"Professional" names

[zozzle]

What's all this about kids needing to be given a name that sounds "professional" to be taken seriously - particularly in the job market?

I think it's all a pile of pants!!

I'm a great believer in "talent will out" - it doesn't matter what you're called! The best person for the job will get the job regardless of name.

If a child is bright enough and determined enough to become a lawyer, then become a lawyer they will whether they're called some thing "boho", "chav", "out there", "Cre8ive", or something "traditional" - I don't care as long as they can do the job!

What a boring world it would be if we were all called "acceptable", mainstream, traditional, aspirational middle class names. Hopefully there's room for different tastes?

Like I said, I believe "talent will out", regardless of name.

Rant over! (sorry)

That's not what anyone is saying at all, Adairbutdifferent. An OP that argued that there is never any discrimination on the grounds of race and that everyone will always be treated in exactly the same way regardless of the colour of their skin would be wrong. A good thing to hope would happen, and we may get there eventually, but reality shows differently at the moment. Similarly this OP, which suggests that Charlotte and Huggy-Wuggy-Fluffy-Bunny will always be treated in exactly the same way regardless of what their first names are, does not mesh with today's reality.

Where I work, colleagues come from all over the world so I have got more used to unusual names e.g Love, Potato.

The recruiting process is so busy I don't really pay attention to the names - just go straight to the quals and experience.

In another job, we gave applicants codes to avoid sex/race bias in assessing their cv's

I don't like cutsie names on little girls, but when you get to know someone, it just becomes their name doen't it and loses other associations.

It's changed a lot, I used to work in recruitment 15 years ago and we would bin the werido names, for no other reason than they sounded odd, you'd never get away with that now. And rightly so.
Having said that it would still play on my mind that a girl called Princess might never become a high court judge.

You call your kid 'The right honourable' or 'professor' and have Trixie-bell as their middle name. That's what I've done to all of mine.

Yes, and by saying 'so therefore I won't give my child or don't give YOUR child a name because some people might be prejudiced against it' surely just feeds the prejudice.

It will only 'change over time' if people stand up to the ridiculous idea that just cos some people are narrow-minded bigots, we should take their opinions into account. A name is a name. We live in a multicultural society and people need to deal with it (and as subsequent posts re modern recruitment have shown - they do).

Where did Sunlight or 5dollarshakes say that?

"Sunlightdances Mon 06-Sep-10 23:47:57

Or there's things like this article which reference the fact that ethnic minority names are more likely to be discriminated against in favour of white-sounding or ambiguous names (e.g. Shanika vs. Sarah).

I like your optimism, OP, but the evidence is against you..."

Nothing saying 'so therefore I won't give my child or don't give YOUR child a name because some people might be prejudiced against it' there. Just that Sunlight thinks the OP's position is optimistic but not backed up by evidence.

" 5DollarShake Tue 07-Sep-10 06:35:01

Agree - nice optimism, OP - but unfortunately it's not all about what you'd do, as opposed to how the world works.

Having said that, yooneek spellings and creative names are becoming more and more common so presumably the trickle-down effect will mean that all sorts of professions will end up with unusual names..."

Again, no 'so therefore I won't give my child or don't give YOUR child a name because some people might be prejudiced against it' there, just a feeling that the OP is optimistic rather than realistic.

Which it is. There is discrimination against names. It is getting better, largely because decent HR professionals are aware of the problem and alert to counteract any unconscious bias.

JeanHunt gives applicants codes to avoid sex/race bias in assessing their CVs, because she knows that such bias - conscious or unconscious - is otherwise a real possibility . If instead she said "I'm a great believer in 'talent will out' - it doesn't matter what sex or race you are! The best person for the job will get the job regardless of sex or race" and didn't take any steps to avoid the possibility of bias, would that be better?

Time and again when some of the possibility for bias is removed from recruitment processes hiring practices become more equitable. Women are hired massively more often to positions with leading orchestras when auditions are conducted "blind" behind a curtain, for example, than when the panel can see the performers. Assuming that "talent will out" and therefore there's no need to worry about bias is not helping anyone, except those who are already helped by the status quo.

I think Freakonomics made the point that names both influence, and are a consequence of, life chances.

Therefore, whilst they proved that certain names give you a lower chance of getting the interview, they also showed that name trends reflect class and therefore that Jayden-Lee is less likely to come from a background conducive to becoming a high court judge than Charles.

Huh? This whole thread is about whether you should give your child a name that will not suit 'professionally'. The implication of those posts was 'NO' (because of the evidence that they will be discriminated against)

Which I think is sad. To make your decisions based on other people's prejudice.

Is all.

No need for the super-cut-and-paste job

No, what the OP actually said was that talent would out and what someone was called would make absolutely no difference to where they ended up in life. There was an implied additional message of "so don't suggest that someone shouldn't use a name they like because it's not 'professional'".

Posters have overwhelmingly responded to the specific suggestion in the OP that a name will never make any difference at all to life outcomes, rather than to the implied additional message that you think the "whole thread" is about (but that wasn't even explicitly stated in the OP).

You've specifically called out posters by name to accuse them of arguments that they have clearly not made. Maybe I cut-and-pasted too much in objecting to that.

JeanHunt - Potato? Seriously?

doesn't give the most, erm, intelligent impression does it?

I think there is prejudice (albeit often unconscious) amongst employers, and that a more "adult" name will do better than a more "childish" name.

If I saw a CV with "FiFi" on it, I would not assume that the person had been called FiFi by their parents. I would assume they were called Fiona (let's say) and had chosen to call themselves FiFi. Now, the kind of person who chooses to call themselves FiFi on a job application is probably quite different to the kind of person who chooses to use Fiona instead. So in that respect, it's understandable where the prejudice might come from.

UGH can we stop referring to freakonomics please- all a pile of right-wing, unsubstantiated, economics-lite piss and possibly the most annoying book I have ever read. So much of it is just patently untrue.

Fair enough, I am only skim-reading. I'm sure you're right.

As the OP maybe I should clarify - I agree with Adair.

I believe if someone is the best person for the job they will get the job regardless of name.

I agree that statistically someone called X (insert "Cre8tive" name) might be more likely to come from a lower class background which statistically may mean they are less likely to ASPIRE to be a judge, GP or whatever.

What I am saying is, however, that if said child against the statistical odds becomes a lawyer and is the best person for the job, they will get the job.

So really it doesn't matter what you name your child because "talent will out" anyway.

zozzle, I'd like to believe you're right, but I work in a pretty conservative place (City law firm) and I sadly but firmly believe that someone called Jane would be employed here over someone called Traci-Allana. Even if they had identical CVs.

But why do you believe that? There's plenty of evidence that people are discriminated against, consciously or unconsciously, for all sorts of reasons. What sex they are, what race they are, what religion they are, where they went to school, how they wear their hair, what their sexuality is, how firm their handshake is, what football team they support, how old they are, what their accent is, what weight they are, whether or not they are conventionally attractive... there are reputable studies showing that there is a tendency to discriminate on all those bases -- not necessarily consciously and often in terms of "how well will X fit into our existing team". Time and again anonymised selection processes where these factors are hidden, so far as possible, produce different results from selection processes where they are visible.

Why do you believe that, perhaps uniquely among all human traits, a name will buck this trend and not lead to any bias at all, ever? Or do you think that "talent will out" under all circumstances and that the best person for a job will always get it regardless of any of the factors I outlined in the first paragraph?

minipie yes, Potato, but he was from a non-English speaking country so I don't think he was named after the tasty tuber.

ProfLayton I think making applications anonymous is crucial, although you can't do it once you get to the interview stage. We did it because we were painfully aware that all of our new recruits were white men but I think it is a good discipline anyway as it stops you prejudging the candidates.

I was also tempted to remove which university they went to as my boss had an incurable prediliction for Oxbridge grads, but I wasn't allowed do that!

Prof - The reason I believe this is because active steps are being taken to prevent discrimination (in whatever form) in many professions and I can only see this becoming more finely honed and transparent by the time our kids enter the job market.

Of course there will always be people that conciously or sub-conciously discriminate on many levels but hopefully discriminating purely on name before interview stage won't be one of them in the future.

At interview stage it should then be entirely about your skills, knowledge and how you present yourself.

Apologies for spelling - I blame it on trying to cook at the same time!!

In my work I have to short list up to 15 job applications down to 3 a day (I run a child care agency) and if I have lots of people with very similar skills, and no stand out features, I'm afraid I do take account of names.

I know it's not right, but in the absence of any other way of differentiating between people it does become a factor.

If you call a child Margaret, she might become a hippy Eco-warrier that lives up a tree and is sooo embarrassed of her name.

If you call a child Fifi Honeyblossom Trixibelle, she might grow up to be head of an arms company who is soooo embarrassed of her name.

There's no way of predicting the future so just pick a name you love!

I have a Margaret. Is is planning to design sweets.