Do good looking people do better 'career wise' than not so good looking people?

[AuntieBabs]

This is a classic example. A good friend of mine has applied for a promotion, he is a Criminology and Sociology Lecturer in his 40's, and has been for 15 years. A young female 20 something Lecturer, who has only been doing the job for 2 years, got the job over him - he is absolutely gutted as you can appreciate. He reckons she is an attractive girl, has good figure etc and the guy who interviewed them has a bit of a soft spot for the woman in question.

Anyway could the reason she got the job over him be because she is a babe and he, err, isn't? Do you reckon good looking people (not just women) get up the career ladder faster than a not so good looking person?

Or is he just being a bitter git which is what I told him ?

apparently so

Ruth Lea, the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, admitted that that looks were often crucial at work. "If you look good, you are almost half way up the career ladder," she said.

According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, Lee may have a point.

Good-looking, slim, tall people earn around five per cent more per hour than their less attractive colleagues, it found, while those with below-average looks tend to earn nine per cent less an hour.

from here

I am a criminology lecturer - and a fit babe!!!!!!!

Yes, yes and yes again. Good looking people climb the career ladder far quicker and are more successful than someone of average looks and it's not just attractiveness either. Size also has a lot to do with a person's employability. It shouldn't, but it does. I could cite so many cases to back this up but it would crash the messageboard so I won't.

that's shocking. I am only 5ft2in so I guess i got no chance being a short arse .

not in Donald Trumps case not Peter Stringfellows nor Bernie Ecclestones... I could go on

Good point piffle - they are dog ugly .

I am 6 foot, tall, slim and utterly gorgeous - I earn millions!

errrr - maybe not

It seems to be mainly women who are judged on their looks in the workplace. Men can turn up looking and smelling like they've just fallen out of bed in yesterday's clothes but if a woman turns up for work like that it's commented on.

I can't comment on your friend's case (perhaps they wanted some young blood, someone they could mould a bit and guide in their research etc...?), but I do believe looks can play a part in getting your foot on the career ladder. I come from a media background, and young attractive women can certainly get on better in certain areas of the industry.
My ex-boss was notorious for recruiting a certain type of woman - young, pretty, usually a bit naive to the industry - at junior level and then promoting them very quickly above others who weren't so under his spell. I certainly feel I lost out - not in terms of promotion, but in terms of other opportunities, like trips away / inclusion in certain high profile events etc - because I wasn't the sort of girl to wear tight dresses and perch on his desk batting my eyelashes. I wasn't a 'yes' person, basically.

Apparently they have proved that if you handed in your dissertation with a picture attached then attractive people with blonde hair and blue eyes are more likely to get a higher mark than those that dont.

I imagine this has been proved in some study but dont know which one, we got told in a research workshop

LoveAngel - you chose to keep your dignity and self respect instead of pandering to a chauvenistic cunt who expected women to know their place and make him feel like a man. Given the choice I know which path I'd choose, and it doesn't involve short skirts and false nails.

Interesting points MrsArchie and LoveAngel.

Good point fio .

Cos they're men and it doesn't apply to them. Can't say about women as I've never met a female boss who was higher than an office manager in an environment that wasn't female dominated (e.g. health and social care)

Well my career is in the doldrums atm. I was blaming having 3 DCs and going part-time, but now I know better..

Unfortunately it would seem to apply to both men and women. Research done in America by publications including the Journal of Applied Pyschology have found that taller, more attractive people of both sex earn more than equally qualified (but shorter, less attractive) peers.

I seem to remember that their was quite a famous psychology experiment done in the US where college students were asked to judge people on intelligence, honesty and work ethic (amongst other things) based solely on photographs of those people. Unsurprisingly, the experiment showed that less attractive/ shorter/ fatter people were considered to be more stupid, deceitful and lazy based solely on looks.

It's a cruel, judgemental world out there folks!

I dunno...most of the managers in my workplace were short, podgy, ugly blokes with massive 'Small Man' ego problems.

Well, how attractive a person is, will influence a lot of htings in their life...but being beautyful doesn't necessarily make someone attractive...charisma and human warmth, etc...all influence as how attractive a person is....
saying that, I have read a book, and basically , well, i will have no chance in life, other then possibly becoming a loner or possibly assassin....as apparently people react differently to attractive Babys compared to not so attractive ones, and that can influence a lot in which way a person develops...

A quick glance at my bosses would suggest not .

Seriously though, academic promotions (in the same institution) are not normally competitive... It should be more a case of whether the person applying for promotion fits the criteria for the higher grade rather than a question of comparing two applications with one another (if that makes sense). Of course if they were both competing for a new job it would be different. Even so, I've definitely been the a situation (both appointing, and as an appointee) where it has seemed the right thing to to choose a less experienced candidate with huge potential over someone who's more established but who seems, perhaps, a bit stuck-in-the-mud, inflexible or whatever. (Not saying this is the case with the OP's friend, but it can be the case.) Mind you, it would be very unusual (IME) for academic posts/promotions to be decided by just one person. It's normally a (more or less) huge committee...!

Most of the people where I work at senior managment level are tall. But all the directors (bar one) are short. What happens? I think we should know.