Top Law Schools

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.

MarkinKansasCity wrote: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 wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote: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?

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

zot1 wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

Big Red wrote: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 wrote:

elendinel wrote:

Big Red wrote: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

Big Red wrote: 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.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I'm not claiming it's a great article, but what is this:

Big Red wrote: 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.

Minnietron wrote: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 wrote:

Minnietron wrote: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

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Minnietron wrote: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

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Minnietron wrote: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?)