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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think some other countries do, but the norms are decidedly against that in the USA, probably to avoid biases like this.
Maybe yours does, but plenty don't.
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.
Beyond that attractive people are more confident.
Let's do a test. Who would you imagine is the better engineer of these two old timey people?
https://i.imgur.com/omRXYde.png
and
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.
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.
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?
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.
I hate to say it but it probably depends on the gender.
What I will say is anecdotal and probably controversial but it is just my observation:
I've seen all kinds of talented male devs and there's huge variance in their looks. Some good looking and some not.
But when it comes to talented female devs: they all looked a certain type. I'll let you people decide what I mean.
Yes, profiling people sucks but .... sometimes it yields results.
It's a throw away account, can you just say what you mean? Honestly no type came to mind when I did a quick mental scrollback.
[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.