Does being attractive really help you in getting hired in engineering positions? I would understand client-facing/sales jobs, but unsure it would help in engineering roles
Being attractive helps you in everything. Humans have a fundamental positive bias towards those they perceive as attractive.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, let me share my personal experience. Over a period of a year in my early thirties, I became more conventionally attractive by: purchasing clothes from StitchFix (a styling service), getting my hair cut regularly by a stylist, adopting a regular grooming routine, and exercising (especially weight lifting) frequently. Prior to this I dressed like a negatively stereotypical engineer with baggy/unstylish clothing, little to no grooming routine, and little to no exercise.
People of all sexes and sexual orientations unquestionably treat me better than they did before. They are more open, more willing to give me their time and attention, quicker to trust me. I’m given favors like extra services (a barista telling me I can cut the line and give her my order directly), or small free things (bartender comping a drink for no reason). And frankly, people just look at me more. I used to feel completely invisible walking down the street, never catching anyone’s eye - not the case anymore.
Because the change happened over a relatively short period of time, and because I spent my entire adult life prior not engaging in these intentional efforts to be “attractive”, the contrast was extremely obvious.
There is a dark side to all this that I’m not going to get into, but I will say that having experienced the contrast I do feel motivated to maintain some level of attractiveness for the preferential treatment.
I am not attractive and it's not something clothes or styling can fix BUT I can confirm how perceptions make a massive difference. About 20 years ago I started wearing ties and dress up, not just for work. If you never done this, try it out, get some normal (or as they call them now, "classic" fit) trousers, jacket, shirt, tie and marvel at how everyone treats you better. It's the kind of thing you only notice if it happens to you suddenly.
Ha, I'll bite. This gets pretty personal so I'm going to mostly keep it at a high level.
The dark side is that attractiveness is a form of power. Having power changes people, especially if one has lived a large portion of their life without this particular expression of power.
Through this lens, excessive enjoyment of one's attractiveness and the impact that has on others can be seen as a form of megalomania; excessive confidence becomes arrogance, self-love becomes narcissism.
In short, it's easy to become an asshole, or mentally unwell.
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking advantage of improved grooming, hygiene, physical fitness, and clothing. These are easy things that anyone can do to gain advantages in most areas of life.
> These are easy things that anyone can do to gain advantages in most areas of life.
That seems unlikely.
Most of us could stand to gain some degree of advantage, but I'm pretty there some people whose appearance is unfortunate enough that no amount of grooming, hygiene, physical fitness, or clothing will ever compensate for what fate or genetics has burdened them with.
This is overly pessimistic. Virtually everyone could vastly benefit from a relatively small investment in improving how they present themselves to the world (and to themself).
The best part is, there isn't one single right way. Most people will notice and respect the effort, even if the particular style isn't their first choice.
There might be other things in the way -- emotional barriers, etc -- which may be difficult to overcome. But that is a different matter. And that work would also be very worthwhile to pursue.
> This is overly pessimistic. Virtually everyone could vastly benefit from a relatively small investment in improving how they present themselves to the world (and to themself).
I think most people absolutely could benefit, but not necessarily enough to level the playing field with the most gorgeous among us, while for others there really may be nothing they can do to level the playing field against even the most shoddily dressed average looking person. I've got nothing against trying to do the best you can with the hand you've been dealt, and wouldn't discourage anyone from doing that, but when we're talking about the innate bias humans have when hiring I think it's worth admitting that some will always have a considerable disadvantage regardless of their best efforts.
Unless you want to become a super model, it's very unlikely that you have to compete with many ridiculous good looking people. If you're fit, clean, and well dressed you're already at the top in most industries.
I think you have a baked in assumption that hiring is fair. Because you might think that when interacting with clients it makes sense to hire based on looks or at least implicitly it sounds like that's what you're thinking. But we have lots of biases that don't actually make sense. Thinking good looking people are somehow better seems totally likely to be one. And, in fact, this study says is a bias
"Attractive" is a wee bit subjective here, but I can tell you my career took off after I spent a small fortune on my teeth and upgraded my mic and webcam setup to near-studio-grade. If it's a coincidence, it's the most incredible case of coincidental curve-fitting that I've ever personally witnessed. It by no means guarantees you'll get the job, demonstration of competence still matters, but it sure helps break ties.
Attractiveness is not subjective, as facial features deemed attractive are universally accepted across both time periods and cultures. Tallness for men is always seen as better than shortness.
It does not matter if you are interviewing for an opening which has been set aside for you. (Niche skills, nepotism, former colleagues, etc.)
It does matter if you are going for a fungible position with many applicants. Not a lot, but people are biased to hire others who they think they'd enjoy spending time around.
That bias helps attractive people, as well as people who look and act like part of an org's "in-group" (if one exists). It's ugly and gross, but it seems pretty fundamental to human nature.
Yes. People who are attractive are perceived as more talented, more trustworthy, and more intelligent. Those are qualities you want in an engineering hire.
I don't think it is a bad question to ask. In fact, there might even be negative biases against attractiveness for engineers. Will a dude with cheeto dust on his star wars t-shirt give a fair shake to a good looking woman who is wearing business attire and makeup, compared to another dude in a t-shirt?
Let's do a test. Who would you imagine is the better engineer of these two old timey people?
There is definitely (well, anecdotally) negative bias against "well put together" attractive engineers. Picture a software engineer, male or female, chances are your stereotype isn't a glamorous person in a flashy suit with an expensive haircut and grooming. And if you saw someone like that, you'd be suspicious of their technical ability. It's a sterotype, but it's not all that weird.
I don't think it's necessarily about being attractive with all else being equal, it's more about the level of effort in one's appearance. Once that is accounted for, it's probably likely there is some of the usual bias towards better looking people.
Also anecdotal: When I was freelancing, I'd specifically make sure to be wearing my glasses and a hoodie during the first meeting with potential clients. I had better responses and they seemed to implicitly trust that I was competent vs wearing contacts. Whereas on a dating profile/first dates, I would always wear contacts because I think I look more handsome that way.
Biases are frustrating and annoying and I used to think they weren't worth worrying about. Then I went from obese to healthy weight and noticed the ways people treated me differently. Now I acknowledge that they have an effect and try to remove my own, but it's not perfect.
There's a sweet spot I think. Wearing a suit? Probably a business guy, not to be trusted. But raggedy T-Shirt? Ah, that's just unprofessional. The ideal male fashion icon: Mr. Rogers, classy but not trying too hard, everybody trusts a nice sweater with a collared shirt under.
> Will a dude with cheeto dust on his star wars t-shirt give a fair shake to a good looking woman who is wearing business attire and makeup
The Cheeto-dust legible-t-shirt look is unfashionable in tech and probably not a great idea. Been true since the late '00s at least. I think the put-together woman wins in that match up.
> compared to another dude in a t-shirt?
Depends. Is the t-shirt $150 retail, made of merino wool, and sporting a small brand logo that the interviewer will recognize from the gear lists on that minimalism/travel blog they really like?
It probably matters less, but unconscious bias likely still exists to an extent.
Hopefully remote work would help establish practices like interviewing over zoom with a camera off. There's potential concerns about someone else completing the coding challenges for the candidate, or otherwise more blatant cheating. But that could be accomplished by, say, capturing video and only reviewing it after a hiring decision has been made.
Not the parent, but I assume they mean the nose stud, green or blue hair that looks like it's needed to be redone for a month (but was, in fact, dyed yesterday), and at least one full-sleeve tattoo, look.
[EDIT] For the record, I've seen women with that look who weren't very good, and I've seen plenty who looked different from that who were good. I don't agree with their broader assessment.
