Names and Careers

Actually, in Denmark very nearly 50% of the population rent rather than own their homes. It's one of the highest percentages in the EU / EEA. It's also much less a class thing there - as in Germany and Switzerland many middle-class and professional people rent.

So it's not a certain social group that rents in Denmark. Renters are more representative of the general population than in some other countries, including, arguably, the UK. (Although the situation is changing here, too - see the ONS paper on trends in the UK housing market).

Urethra and Nell are correct. I had to look at quite a lot if this stuff as part of my work.

(But you can become a high court judge with an unusual name. Christmas Hunphries was a noted one, and he was a Buddhist too, unusual then. And Cherie would have been down the socio economic rankings in her day. But she is brilliant. Won't comment about her spouse. )

The correlation v causality issue is afair the whole point if freakenomics.

What is interesting to me is that this appears to be the case in the US, the UK, and clearly less class ridden Denmark. Obv much easier if you live in somewhere that only permits choice from a list if names. Wasn't France like that at one point?

That should say 'stopping them becoming doctors'. I've come across lots as patients!

Incidentally, Skypod is my new favourite name ever! Are they a boy or girl?

Logically speaking, the name shouldn't make a difference. But subconsciously it does. Those of you who are not convinced, how would you feel if you went for an appointment with your surgeon and they had blue hair, multiple tattoos, multiple piercings and a (pick-your-own-choice-of-lower-class) accent. Would you trust them? No reason you shouldn't, logically speaking. But there is a certain expectation from the general public regarding appearance, especially from the older generation, and the same principle applies to names (except it is harder for the person to change them).

Call it anecdote (because it is) but in my 15 years as a doctor I have not come across any Oceans, Chardonnays, Tee-jays, or Pocahontas'. The vast vast majority are Sarahs or Michaels. Whatever it is that is stopping them, something is.

One of my children has a name that others either consider "posh" or "black" , we are white. Nobody knows how to spell or pronounce it. I have apologised and my child says they like it as it makes them stand out and it gives the class a laugh when dd refuses to answer a Teacher unless her name is pronounced correctly. The whole class will collectively correct the Teacher the first few times, so no excuse really.

MagalyMaman yes they did, because they concluded that the stats showed something, but they couldn't work out whether it was cause or effect that was driving it.

This is why I point out that coming from different backgrounds, you are extremely unlikely to have the same CV so these 'tests' are flawed in that they don't reflect the actual life experience which may give kids who have had to struggle might have which could well be an asset rather than a drawback if they reach that stage in the process.

The point about it having being tested in Denmark on renters still has some of the same flaws. Its a certain social group that are likely to rent rather than buy in the first place, so its not the best reflection on social mobility. More than likely that's about wanting more middle class people who conform and are less likely to be 'problems' because they don't conform and are therefore anti-social.

Middle class people who don't conform, are more likely to be highly educated and then therefore have a better job and therefore buy. And you'd be more likely to have a particular type of unusual name anyway which has different connotations. And high flyers from lower classes who also don't conform and have unusual lower class names will also aspire to buy too thus bypassing the whole system of long term renting in the 'better' areas in the long term anyway.

It was recently tested in denmark, with landlords not employers put to the test though. You're better off having a very normal name if you are renting. Whatever about job hunting!

I was just as guilty of wanting that same holy grail as all other pregnant mothers though! I wanted names that wouldn't be a handicap in any way, names that weren't so unusual they would cause difficulty, but not so common there'd be another in their class. I think I got it right as the whole way through primary school neither of my children had another child in the entire school (280) with the same name. The names are neither upper class nor 'lower class' :-p But where they fell down, I felt (!) is in that moment where you announce the baby's name! You want people to coo and wow over your choice in the moment. My children's names have weathered their first decade well. But definitely, when I told people their names, I could tell their was a bit of an underwhelmed ripple of reaction rather than omg that's so cute, I totally love that.

I feel like testing this.

Applying for jobs with the same CV but with two different names

"Emily Jones" and "Millie-maie Jones"

UrethraFranklin1 is correct and it's backed up by statistics and data.

Didn't freakonomics kind of sit on the fence in the end? I read the book years ago and I thought it was more the link between the fact that the parent was attracted to the name de'shawna-preshus (example) in the first place that had the most influence in the end. ie, not their name but that their parent, the one(s) raising them and influencing them chose a bonkers name for them....

That was the impression I got when I read the book about ten years ago.

Spot on.

It seems there are two factors at play here:

1. Some people will judge people on their names if misspelled, or belonging to a particular ethnicity or class - there's research evidence for this and we also see it regularly on the naming boards, especially when the ONS lists are released. Clearly some posters prefer to think this issue doesn't exist, but my experience is that it does.

1. Children born to parents who are more likely to choose outrageous or misspelled names are likely to be in either a very high socioeconomic bracket (celebs or wealthy) and so their name will not limit their opportunities, or in a much lower socioeconomic bracket where their access to opportunities is much less, and they are more likely to be judged based on their name/lifestyle etc

The name per se may not be a problem, but if the name represents a lack of education, or a particular class or race, then people are likely to make judgements on that.

That's not remotely how statistics work. Its painful to read such shit.

Statistics tell us what the person wants us to believe based on the evidence they've used to base their statistics on. There are too many variables (as another poster said but much better than I). If enough people buy into the researchers point of view, it becomes accepted & this is shown in the amount of people who believe certain names will block their child from achieving in life.

Each to their own I say & the more we have cutesy, out-there an ridiculous name choices the better.

I was referring to the names I picked actually, not the names I mentioned. Clearly Ace isn't hard to spell..

MummyPiggy, the thing is, I think that by the time Ocean, Ace, Chase and Wolfrick are in their late teens and early twenties that WTF thing will have gone. There is a whole generation of WTF coming through at a rate that hasn't happened before. If you look back in history there are news articles slating the improper names being used - the names that were to characterise that generation and we now think as boring as fuck. And this time there are loads more of the WTFs out there so there will be a saturation point at which even the generation before will get used to it. I can't see all WTFs being written off, merely because there are so many of them and there are so many kids who have some sort of foreign background reflected in their names.

The domination of Johns and Marys has increasingly been eroded. Hopefully in a couple of generations time the snobbery will be even less too.

And frankly, if you can't spell Ace, Chase or Ocean without having to ask then you shouldn't BE a High Court judge.

Poppy and Lily conform to the generation being top 15 names. So being cutesy does not matter at all. The same for Daisy as its on trend with flowers.

I actually think that there are fewer names that are not well accepted compared to a generation ago, in the UK.

Its Daizy and Lily-Mae that have the bigger issue as it suggests a class with the spelling and hyphenation.

I agree to a certain extent.
My son has a few friends with unusual names which I've shared with people who's reaction says it all really, "WTF" usually.
Examples: Ocean, Ace, Chase and Wolfrick.
Really? I just think naming your child something unusual could hinder them in the sense people will be thinking HUH?! And may not get taken seriously. And I base this a lot from the reactions of the people I've told.
I have gone through some unusual names for this baby I'm pregnant with and have come up with a nice elegant English name that isn't going to be WTF how do you spell that, I don't want that horrible reaction for her. Sad but true.

My name is very unusual too and also would be more Ursula than Dayzee. I ageee that socioeconomics play a part in career choice but I wonder if there are more John's, Oliver's and Thomas's in professions simply because they are just more common names. As far as i know there is no one else with my name in my profession.

Oh and maybe I should add given my cross post with RedToothBrush that my name is more in the Ptolemy realm than the Flora-Marmite.

I don't think that the High Court judge rule is a particularly good one really, because it's more whether a person with a tricky name is likely to get articled (ie a job as a trainee). Generally once you get going in a profession (or any other career or trade) then you have a lot more to sell than your name. It's the first foothold that's the difficult one, where something as trivial as a name might make a difference.

Also I suspect in my generation the people with cutsie names may well have chosen them themselves - ie a Betsie is likely to be an Elisabeth who wanted to be considered sweeter, so it's a reflection on their personality, whereas parents might well choose Betsie for a birth certificate now, so it's a reflection on background instead.

It's not necessarily that anyone wishes for their child to become a doctor. More that they don't want to limit their prospects. The doctor is just an example of a traditional middle class job.

I doubt very much that a Daisy will have limited prospects. It's a well recognised and properly spelled name. A bit cutsie to be sure, but in a generation of cutsie named girls that is unlikely to stand out.

I have a very unusual name. It gets comments all the time, but they are mostly positive, and I do get remembered (for good or ill!). However it is similar enough to other mainstream traditional names that no one has any particular preconceptions. It stands out but not in a negative way and I doubt very much that anyone has ever though, even subconsciously 'a person with that name won't fit in here'.

The UK is still very class dominated, and names area marker of class. It's foolish to deny this I think. Why give your child a handicap?

Everyone on this thread has made the generalisation that unusual names are the preserve of lower classes.

Which is bollocks. Even the freakonomics stuff says that.

The middle classes are the most likely to stick with safe names and names they perceive to be upper middle class or upper class. So in some ways it confines a child to a certain expectation as much as 'chavvy' name might be seen to hold back a lower class kid. Its all a reflection of expectation and shows what people think to be important. Which includes conformity.

You then get highly educated mothers (see the link on the first page from freakonomics) giving their kids unusual names. Think the Persephones and Ptolemys of MN fame. This is a statement of culture and the value they put on education and almost an act of superiority.

Being called Ptolemy might not hinder you going for a job as a university lecturer. Being called Ptolemy might be a bit of a handicap if you are going for an apprenticeship as a car mechanic though.

I also have to say that if Flora-Marmite from the shitty background wanted a job that much, as a High Court judge, and did get as far as the interview stage, I don't think her CV would be the same as Persephone with the well placed parents. I think their life experience is liable to be different and they would have different skills that would be reflected in their CV. I suspect Flora-Marmite is liable to have done more to get to that position compared to Persephone who has relied more on the straight path through education alone. The truth is that Flora-Marmite is never likely to want to aspire to be a High Court judge though.

I do think it ultimately comes down to the path your parents send you on and how determined you - and they - are to achieve your goals. Just because you come from a privileged background does not mean you have the right attitude.

I think really names are mirrors to the parents rather than the child. And that's can be even harder to swallow than thinking about what it means for your child. What does it say about you as a parent?

Its all cause and effect.

Interestingly, celebs calling their children wacky names highlights the whole thought process. Who do they have to prove themselves to? Won't their name open doors regardless of what they call their children? Are they bound by the same expectations of conformity and the social ladder? Or does being at the top give you the freedom and confidence to call your children unusual names. Perhaps we should question the celebrities who don't give their kids unusual names more, because perhaps that shows something about them too.

why does everyone want their children to be doctors there are other career paths just as good....

completely agree Nell. The fact that there is this fear over using an unusual name means that parents most concerned about their kids becoming high court judges/doctors/lawyers (generally middle class, affluent parents) stick to using the same pool of traditional names out of fear that they will somehow limit their child's chances if they don't, therefore increasing the amont of high court judges with those names - exacerbating the problem.
You see it all the time on here - I love the name Daisy but is it suitable for a high court court? This frustrates me so much.

A Daisy is a pretty flower and a feminine name. Why should a feminine name be considered weak or cutesy? Just because we have preconceived ideas of what is 'acceptable'. We are fuelling the prejudice. If we were to see more Daisy's in those roles, the prejudice would disappear.