Feb. 28th, 2007 08:28 pm
Taking a break
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceSo, with the end of the term right around the corner (two more weeks plus one final for me) I'm working my ass off to get everything done. SO tired today, but I'm plowing ahead. I have a story and a mock print layout due tomorrow, but I needed a break or I'm going to go mad.
Today's adventures included totally hosing my jazz quiz (I studied last night, and then completely forgot everything this morning--meh) getting my degree application filed (yay!) and participating in an experiment for the psych dept. (required of people who take psych classes.)
We were handed three resumes, and then shown six pictures, and we had to choose which picture went with which resume. Two of the resumes were awful--filled with misspellings and questionable experience--and one was great. The pictures were all of 20something women. Two were traditionally attractive blondes, three were fat chicks--one of whom was almost my size--and one was a plain-faced brunette. The aim of the study, of course, was to see if people automatically assigned competence to more attractive women and vice versa.
I think I may have thrown off the results, though. The resumes were all for tech jobs. And being a geeky fat chick myself, I know very well what kinds of women one usually finds in tech circles. So I voted for a fat chick--specifically the one whose picture didn't look like a bad Glamour Shot. Because honestly, though they were all well-groomed and smiling, the glossy girls looked like they'd spent more getting facials and highlights than getting up to their elbows in computer guts.
It's not that I automatically assume a traditionally attractive woman is a dimwit, of course, but in the pictures in question, the two skinny blondes really did look high maintenance. Sorry, but I just don't think someone with anchorwoman hair is really going to be all that bright when it comes to tech stuff. If she looks like she spends a fortune getting her hair done, it makes me question her priorities.
(Which is kind of like that episode of "House" in which he's interviewing candidates for Cameron's job, and he dismisses someone based on her shoes. He was absolutely right. Expensive, painful shoes? That woman has her priorities wrong, at least for that kind of job.)
I also assumed that the one who was in a suit in her pic was the one who had PR experience on her (otherwise bad) resume. Suits may be great for PR work, but few tech companies are going to be impressed by them. Fair enough if you're just out of college and don't know any better, but showing up to interview at most tech companies in a formal suit? Bad juju. They'll assume you were a "business computing" major, and if you're going for a geek-heavy job, forget it. Not that you should show up in jeans and a Metallica t-shirt, of course. But if you don't know that business casual is the standard uniform for most tech companies, you haven't done your homework. Which means you probably aren't going to know what you're doing.
So, yeah. All that plus me being a fat chick myself, sitting in front of the classroom? I probably did mess things up.
That said, I may contact them later and ask about their results. I'm interested to see whether the results from old studies of that sort still hold true today. Theoretically, people should be less likely to equate attractiveness and competence, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually increased, especially with this generation, which seems to have rejected feminism.
Today's adventures included totally hosing my jazz quiz (I studied last night, and then completely forgot everything this morning--meh) getting my degree application filed (yay!) and participating in an experiment for the psych dept. (required of people who take psych classes.)
We were handed three resumes, and then shown six pictures, and we had to choose which picture went with which resume. Two of the resumes were awful--filled with misspellings and questionable experience--and one was great. The pictures were all of 20something women. Two were traditionally attractive blondes, three were fat chicks--one of whom was almost my size--and one was a plain-faced brunette. The aim of the study, of course, was to see if people automatically assigned competence to more attractive women and vice versa.
I think I may have thrown off the results, though. The resumes were all for tech jobs. And being a geeky fat chick myself, I know very well what kinds of women one usually finds in tech circles. So I voted for a fat chick--specifically the one whose picture didn't look like a bad Glamour Shot. Because honestly, though they were all well-groomed and smiling, the glossy girls looked like they'd spent more getting facials and highlights than getting up to their elbows in computer guts.
It's not that I automatically assume a traditionally attractive woman is a dimwit, of course, but in the pictures in question, the two skinny blondes really did look high maintenance. Sorry, but I just don't think someone with anchorwoman hair is really going to be all that bright when it comes to tech stuff. If she looks like she spends a fortune getting her hair done, it makes me question her priorities.
(Which is kind of like that episode of "House" in which he's interviewing candidates for Cameron's job, and he dismisses someone based on her shoes. He was absolutely right. Expensive, painful shoes? That woman has her priorities wrong, at least for that kind of job.)
I also assumed that the one who was in a suit in her pic was the one who had PR experience on her (otherwise bad) resume. Suits may be great for PR work, but few tech companies are going to be impressed by them. Fair enough if you're just out of college and don't know any better, but showing up to interview at most tech companies in a formal suit? Bad juju. They'll assume you were a "business computing" major, and if you're going for a geek-heavy job, forget it. Not that you should show up in jeans and a Metallica t-shirt, of course. But if you don't know that business casual is the standard uniform for most tech companies, you haven't done your homework. Which means you probably aren't going to know what you're doing.
So, yeah. All that plus me being a fat chick myself, sitting in front of the classroom? I probably did mess things up.
That said, I may contact them later and ask about their results. I'm interested to see whether the results from old studies of that sort still hold true today. Theoretically, people should be less likely to equate attractiveness and competence, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually increased, especially with this generation, which seems to have rejected feminism.
Re: My favorite (weird word) psychology experiment...