Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by hn_throwaway_99 on Sunday March 26, 2017 @12:47PM
(#13961645)
The whole point of breaking the results down by class is that your statement of "Men got 1.8x as many callbacks as women", while true, is very misleading, because the sex difference only benefitted upper class men. Lower class men got the fewest callbacks of any group.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by rayiner on Sunday March 26, 2017 @03:39PM
(#13962716)
It's equally wrong to say that it's about class and not gender, because the class difference only benefited upper class men. Upper class women did not get a statistically significant number more callbacks than lower class applicants.
Again, I'm responding to a comment that called the gender discrimination a "rounding error." It clearly is not--there is both gender and class discrimination happening and upper class women aren't better positioned than lower class applicants.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by ajnin on Sunday March 26, 2017 @01:36PM
(#13961912)
By choosing to group the data in male/female as you do and omitting the class variable, consciously or not, you can reach wrong conclusions about the interpretation of the data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
But that's not true. Men got 1.8x as many callbacks as women, and upper class candidates got 2.6x as many callbacks as lower class candidates. Even if the class divide as a somewhat greater impact, the gender divide is not a "rounding error."
The other way to look at it is that the callback rate for upper class women was the same as the average callback rate for lower class applicants, and both rates are much lower than for upper class males.