@EarlVanDorn Can you give some examples of unacceptable or outlandish names? Would Jewish/Muslim names be unacceptable? Would Chinese or Mexican names be unacceptable? Lots of Indian names are like 10+ letters. Are they allowed? Who judges what is acceptable and what is not?
It’s up to society to interact without judgment on names. I do not know why this has to be said.
I’d want to meet Cletus before I judge him.
@yourmomma – “hardly definitive” is right. Many claim the reality is worse ! 
@yourmomma – “hardly definitive” is right. Many claim the reality is much worse ! Some posts on this very thread are proof 
My daughter’s name is fairly gender-neutral - more women with it but men with it exist. With LinkedIn and such it’s possible to find out she’s female (there’s a photo…), but it makes me wonder how her resume is treated on first screens. She’s in a more typically male field, too.
WI know there are people who believe women are less intelligent than men and everyone is less intelligent than white or Asian men. These people post here in the AA thread regularly. I shudder to think that someone with those beliefs would be in a position to screen my kid’s resume.
This is one reason I don’t like LinkedIn. You can easily discriminate because of the pictures.
I suppose one can remove the photo…
Linkedin does not require a photo.
I know it doesn’t require a photo, that doesn’t change what I said.
This is a fascinating study and I haven’t finished reading it yet. However, you’re misrepresenting the results. Men had a 14% callback rate, while women had a 11.9% callback rate, so the actual ratio is 1.18 to 1, not 2 to 1.
Well ya know, math is hard. 
Not CF’s fault, she was quoting what the author of the article about it said. I’m assuming the writer messed it up…probably because he is a man, and you know that men never can get anything right. >:)
But if the people who published the study got that wrong, that’s pretty bad. 
The abstract of the study at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122418762291 says that the “nearly 2-to-1” ratio of callbacks for men versus women is for the high-achieving ones. It also mentions a 3-to-1 ratio for high-achieving math majors. The full study is behind a pay wall.
An additional teaser about the study is at http://www.asanet.org/press-center/press-releases/gendered-stereotypes-can-penalize-women-having-good-grades . It has a figure showing callback ratios by grades:
C+/B-: men much better (0.12M, 0.07W)
B-/B: women slightly better (0.12M, 0.13W)
B/B+: women slightly better (0.15M, 0.16W)
A-/A: men much better (0.16M, 0.09W) ← this is the “nearly 2-to-1” ratio
For the men, the callback ratios appear consistent with the “3.0 cutoff GPA” that is commonly used in college recruiting, but that grades are not otherwise important. For the women, there was a penalty for being an A-/A student as well as being a C+/B- student, relative to B-/B and B/B+ students.
@“Cardinal Fang”
The other issue is the study includes equal numbers of business, math, and English majors. Math tends to be a less popular major, so equal weighting the three majors, skews the results relative to the real job market.
Thanks, everyone, for the correction about the study. When I wrote the initial comment about it, the study was not out yet, and I went only on the apparently incorrect Inside Higher Ed article.
Still, the actual results are bad enough. Women are punished for competence.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_322.10.asp suggests the business dwarfs both English and math in terms of number of bachelor’s degrees granted.
For 2015-2016, 1,920,718 bachelor’s degrees included 371,694 in business, but only 42,795 in “English language and literature/letters” and 22,777 in “mathematics and statistics”.
But how much did the majors affect the callback ratios, other than the note that the callback ratio was more skewed for high-achieving (presumably A-/A) math majors?
Based on the accessible information it seems the employers are using holistic review of the resumes that many posters here like so much. The employers are not just looking at GPA.
For business, it looks approximately like this:
A-/A - 0.138 for both so identical
B/B+ - 0.15M/0.19W women do better
B-/B - 0.12M/0.21W women do a lot better
C+/B- 0.15M/0.09W men do better
Except, for the A values, I’m eyeballing the chart, but the major clearly makes a significant difference.
We have known for decades the best predictor of job success is cognitive ability with correlation of .5 or more. Next in importance is conscientiousness, one of the big five personality types (with correlation between .2 to .4). Since the two are not correlated much, the combination of the two explains pretty much what we need to know.
http://qz.com/334926/your-college-major-is-a-pretty-good-indication-of-how-smart-you-are/
This is really no surprise to anyone.
Not so bad for women versus men in this case… but still a significant penalty for women who were A-/A students versus B/B+ students…
What are the error bars on the study results for business, @roethlisburger?
The study author is female and as has been pointed out, she did get it right
This is really depressing:
As I understand it, the ONLY difference between the apps were gender and GPA. So, no.
More info here: https://news.osu.edu/news/2018/03/22/research-smart-women/