What a researcher learned after sending out resumes with ‘LGBT indicators’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=gufu;49540835]You know, I won't go for the obvious bait, but you would not hire a woman if she didn't wear a dress?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't hire a man if he wore a dress

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540757]If you are going to a control group in a scientific study you need to specify the parameters of your control group and non-controlled group in detail. Posting a fictional resume, to a job description is NOT something that you leave out; not to mention the job types they are applying for. This study is basically "I took 2 crows to perform a task with red dye on their wings, they performed it with 55% success rate" "I took 2 crows to perform a task with no dye on their wings, they performed it with 75% success rate" It doesn't mean anything because you don't know what the end goal was(The job position position), the variable(Their background leadership, which will directly effect the choices made), and the date the applications were submitted(they were 2 days apart, for all we know one was submitted on friday at 5PM and the other Monday 8AM). If you are going to do a study you need to define the control group as well as the end result expected and what variables changed to prove/disprove your theory. This has nothing to do with gender, this has everything with it having to be a badly done 'expirement' [editline]16th January 2016[/editline] [img]http://i.imgur.com/m5VSgjs.png[/img] Feel free to because as far as I can see anything retaining to leadership references the LGBT or a "non-LGBT"[/QUOTE] Did you even read the paper? It answered literally all of your points. Both the control and non-control groups WERE specified, the jobs they applied for, even how many they applied for, WERE specified etc (1,600 resumes in the field of administration work). this wasn't a 'badly done experiment', this is Facepunchers seeing a study which seems to contradict what is inside of their tiny minds, and refusing to put effort in to actually reading and understanding the paper.

but it all depends on the skill set though

[QUOTE=ridinmybike;49540882]but it all depends on the skill set though[/QUOTE] Good thing the resumes of both people had the same skill sets; similar high GPAs, similar years of work experience, studying abroad etc. Those things all obviously aren't going to be [i]exactly[/i] the same, because if an employer received two resumes with everything the same but the names of the applicants and where they did their work experience, that would raise red flags. Even suppose person A had a higher GPA than person B (as neither had the same GPA, of course, one person would have the higher GPA), it doesn't matter, because there was a queer and non-queer resume of both person A and person B, for four resumes. As said above, for any job position, it was the case that either the queer person A and non-queer person B resumes were sent, or the non-queer person A and queer person B resumes were sent.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49540221]Did you look at the data? Out of the 4 states being studied (New York, Washington D.C., Virginia, and Tennessee) Virginia performed the best with the queer applicant actually getting 1% more callbacks and all the other states were within 1% of each other. From the study: "The results reveal that the effect of being a queer applicant is significantly more negative in New York, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., than in Virginia. In fact, given that Virginia is the reference category in model 3 (containing the interaction), the nonsignificance of the LGBT indicator reveals that there was no discrimination in Virginia. This result is consistent with the descriptive data, as queer-identified résumés led to fewer callbacks than straight-identified résumés in every state except Virginia."[/QUOTE] No. I have better things to be doing with my time than reading every study posted on facepunch. I just skimmed the article. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=download;49540941]No. I have better things to be doing with my time than reading every study posted on facepunch. I just skimmed the article.[/QUOTE] is this a serious post e: "i make assumptions about what the article [I]might[/I] be insinuating and take my interpretation as fact but don't actually bother to verify those claims, then share my ideas"

[QUOTE=bitches;49540140]Avoiding this isn't as easy as not including it on your resume, either. Employers will be curious about any large gaps in employment history.[/QUOTE] Which all you have to say is I did odd jobs because my main job was taking care of sick family member etc. Fuck I've gotten hired well on drugs during the interview, really isn't that hard to get it you just them what they want to hear. Something I learned is you'll get a lot farther getting a job by bending the truth/borderline lying rather than being honest.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;49540878]Did you even read the paper? It answered literally all of your points. Both the control and non-control groups WERE specified, the jobs they applied for, even how many they applied for, WERE specified etc (1,600 resumes in the field of administration work). this wasn't a 'badly done experiment', this is Facepunchers seeing a study which seems to contradict what is inside of their tiny minds, and refusing to put effort in to actually reading and understanding the paper.[/QUOTE] That's fine if I missed it and I will conceed that point if I can see what the resumes submitted were and the job application description and requriements were.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49541040]That's fine if I missed it and I will conceed that point if I can see what the resumes submitted were and the job application description and requriements were.[/QUOTE] Most of the specifics of each resume do not matter. For the third time now, person A and person B had two resumes each. Even if person A was the one with the better GPA, as each could not have the same GPA unless the study wanted to raise red flags with the employers, it was the case that any employer would receive either a queer variant of person A's resume and non-queer variant of person B's resume, or non-queer variant of person A's resume and queer variant of person B's resume, effectively isolating the test to just the LGBT issue. The job positions were graduate level administrative and clerical jobs. Not only would it be really hard to compile the job descriptions and requirements of [i]eight hundred jobs[/i], it's not exactly necessary considering it's [i]eight hundred jobs[/i]. The article also mentions the five places where the jobs were found. It's not as if the author decided to only apply at 8 jobs and bias the results in one way or the other. Granted, it wouldn't be impossible to bias applying at 800 jobs.

This is actually one of the better studies I've seen. The only real issue I see is that the conclusion is more that people are less willing to call back those associated with LGBT groups, not necessarily people who are LGBT. I think the most interesting and surprising part is that the more progressive states with lots of pro-LGBT laws had the same or more bias than the more conservative states with less pro-LGBT laws.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49541089]This is actually one of the better studies I've seen. The only real issue I see is that the conclusion is more that people are less willing to call back those associated with LGBT groups, not necessarily people who are LGBT. I think the most interesting and surprising part is that the more progressive states with lots of pro-LGBT laws had the same or more bias than the more conservative states with less pro-LGBT laws.[/QUOTE] Salt Lake City is more liberal than the rest of its state, and would probably skew results if done there and simply referred to by the state itself. I would imagine similar results for more major cities too. I absolutely haven't read the study yet (I will), but it's not necessarily a matter of state.

Unfortunately it seems that this study only really studies the link between being involved with an LGBTQ organization and being hired, not actually [b]being[/b] LGBTQ. Further, I hate to say it, but the LGBTQ organization names sound much less professional/serious than the non-LGBTQ organizations. It's possible that had an effect as well.