"High-class" Interests on Your Resume Help Get You Interviews Forum

[MCFC]

**If you are a privileged man**

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... bs/504497/

She and Tilcsik decided to focus on applications for summer associateships—which are essentially internships for law-school students—at large law firms, as they usually lead to permanent, first-year associate positions, which command some of the highest salaries in the country. Anyone hired for one of these competitive positions, Rivera says, is instantly propelled into the top 10 percent of household incomes nationally, among all ages.

To eliminate biases toward Ivy League educations, all the fake résumés indicated that applicants went to selective second-tier law schools, but were still at the top of their class. Their academic and professional experiences were identical, but there were a few variations that signaled their level of privilege. For example, higher-class applicants volunteered as mentors to first-year law students, while lower-class applicants volunteered as mentors to first-generation college students. One fictitious student won a university athletic award, while another won a university athletic award for students on financial aid. Then came the section of the résumé people often spend the least effort on, even though it reveals so much to employers: extracurricular activities and interests. In the experiment, privileged applicants listed expensive, exclusive sports like polo and sailing, and mentioned a penchant for classical music. Less-privileged applicants preferred country music and track-and-field sports.

Rivera and Tilcsik sent the mock applications to 316 law firms, and of the 22 interview invitations they received, the privileged men had a call-back rate of 16 percent, which was more than four times the rate for privileged woman, less-privileged women, and less-privileged men combined. Though it’s not surprising that privileged men received an advantage, it was striking to see that advantage so clearly, considering they had identical professional and academic experiences as the other fake applicants. Further, belonging to a higher social class appeared to only benefit men in the hiring process, and penalized women.

I don't totally understand what the underlined means or how their math works, but saw this getting passed around today.

[zot1]

Bottom line: being a privileged white male is cool in every way, including for a law career.

Serious talk: Is polo still cool?

[MKC]

I'm guessing T-50 as opposed to T14 or T20?

They were just trying to eliminate the influence of Ivy league schools on the results. It makes sense if you're trying to see how much impact being born rich has on your chances for getting an interview, since people at those schools would skew the shit out of the results.

On a side note, I put sailing and scuba diving on my resume for interests. LOL if those fuckers thought I was rich for drinking beer on my rednecked-out boat.

[zot1]

I'm guessing T-50 as opposed to T14 or T20?

They were just trying to eliminate the influence of Ivy league schools on the results. It makes sense if you're trying to see how much impact being born rich has on your chances for getting an interview, since people at those schools would skew the shit out of the results.

On a side note, I put sailing and scuba diving on my resume for interests. LOL if those fuckers thought I was rich for drinking beer on my rednecked-out boat.

Were you wearing sperrys tho?

[MKC]

I'm guessing T-50 as opposed to T14 or T20?

They were just trying to eliminate the influence of Ivy league schools on the results. It makes sense if you're trying to see how much impact being born rich has on your chances for getting an interview, since people at those schools would skew the shit out of the results.

On a side note, I put sailing and scuba diving on my resume for interests. LOL if those fuckers thought I was rich for drinking beer on my rednecked-out boat.

Were you wearing sperrys tho?

Walmart sandals and shades dude. My sailboat has fishing pole mounts on it and a homemade fiberglass cooler I built into it. I wouldn't even know where to buy Sperry's.

[zot1]

I'm guessing T-50 as opposed to T14 or T20?

They were just trying to eliminate the influence of Ivy league schools on the results. It makes sense if you're trying to see how much impact being born rich has on your chances for getting an interview, since people at those schools would skew the shit out of the results.

On a side note, I put sailing and scuba diving on my resume for interests. LOL if those fuckers thought I was rich for drinking beer on my rednecked-out boat.

Were you wearing sperrys tho?

Walmart sandals and shades dude. My sailboat has fishing pole mounts on it and a homemade fiberglass cooler I built into it. I wouldn't even know where to buy Sperry's.

[Big Red]

Would be helpful if the article was more straightforward about what variables they were playing around with.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 4.abstract

I'm locked out

[elendinel]

Would be helpful if the article was more straightforward about what variables they were playing around with.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 4.abstract

I'm locked out

So your problem should be with the academic paper publisher, not the article itself.

[Big Red]

Would be helpful if the article was more straightforward about what variables they were playing around with.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 4.abstract

I'm locked out

So your problem should be with the academic paper publisher, not the article itself.

I think it's fairly reasonable that the Atlantic would stop editorializing long enough to actually let the reader understand the controls of the study

[elendinel]

Would be helpful if the article was more straightforward about what variables they were playing around with.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 4.abstract

I'm locked out

So your problem should be with the academic paper publisher, not the article itself.

I think it's fairly reasonable that the Atlantic would stop editorializing long enough to actually let the reader understand the controls of the study

I don't see how it's reasonable at all. They gave you the important takeaways of the study, and gave a link to the full research paper if you want to learn more/if you don't want to read the "editorializing." It's not the Atlantic's job to include every detail of the study, thereby inevitably angering an academic journal, just so readers can avoid paying the cost of the subscription to see the specifics.

If it annoys you that you have to pay to see the specifics, blame the journal, not the Atlantic.

[Big Red]

OK, well here's what the article told me.

1) They're intentionally manipulating things like School and GPA--anyone who has been within a 1,000 foot proximity of legal hiring knows how determinate that is

2) They talked about listing hobbies such as sailing v. track and field, which is something I doubt people reviewing resumes even pick up on.

The Atlantic is read by a lot of people, and IMO is a pretty decent publication and one of my favorite airport buys but they are using this study to draw conclusions about hiring (like upper class women v. men) based on a classic STUDIES HAVE SHOWN pseudoemprical proof and it's absurd to me.

I'm not saying that these aren't things that are legitimately happening but I think rugs are being pulled over eyes here

BTW the people who did that study LOVE LOVE LOVE that they are getting picked up in the Atlantic and would sell two nuts or a single ovary to get the publicity they are now. As if something like journal subscription sales is getting in the way of accurately portraying those studies

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm not claiming it's a great article, but what is this:

2) They talked about listing hobbies such as sailing v. track and field, which is something I doubt people reviewing resumes even pick up on.

based on? That's the exact premise of the study, that people reviewing resumes *do* pick up on stuff like this. Many people have posted about how they have conversations with their interviewers about their hobbies/interests, and different activities do have different connotations. Heck, someone just posted about their judge telling clerks to pull resumes with "cooking" or "baking" listed as hobbies because the judge loves food. So I don't get why that's so implausble, even just on a subliminal level.

[Big Red]

I'm not claiming it's a great article, but what is this:

2) They talked about listing hobbies such as sailing v. track and field, which is something I doubt people reviewing resumes even pick up on.

based on? That's the exact premise of the study, that people reviewing resumes *do* pick up on stuff like this. Many people have posted about how they have conversations with their interviewers about their hobbies/interests, and different activities do have different connotations. Heck, someone just posted about their judge telling clerks to pull resumes with "cooking" or "baking" listed as hobbies because the judge loves food. So I don't get why that's so implausble, even just on a subliminal level.

One thing I should have said before is that there are a couple of studies tracking how people screening resumes look at resumes, and how long they look at them. There was a big one in 2012 that said 6 seconds--I don't think you pick up on granular details much less form opinions about them in these kinds of time periods.

I shouldn't talk about a study I have not read, but if that bias exists I would be shocked it was found in a study that sent out apps to 315 firms. Maybe I am just completely naive about the extent of this and If I'm reviewing resumes/interviewing, but how are you getting stat. significant p values much less get to the higher level attribution that they do w/ this data?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh, I agree the statistics are potentially weak. I'm not convinced the 6-second stat applies when you're talking about SA hiring in law firms, though. Not saying that law firms spend *lots* of time on resumes, but it's a different hiring practice than in a lot of industries (also it doesn't take a long time at all to glance at the bottom of a resume and see the interests: glance at school, glance at GPA, glance at work experience, glance at interests, move on. But then I read fast).

[Pokemon]

Not read the article but the summary I got from the thread is correct and intuitive.

[zot1]

I would even expand it and say the legal profession in general looks at the hobbies section.

I have actually been told in interviews that X hobby caught the interviewers attention when they reviewed my application.

[Minnietron]

For OCI, a classmate listed Game of Thrones under hobbies. He had several in-depth conversations with screeners about the show. One screener spent the entire interview talking about it. GOT = "High-class" interest? After all, HBO is subscription based.

[PeanutsNJam]

For OCI, a classmate listed Game of Thrones under hobbies. He had several in-depth conversations with screeners about the show. One screener spent the entire interview talking about it. GOT = "High-class" interest? After all, HBO is subscription based.

Lol look at this chump paying to watch tv

[1styearlateral]

For OCI, a classmate listed Game of Thrones under hobbies. He had several in-depth conversations with screeners about the show. One screener spent the entire interview talking about it. GOT = "High-class" interest? After all, HBO is subscription based.

Lol look at this chump paying to watch tv

GOT is the most pirated show. Interest in GOT could mean the candidate is a likely an anarchist.

[A. Nony Mouse]

For OCI, a classmate listed Game of Thrones under hobbies. He had several in-depth conversations with screeners about the show. One screener spent the entire interview talking about it. GOT = "High-class" interest? After all, HBO is subscription based.

Lol look at this chump paying to watch tv

HBO being subscription-based =/= paying to watch HBO. (Also who cares?)

[RaceJudicata]

I feel bad for the folks who massmailed and got passed over for these fake resumes. (Also, in fairness, didn't read the article, just the synopsis -- so im not entirely sure thats what they did).

[cron1834]

I definitely got asked about my hobbies in lots of screeners, including the one that went best and is my eventual firm.

Of course having upper crust interests is helpful if upper crust folks are screening you. If you knew for a fact that one of your OCI screeners was first gen college, it'd be a great move to mirror that on your résumé (if true). Our school let us upload a different resume for each screener if we felt like it, but a lot of the firms didn't list their screeners quickly enough to pull something like that off. A few did, though. I'd be curious what happened if someone power played that way. Can you do that at other schools?

[deepseapartners]

Anecdotally, this rings true to me. I got asked in almost every OCI interview about my listed interests in economic & imperial history and classical music, did not get asked at all about making law review, my undergrad experience (K-JD), and only 1-2 times about my other listed interest in basketball.

[Minnietron]

For OCI, a classmate listed Game of Thrones under hobbies. He had several in-depth conversations with screeners about the show. One screener spent the entire interview talking about it. GOT = "High-class" interest? After all, HBO is subscription based.

Lol look at this chump paying to watch tv

HBO being subscription-based =/= paying to watch HBO. (Also who cares?)

I guess my joking manner did not come through the screen. I should've ended with "/s" or "..." for clarity.

[tyroneslothrop1]

Unfortunate that perceived "high-class interests" receive more interview. But one should tailor his or her interests to make them sound interesting/not freakish.