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.
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.
Americans are supposed to be mobile and even pushy. Saul Bellow"s Augie March declares, "I am an American... first to knock, first admitted." In "The Grapes of Wrath," young Tom Joad loads up his car with pork snacks and relatives, and the family flees the Oklahoma for California. Along the way, Grandma dies, but the Joads keep going.But sometime in the past 30 years, someone has hit the brakes and Americans—particularly young Americans—have become risk-averse and sedentary. The likelihood of 20-somethings moving to another state has dropped well over 40 percent since the 1980s, according to calculations based on Census Bureau data. The stuck-at-home mentality hits college-educated Americans as well as those without high school degrees. Even bicycle sales are lower now than they were in 2000. Today"s generation is literally going nowhere.An increasing number of teenagers are not even bothering to get their driver"s licenses. Back in the early 1980s, 80 percent of 18-year-olds proudly strutted out of the D. M. V. with new licenses, according to a study by researchers at the University of Michigan"s Transportation Research Institute. By 2008—even before the Great Recession—that number had dropped to 65 percent. Though it"s easy to blame the high cost of cars or gasoline, Comerica Bank"s Automobile Affordability Index shows that it takes fewer weeks of work income to buy a car today than in the early 1980s, and inflation-adjusted gasoline prices didn"t get out of line until a few years ago.Perhaps young people are too happy at home checking Facebook. In a study of 15 countries, Michael Sivak, a professor at the University of Michigan"s Transportation Research Institute, found that when young people spent more time on the Internet, they delayed getting their driver"s licenses. "More time on Facebook probably means less time on the road," he said. That may mean safer roads, but it also means a bumpier, less vibrant economy.Generation Y has become Generation Why Bother. The Great Recession and the still weak economy make the trend toward risk aversion worse. Children raised during recessions ultimately take fewer risks with their investments and their jobs. Even when the recession passes, they don"t strive as hard to find new jobs, and they hang on to lousy jobs longer. Research by the economist Lisa B. Kahn of the Yale School of Management shows that those who graduated from college during a poor economy experienced a relative wage loss even 15 years after entering the work force.In the mid-"70s, back when every high school kid longed for his driver"s license and a chance to hit the road and find freedom, Bruce Springsteen wrote his brilliant, exciting album "Born to Run." A generation later, as kids began to hunker down, Mr. Springsteen wrote his depressing "The Ghost of Tom Joad." We need to reward and encourage forward movement, not slouching. That may sound harsh, but do we really want to turn into a country where young Americans can"t even recognize the courage of Tom Joad Which of the following may be the best title for this text
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