patrick.net

But maybe conventional wisdom has been leading us astray. According to new research from Paris-Sorbonne University, showing a bit of skin during the recruitment process can help a woman clinch a job interview.

Here’s the deal: over a period of three years, researchers responded to hundreds of job ads using two fictional female candidates: both had nearly identical resumes and experience, but one wore a low-cut top in her application photograph (commonly used when applying for jobs in France), while the other wore a conservative high-neck blouse. Can you guess which one attracted more interview offers? Yep. Researchers found that more cleavage = more interest from recruiters.

Out of 200 sales job queries, the woman wearing a low-cut top attracted 62 more interview offers than their more conservatively dressed counterpart. And just in case you’re thinking, Well, maybe that kiiiiiiinda makes sense for sales jobs, since a lower cut top might come across as more youthful and fun and stylish, guess what? The same thing happened with accounting jobs, which you would think would be more conservative: there were 68 more interview offers for the woman in the low-cut top.

So just to recap: it’s 2016 and women are still being judged more on their looks than their resumes. Cool*.

*Not cool.

As if baisc human biology could be shamed into non-existence! LOL

Riiight, so it is men's fault that some women choose to take advantage of their sex appeal when they shouldn't. Perhaps the researchers should spend some more energy slut-shaming the office sluts rather than trying to get the boss fired? Nooo, that would be much too appropriate.

Depends on the job. If it's for a marketing position, she should get the job. Clearly she gets what sells. However, if she's applying for a job as a middle school teacher, they should pass.

There's no such thing as too much cleavage in the world. Without constant fantasies of tit fucking, most men wouldn't be able to go on with their lives.

A French study showed female applicants were 19 times more successful in securing job interviews when pictured in revealing clothing rather than more conservative attire.

Neither the Yahoo article nor the Telegraph article it links to contains any information on how the study was conducted or a link to the study itself. As such, the articles are worthless. If we don't know what data the study gathered, then we don't know what the study measured and we can have no reason to believe the study actually addresses the question the article claims it does nonetheless get accurate results.

Here's how the study should have been conducted, but I'd be extremely surprised if it were conducted this way as liberal arts majors, who are the type of people who typically the people studying subjects like this, are brain dead morons who don't think much because thinking is hard. Maybe they got the right or rightish results by coincidence, but unless they followed the below methodology, they did the study wrong.

Create two resumes, A and B, that are nearly identical. Get two 25-year-old female actors, G and H, who are nearly identical in appearance and both mildly attractive. Other variations with various degrees of attractiveness and age can be done in expanded experiments, but for this one, just mildly attractive actors of the same age and general appearance will do. Use two strategies, S and T, for high cut and low cut blouses respectively. Get a large set of N companies with job openings for which we will measure the result r[i, g/h] as either 0, if the actor was not offered the job, or 1, if the actor was offered the job. Other variations like being called back for a second interview can be done in expanded experiments.

In order to measure the independent effects of A vs B, G vs H, and S vs T, first construct a values table for each possible two-tuple value as follows. Each tuple consists of a first and second candidate where the first candidate is actor G combined with either A or B and with either S or T and the second candidate is actor H combined with the opposing values of the variable.

The value table looks like this.

Trial || First Candidate || Second Candidate
i || A1 | B1 | S1 | T1 || A2 | B2 | S2 | T2 || r[i, g] | r[i, h]
1 || 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 || 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 || r[1, g] | r[1, h]

Cycle through all the permutations until you have N trials. Call the elements of this table the set R.

Let V[A] = (sum over R where A1 = 1 + sum over R where A2 = 1) / (sum over R where A1 = 0 + sum over R where A2 = 0)

This value will be the ratio of how many times the job was offered using when using resume A to when using resume B. If the resumes had no influence, the ratio should be close to 0.50. The deviation from a 1:1 ratio indicates the degree of influence of the resume and which was preferred.

Note that you will have to handle division by zero. It's fine to cap the value to 2 * N in that case. You'll get a value twice as high as when resume B was chosen just once, and that's a sensible way to handle resume B being chosen never. The ratio will show the strongest preference for resume A in that case.

Similarly, we do this with the other variables in the input.

Let V[S] = (sum over R where S1 = 1 + sum over R where S2 = 1) / (sum over R where S1 = 0 + sum over R where S2 = 0)
This shows the preference of high-cut to low-cut.

Let V[G] = (sum over R[i, g]) / (sum over R[i, h])
This shows the preference of actor G to actor H.

The possible results are three scalar ranges going from 0 to 2N.
0 <= V[A] <= 2N
0 <= V[S] <= 2N
0 <= V[G] <= 2N

You can even reach conclusions of what the different values within each range means without taking the actual measurement. You just wouldn't know which conclusion applied to the world until conducting the experiment.

This is how the study should have been conducted. How many people here think this is how the study actually was conducted? Maybe the conductors were smart enough to realize this is the right way and did it that way, but I highly doubt it. They might have varied which actor dressed provocatively, but did they also vary which resume each actor used? Did they measure all three ranges to see how much influence the actor and how much influence the resume used had on the results?

Doing the study wrong is just easier and if gives you the result you want, rightfully or not, that's good enough for most people and clearly good enough for the popular press. The fact is this is not even a difficult experiment to do right, nor is it a difficult experiment to describe to the general public. Yet the articles give us no idea what the experiment actually measured, and what was measured was probably crap.

We should all find low scientific standards offensive because drawing conclusions based on inaccurate information is just plain moronic.

What's all this have to do with the angle of the dangle in the cleavage? Just the pertinent facts, please.

Do they offer Phd s in Tit Statistics?

The last time I bought a car the financial girl doing the paperwork had ginormous garbanzos and she was proud of that cleavage, dipping and diving to show it off as much as possible. I'm sure she was hired strategically to keep the male clients' eyes doing somersaults and loop-de-loops instead of reading the fine print.

This thread is all flash, where are the obligatory office cleavage photos!?