(09-07-2014 06:05 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:19 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 12:10 AM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Ummm??? There are multiple studies that show names are VERY important in job hiring. I specifically recall one University of Chicago did that had some troubling results. Of course you'll probably ignore it!!!!!!!

This is so typical... You're arguing against something nobody has said (that names don't matter)... and ignoring the falsehood of something that the OP specifically implied (racism).

YES names make a difference... Don't name your child Tootie if you want her to be a CEO. I don't know many CEOs or politicians named Hunter. As 'American' as the name Gertrude is, it's not going to help her socially. Actors change their names often. Howard and Gordon are not 'sexy'. Andy? No. Drew? Maybe.

The problem is that the OP lied, or grossly overstated the reality in order to try and make a point that doesn't exist. It's not racism that made Norma Jean Mortenson change her name to Marylin Monroe... but a desire to have her name bring about a different image in people's minds.

The more common your name... the more likely you are to have immediate 'connection' with more people. The more unusual, the less. There are cute names and strong names and romantic names and sexy names and unusual names... and just plain odd ones. Apple Martin would struggle if her parents were a school teacher and a bus driver.

That's not racism.... it's marketing.

It's not that I disagree with you, I don't. But a little bit of talent, a smooth marketing machine, and a good line of sh!t can go a long way with a unique name. Examples are Hillary (sounds old fashioned but it works) Tiger, Barack Hussein, Arnold, etc. But for the most part, you're right.

Funny how you completely disregarded the study that renders your meaningless opinion null and void...

That's because there's no study that does that. The result you claim is beyond the scope of any study.

I'll give you loons a second chance. Come up with something "other than in my experience" that isn't how life works...

Quote:From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.

"For us, the most surprising and disheartening result is seeing that applicants with African-American names were not rewarded for having better resumes," says Bertrand.
Statistically, the authors found that discrimination levels were consistent across all the occupations and industries covered in the experiment. Even federal contractors (for whom affirmative action is better enforced) and companies that explicitly state that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" did not discriminate less.

University of Chicago Study Link

(09-07-2014 10:15 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You can have a creative name without it being obvious or weird. Beyonce or Aaliyah is not exactly a name you hear every day but it's not ethnic either.

Isn't the name Aaliyah, like really, really old school Jewish?

Aaliyah is Arabic but obviously not common, at least until recently.

(09-07-2014 06:30 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  I'll give you loons a second chance. Come up with something "other than in my experience" that isn't how life works...

Quote:From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.

"For us, the most surprising and disheartening result is seeing that applicants with African-American names were not rewarded for having better resumes," says Bertrand.
Statistically, the authors found that discrimination levels were consistent across all the occupations and industries covered in the experiment. Even federal contractors (for whom affirmative action is better enforced) and companies that explicitly state that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" did not discriminate less.

University of Chicago Study Link

Big whoop. This broad sent out resumes in order to get hired. For over 25 years I've received resumes in order to hire someone. Who's more qualified to determine if what she alleges is true, her or me? And when I get a resume I almost never look at the name, what purpose would it serve? I don't look at the names until I've narrowed down my choices to 3 or 4 people and then I send those resumes to our recruiter to set up appointments.

So I'm still calling BS.

BTW, if I were to suggest there was such a thing as black or white sounding names the left would go insane and you'd be leading the charge.

Are you telling me that this fine young man can't get a job because of his name?

Quote:Barkevious Mingo

(09-07-2014 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 06:30 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  I'll give you loons a second chance. Come up with something "other than in my experience" that isn't how life works...

Quote:From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.

"For us, the most surprising and disheartening result is seeing that applicants with African-American names were not rewarded for having better resumes," says Bertrand.
Statistically, the authors found that discrimination levels were consistent across all the occupations and industries covered in the experiment. Even federal contractors (for whom affirmative action is better enforced) and companies that explicitly state that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" did not discriminate less.

University of Chicago Study Link

Big whoop. This broad sent out resumes in order to get hired. For over 25 years I've received resumes in order to hire someone. Who's more qualified to determine if what she alleges is true, her or me? And when I get a resume I almost never look at the name, what purpose would it serve? I don't look at the names until I've narrowed down my choices to 3 or 4 people and then I send those resumes to our recruiter to set up appointments.

So I'm still calling BS.

BTW, if I were to suggest there was such a thing as black or white sounding names the left would go insane and you'd be leading the charge.

What? Should we make all decisions based on anecdotal evidence or from a study of about 5,000 resumes sent to jobs in various fields. The results of this study doesn't show that all those people that subconsciously discriminated against those folks attend Klan rallies, it simply shows we aren't quite there to the point of truly "equal opportunities for all."

Why are you guys always in defensive mode? Do you feel guilty about something? For some reason every story that describes any type of discrimination gets you all fired up!!!!

Oh, and during the last month I hired 3 techs; Manuel, Javier, and Richard. Richard was forced on me by the union or I would not have taken him. The union leader's name is Donald but he has a very Hispanic sounding last name. Very. I have 16 techs and only two of them are white, none are black, and 14 are Hispanic. That's the local flavor around here and it works for me just fine. Thanks for playing.

So instead of reading about "studies," let's talk about real life. How many people have you hired recently? And if your two "studies" are open and shut cases that are closed to debate, then why post them if we can't debate them? Or did you expect all of us to just take your side and agree with you?

You're new to this internet forum concept, aren't you?

(09-07-2014 09:31 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 06:30 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  I'll give you loons a second chance. Come up with something "other than in my experience" that isn't how life works...

Quote:From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.

"For us, the most surprising and disheartening result is seeing that applicants with African-American names were not rewarded for having better resumes," says Bertrand.
Statistically, the authors found that discrimination levels were consistent across all the occupations and industries covered in the experiment. Even federal contractors (for whom affirmative action is better enforced) and companies that explicitly state that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" did not discriminate less.

University of Chicago Study Link

Big whoop. This broad sent out resumes in order to get hired. For over 25 years I've received resumes in order to hire someone. Who's more qualified to determine if what she alleges is true, her or me? And when I get a resume I almost never look at the name, what purpose would it serve? I don't look at the names until I've narrowed down my choices to 3 or 4 people and then I send those resumes to our recruiter to set up appointments.

So I'm still calling BS.

BTW, if I were to suggest there was such a thing as black or white sounding names the left would go insane and you'd be leading the charge.

What? Should we make all decisions based on anecdotal evidence or from a study of about 5,000 resumes sent to jobs in various fields. The results of this study doesn't show that all those people that subconsciously discriminated against those folks attend Klan rallies, it simply shows we aren't quite there to the point of truly "equal opportunities for all."

Why are you guys always in defensive mode? Do you feel guilty about something? For some reason every story that describes any type of discrimination gets you all fired up!!!!

Too bad your study didn't tell us the race of the person doing the hiring.

(09-07-2014 09:31 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Why are you guys always in defensive mode? Do you feel guilty about something? For some reason every story that describes any type of discrimination gets you all fired up!!!!

The study as defined is not a lot more than anecdotal... And no, I don't feel guilty about anything, what should I feel guilty about?

I simply don't like it when someone treats a weak study as biblical truth..

(09-07-2014 09:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Oh, and during the last month I hired 3 techs; Manuel, Javier, and Richard. Richard was forced on me by the union or I would not have taken him. The union leader's name is Donald but he has a very Hispanic sounding last name. Very. I have 16 techs and only two of them are white, none are black, and 14 are Hispanic. That's the local flavor around here and it works for me just fine. Thanks for playing.

So instead of reading about "studies," let's talk about real life. How many people have you hired recently? And if your two "studies" are open and shut cases that are closed to debate, then why post them if we can't debate them? Or did you expect all of us to just take your side and agree with you?

You're new to this internet forum concept, aren't you?

Your analytical skills aren't very sharp. Do you know anything about data? The larger the sample size, the better representation of society you get. You vehemently made the point over and over again that your name doesn't matter AT ALL in ANY aspect of life. That has CLEARLY been disproven, so instead of backtracking, you decided to attack the credibility of the study (typical rhetoric strategy) and attack me personally. Your life experiences is simply anecdotal. Good for you for hiring the best candidates but to use that as defense for statistical evidence of discrimination is laughable.