Names and Careers

[Glindathegoodwitch]

I often read on here & see people commenting on the posts along the lines of

'He/She would never get taken seriously in the professional world'
'Imagine Dr Such and such name'
'Imagine going for a job interview with that name'

Are people genuinely serious when posting this? Or is it just a jibe they feel that they can use at a name they don't personally like?

If I were in a position to interview somebody, which I have been in the past, it wouldn't even be on my radar to take their name into consideration. I mean, I may raise an eyebrow at a name, pull a face (in my head) at a name or more than likely it would intrigue me. But never in a million years would I stop a clearly capable person or perfect candidate for a job on the basis of their name that they didn't choose for themselves? A name doesn't define character or capability surely?

And if Dr Princess Consuela Bananahammock wanted to save my life or someone close to me's life by performing open heart surgery, I wouldn't say 'Sorry. No, I just cant take you and your name seriously!'

In equal measure, I would not name a child 'Richard', 'Bill' or 'Alan' presuming that will mean they will become a multi billionaire entrepreneur....

I just want to know if people genuinely believe what they are saying???

Much as I hate the idea, people do judge based on names, there are countless studies which show this out there.

www.businessinsider.com/choosing-a-successful-name-for-your-baby-2012-1?IR=T

www.nbcnews.com/id/34063244/ns/business-careers/t/it-or-not-name-can-impact-your-career/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26634477

If you are called Eleanor then you are 100 times more likely to go to Oxford than if you are called Jade.

////recalls former students///

in one class:

Kyle
Courtney
Rhys
Reece
Kieran
Tia
Jay
Jayden

or in my other class:

Edward
Hannah
Emily
Rory
Eleanor
Anna
Charles
Ben
Rose

(etc)

"If you are called Eleanor then you are 100 times more likely to go to Oxford than if you are called Jade."
As said before on this thread, correlation does not imply causation . . .

Octavia sounds quite posh in the UK and is (apparently) considered a black name in the USA. Same as Marcus. Apparently that is a black name in the USA. It sounds more divisive than here

How seriously would you take somebody for an interview as a lawyer if they were called Looby? Serious question, I do actually know somebody with this name.

I have been dedicating myself all afternoon to the issue of what name could be considered both "posh" and "black" and I have come up with

Tiberius

and

Constance

(walked around a stately home yesterday and one of the lady's of the house was named Constance but its not actually a name I would normally associate with poshness)

Witch, if my lawyer was called Looby I would assume it was a nick name. I would take them seriously as long as they were good at their job.

James Tiberius Kirk was always taken seriously...

oh.

wait.

Darius?

Chances are a little girl called " Celery" is not going to grow up to become a high court judge. Not so much because of her ridiculous name but because it gives insight into the values ( or lack of) of the people who named her and more importantly raised and influenced her. And if they are work shy chavs, the importance of education, work ethic, giving back to the community, having aspirations as well as being able to know how to conduct oneself, all needed, to be a high court judge, are going to be missing!

This is why when people choose a name off the " chavtastic" top ten name lists, such as " Chardonnay" people already have an idea of the type of person attracted by giving their baby such a name.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3207841/Parents-inspired-celebrity-mums-like-Kate-Moss-Beyonce-giving-baby-daughters-TWO-names-bid-make-sound-unique.html

I think I am on the fence. I agree that children with perceived 'lower class' names are judged in a certain way and potentially given less opertunity.

But, from my own experience I do know a:
Lily-May Rainbow who is a Dr/Consultant
Mackenzie who is a lawyer
Tyler who is financial advisor (or something)
Lolly Louise who is a successful business woman

"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?"

I would assume that their professional ability was great enough to overcome the irrational prejudice people have against 'alternative' appearance, and I would be more likely to trust them. To be completely honest with you.

Besides which, they would obviously be of my people, and I would feel a personal affinity towards them that would only add to the confidence.

The amount of posters on this thread who completely miss the point is very frustrating.

My anecdotal point to add is that I've been a health visitor for 10 years and In the area I work I see the tide changing. It is now the upper class well educated parents who really want an unusual unique name and the parents who rely solely on benefits and left school with no qualifications who are choosing traditional names. I cover, relatively, an extremely small area so it doesn't necessarily mean anything but from a personal point or view I do find it fascinating as it's completely different to 10 years ago.

This thread goes to show no matter what you are called or what you look like you will be judged, sometimes very severely and totally wrong. With that being said we should either all call our children Emily and Tom or just grow up!!

Sociology student here and as others have said; time and time again this has been studied with the same conclusion judgement on names starts at nursery and continues though life. This creates an uneven playing field from day one restricting potential advantages to gain a good education, a good home and a good job.

What frustrates me is people who blindly refuse to understand how research works and believe anyone who mentions it is a snob or nasty.

I don't think it's right but I wouldn't lets child be cannon fodder just to rebel against social convention (but that's just me). You don't have to like something to accept it happens and conform to social norms.

tying in with what lugo said, when the MW or HVs visited me, I was with a partner, not on benefits, but I think I knew deep down when I had children that it wouldn't work out with their dad, so I chose very conservative names. Names I'd have felt brave enough to use if we were married, financially secure, conservative etc... I reluctantly let them go for more respectable conservative names because in my heart I knew I'd made a mistake and I'd be a single parent one day. And yes, I was on benefits for a while. I'm glad my children weren't Coco and Bruno, but James and Emma (not actual names)

I wonder if there is more awareness now, because of the internet. An insight in to what people would never say, but what they really think, it's all to be found in its shocking glory somewhere on line.

I live in a 'nice' area. Married etc etc.

I saw a family support worker before I had DS as they thought I may need extra support because of previous mental health problems.

She made snotty remarks about unusual names like 'Apple'. I did think it unprofessional at the time and thought it would put some parents off an unusual name.

I also didn't see her again...

I don't think that the point has been missed at all. A discussion doesn't end because one person mentions studies that prove her point. Actually I had a good read of the freakonomics link and as far as I could see the results are fairly inconclusive. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence in itself but an accumulation of case studies does start to become evidence.
Several posters have pointed out correctly that statistics are a blunt instrument that while they do answer questions it does depend on what question was asked in the first place.

There are a lot of variables when it comes to poor name choices and future career prospects it is too simplistic to say that Priceless Pimpernell didn't make MD because of his name. His name may not have helped but if Priceless was that ambitious a name change is probable.

The whole point of a discussion is to hear different opinions not to stop having opinions just because one poster made their point bluntly.

Hard as it may be for some to understand many of us don't feel judgey at all about names. There are names that I don't particularly like but I really don't care if my surgeon is called Olivia, Ahmed or Priceless I will have researched their work and judged them by their reputation not their name.

There are two main issues

• subconscious bias; and
• overt prejudice.

The former is difficult to track but of course it makes a difference. Read this for race perception discussion in relation to names.

www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.html

Subconscious bias works in two ways - prejudice against the name (which affects entry into competitive traditional professions) and the way a child is treated (which can affect character development and professional interests). Eg. if your surname is Doctor, you will have people saying to you "so are you going to become a dr then?". Equally, works with first names a girl called Fifi Trixibell is more likely to be treated by those with subconscious bias in a way that anticipates girly/feminine interest than a girl known as George.

Overt prejudice does happen. A friend of mine works in a very traditional old school snobby world and she told me that the man in charge of recruitment used to literally bin applications from graduates saying "We're not having anyone called Tracey/Kevin" working here.

So to answer the OPs post - yes of course names affect child opportunities and development. It's not so much being taken seriously at the end point - it's more about even having the opportunity to get there in the first place.

People are prejudiced - even subconsciously.

"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?"

In a professional context, particularly medicine, this shows bad judgment - which yes would be worrying.

It stands to reason that if you are dealing with a wide cross section of the public, you know many people will be offended or troubled by a very unconventional appearance. I would be concerned if a surgeon looked like that and I may very well not trust them. The lower class accent is irrelevant. It's the appearance which shows bad judgment.

yes, I deal with people on benefits at work and I'd avoid saying anything that would imply I had stuff they didn't have. I dress simply. I don't act like a lovie. I'd avoid saying anything which implied I thought it was anything more than chance that I was on the other side of the counter. You know what I mean? Judgement is very much tailored to the field, but the person must have judgement!

"I had a good read of the freakonomics link and as far as I could see the results are fairly inconclusive."

I would say that's a fair summary of most of the dramatic 'findings' in the Freakonomics books - either they're inconclusive/overplayed, or they're no news to anyone with any basic knowledge of economics [grinn]

From the link to slate.com - DeShawn's name is an indicator not a cause of his life's path -
That is fairly conclusive - it's not the name its the socioeconomic background that has the biggest influence. It just happens that these names are more common in low socioeconomic groups.

I thought the point of the book was more to do with getting people to think that the world is a little more shades of grey than black and white than people use statistics and studies to 'prove'. Studies and stats can be interesting and useful, but you have to fully understand what they are really showing - and be aware of what their weaknesses are and what they don't show.

I do think that going x number of studies show this time and again is really bloody naïve. In fact this is why you have people like Ben Goldacre challenging this and why the Cochrane Institute was set up to review study findings and their methodology (although even Cochrane reviews have certain weaknesses).

I do remember reading the findings of a particular WHO study, and then a critical appraisal of the same study which looked at the figures compiled by WHO. Scarily, the conclusion drawn by this study when the figures were reviewed, revealed a biased on the part of those writing the study (which supported the general historic belief on the subject). The figures actually seemed to support a picture completely the opposite to what was reported. Indeed a couple of years later WHO did shift their recommendation in that direction somewhat.

Point being NEVER take stats at face value alone.