题目内容
At work, as in life, attractive women get a lot of good lucks. Studies have shown that they are more likely to be 1 than their plain-Jane colleagues because people tend to project 2 traits 3 them, such as a sensitive heart and a cool head, they may also be at a/an 4 in job interviews. But research suggests otherwise.Brad Hanks at Georgia State University looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their resume, as is the 5 in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent made-up applications to over 2,500 real-life 6 . For each job, they sent two very similar resume, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness.For men, the results were 7 expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was 8 Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average 9 getting an interview; a/an 10 qualified plain one just seven.At first, Mr. Hanks considered 11 he calls the "dumb-blonde hypothesis"—that people 12 beautiful women to be stupid. 13 , the photos had also been rated on how 14 people thought each subject looked; there was no 15 between perceived intellect and beauty.So the cause of the discrimination must 16 elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be 17 mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers" unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned 18 led the women to discriminate 19 pretty candidates.So should attractive women simply attach photos that make them look dowdy No. Better, says Mr. Hanks, to discourage the practice of including a photo altogether. Companies might even consider the 20 model used in the Belgian public sector, where CVs do not even include the candidate"s name.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
At work, as in life, attractive women get a lot of good lucks. Studies have shown that they are more likely to be 1 than their plain-Jane colleagues because people tend to project 2 traits 3 them, such as a sensitive heart and a cool head, they may also be at a/an 4 in job interviews. But research suggests otherwise.Brad Hanks at Georgia State University looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their resume, as is the 5 in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent made-up applications to over 2,500 real-life 6 . For each job, they sent two very similar resume, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness.For men, the results were 7 expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was 8 Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average 9 getting an interview; a/an 10 qualified plain one just seven.At first, Mr. Hanks considered 11 he calls the "dumb-blonde hypothesis"—that people 12 beautiful women to be stupid. 13 , the photos had also been rated on how 14 people thought each subject looked; there was no 15 between perceived intellect and beauty.So the cause of the discrimination must 16 elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be 17 mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers" unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned 18 led the women to discriminate 19 pretty candidates.So should attractive women simply attach photos that make them look dowdy No. Better, says Mr. Hanks, to discourage the practice of including a photo altogether. Companies might even consider the 20 model used in the Belgian public sector, where CVs do not even include the candidate"s name.
Intelligence quotients (IQs) testing is controversial and regarded by some as a crude indicator of ability or potential. When comparing nations, measured average IQ tends to be affected by class, nutrition, and cultural factors including education. There is also disagreement over the influences of nature and nurture. IQs have risen in developed nations for almost a century. But in Britain, research has found a reversal of this trend. The average had declined by two points on average, but by as much as six points among teenagers in the top half of the IQ scale, a fall that wiped out the previous two decades of gains in that group. No cause for this fall in IQs has been established: the internet, the dumbing down of education, and an obsession with exam results have been suggested. Flynn has argued that youth culture has made a contribution.
At work, as in life, attractive women get a lot of good lucks. Studies have shown that they are more likely to be 1 than their plain-Jane colleagues because people tend to project 2 traits 3 them, such as a sensitive heart and a cool head, they may also be at a/an 4 in job interviews. But research suggests otherwise.Brad Hanks at Georgia State University looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their resume, as is the 5 in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent made-up applications to over 2,500 real-life 6 . For each job, they sent two very similar resume, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness.For men, the results were 7 expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was 8 Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average 9 getting an interview; a/an 10 qualified plain one just seven.At first, Mr. Hanks considered 11 he calls the "dumb-blonde hypothesis"—that people 12 beautiful women to be stupid. 13 , the photos had also been rated on how 14 people thought each subject looked; there was no 15 between perceived intellect and beauty.So the cause of the discrimination must 16 elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be 17 mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers" unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned 18 led the women to discriminate 19 pretty candidates.So should attractive women simply attach photos that make them look dowdy No. Better, says Mr. Hanks, to discourage the practice of including a photo altogether. Companies might even consider the 20 model used in the Belgian public sector, where CVs do not even include the candidate"s name.
At work, as in life, attractive women get a lot of good lucks. Studies have shown that they are more likely to be 1 than their plain-Jane colleagues because people tend to project 2 traits 3 them, such as a sensitive heart and a cool head, they may also be at a/an 4 in job interviews. But research suggests otherwise.Brad Hanks at Georgia State University looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their resume, as is the 5 in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent made-up applications to over 2,500 real-life 6 . For each job, they sent two very similar resume, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness.For men, the results were 7 expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was 8 Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average 9 getting an interview; a/an 10 qualified plain one just seven.At first, Mr. Hanks considered 11 he calls the "dumb-blonde hypothesis"—that people 12 beautiful women to be stupid. 13 , the photos had also been rated on how 14 people thought each subject looked; there was no 15 between perceived intellect and beauty.So the cause of the discrimination must 16 elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be 17 mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers" unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned 18 led the women to discriminate 19 pretty candidates.So should attractive women simply attach photos that make them look dowdy No. Better, says Mr. Hanks, to discourage the practice of including a photo altogether. Companies might even consider the 20 model used in the Belgian public sector, where CVs do not even include the candidate"s name.
微信支付 
支付宝支付