin penalizes profiles missing a photo in their algorithm or whatever. I.e. I seem to recall getting badgered to add a photo when I didn't have one, and the implication that my profile was "incomplete." I suppose a way around this would be a completely unrelated photo, or a drawing of yourself, etc. I'd love to see the same type of experiment with the person's race and gender, but that's probably too inflammatory of an experiment.

lhorie 5y ago
I recall reading that the effect on gender has been documented in classical musician auditions (women were selected more frequently with the introduction of blind auditions)
- treis 5y ago
  Frequently cited but a fatally flawed study: > The first thing they noticed is that the raw tabulations showed women doing worse behind the screens. But perhaps, Ms. Goldin and Ms. Rouse explained, blind auditions “lowered the average quality of female auditionees.” To control for ability, they analyzed a small subset of candidates who took part in both blind and nonblind auditions in three of the eight orchestras. >The result was a tangle of ambiguous, contradictory trends. The screens seemed to help women in preliminary audition rounds but men in semifinal rounds. None of the findings were strong enough to draw broad conclusions one way or the other. >So where did Ms. Goldin and Ms. Rouse get their totemic conclusion that blind auditions dramatically improved the success of women candidates? After warning that their findings were not statistically significant, they declared them to be “economically significant.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-audition-study-11571599303 https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-auditi...

lhorie 5y ago

I recall reading that the effect on gender has been documented in classical musician auditions (women were selected more frequently with the introduction of blind auditions)

treis 5y ago
Frequently cited but a fatally flawed study: > The first thing they noticed is that the raw tabulations showed women doing worse behind the screens. But perhaps, Ms. Goldin and Ms. Rouse explained, blind auditions “lowered the average quality of female auditionees.” To control for ability, they analyzed a small subset of candidates who took part in both blind and nonblind auditions in three of the eight orchestras. >The result was a tangle of ambiguous, contradictory trends. The screens seemed to help women in preliminary audition rounds but men in semifinal rounds. None of the findings were strong enough to draw broad conclusions one way or the other. >So where did Ms. Goldin and Ms. Rouse get their totemic conclusion that blind auditions dramatically improved the success of women candidates? After warning that their findings were not statistically significant, they declared them to be “economically significant.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-audition-study-11571599303 https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-auditi...