As much as we would like to believe that the job market is equitable, it’s not. As much as we would like to believe that hiring managers are unbiased, it’s not. As much as we would like to believe that the USA is based on a meritocracy, it’s not. 

In the society we live in, nearly everyone eventually enters the job market to make an income that can sustain themselves. Unfortunately, this process is not kind to everyone, nor does it treat people of different demographics equally. This blog post is intended to highlight some of the subconscious inequalities that plague the job market today, the possible reasons behind the unfairness, and why you should always send in an application even if you feel underqualified. 

1. Hiring managers have very little time to screen thousands of resumes, so they feel the need to make snap judgements. 

In 2018, a study by Ladders Inc. has shown that on average, hiring managers only look at resumes for 7.4 seconds [1]. This leaves a ton of room for error and bias, and goes even beyond skimming. As such, many recruiters use snap judgements to decide what pile a resume should end up in. The smallest detail can be enough to put them off, such as a second page, a missed bullet point, or a spelling error, but also subconscious filters. 

2. Sometimes, hiring managers are looking for someone with a particular skill/skillset.

I have had this told to me using the analogy of an orchestra: If only the tuba player is retiring that year and the orchestra is hosting auditions, it does not matter if you are the best trumpet player in the world who has also cured cancer and saved the world from mutually assured destruction, because the orchestra does not need a trumpet player. However, the audition may have been generally sent out to all musicians. Similarly, in the job market and hiring process, only a few positions may be open, with requirements or skills that are not always explicitly stated. Sometimes, these needs might not have been shared with whomever wrote the job description. It is not your fault that you did not have that particular skill. 

For this reason, when there is one, it is always worth it to pay close attention to the job description, because companies will have tried to be honest about exactly what skills they are looking for. Even then, such lists might be incomplete, or simply inaccurate, as plenty of people are hired without fully meeting the job description. When possible, this is also why it is important to attend information sessions and network within the company, because both could reveal insider information about what the company is lacking or what the company culture is like.

3. Unfortunately, racism and sexism are very much still alive in the hiring process, even though it is less overt than ever. 

Several audit studies have shown that hiring managers evaluate female and male candidates differently. While there is little to no relationship between call-back likelihood and GPA for male candidates, there is an inverse U relationship for women—i.e. Women of moderate GPAs (B-average) were most likely to be called back [2]. Women with low and high GPAs were both called back less often, at similar call-back rates. It appears that while likeability was the most important trait for women, competence and commitment were most important for men [2]. It was hypothesized that high-achieving women were perceived as uptight and thus, lacking likeability. Such inequalities are absolutely not your fault. 

There are also similar studies that have examined race. For example, a meta-analysis of several studies shows that on average, white people receive 36% more callbacks than black people [3]. People are judged most commonly through their name, which most people are born with. 

4. Where you go to school matters. While Cornell is a prestigious institution, it is not a super-elite university. 

School prestige also plays a huge role in the resume screening process [4]. Rivera et al. have found that many investment banking and law firms classify schools into target and core schools. More students are recruited from the core, or super-elite schools, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Wharton Business School of Penn University, and more money is spent on the recruitment process there, for events like coffee chats and interview prep workshops. This practice stems from a belief that super-elite universities have already pre-screened their students heavily, and that students from “second-tier” schools are only there because they could not get into the super-elite schools. As well, there is the belief that a student from a super-elite institution will be more likely to become someone influential, and it would be good for the firm to network with these people and be associated with them. While students are also recruited from target schools like Cornell and the other Ivies, far less money is spent on recruitment and far less students are taken. Students from non-target or core schools have little to no chance at all, because all of the spots can typically be filled by students from these two types of schools. 

Unfortunately, the college admissions process is also unfair. More than ⅔ of students at Harvard come from the top income quintile (top 20%) [5]. By receiving prestigious entry-level jobs with high incomes, these students are given a leg up over students who were not hired. Thus, the hiring process is also a system that reproduces income inequality. 

5. A person’s history gives them different amounts of cultural and social capital, so people are at different stages of learning the “hidden curriculum”. 

Cultural capital is defined as knowledge, behaviour, and skills that a person can use to signal their social status and competence. It often manifests as familiarity with unspoken norms—ex. Knowledge that it is important to send a thank you email after an interview—and it is gained primarily through one’s social network, family, and environment, so the most useful kinds of cultural capital can differ by place. It can dramatically impact a hiring manager’s impression of you when unfortunately, some people were simply born into situations that allowed them to accrue the right kinds of cultural capital while others were not. For example, immigrants are often disadvantaged, having accrued cultural capital that allowed them to succeed in their previous country, but not their new one. 

Social capital is similar, but it is more about who you know, your network and connections. Certain connections are more valuable than others, as it has been found that people of lower economic status are more socially isolated [6]. Research has found that networks are more important than competence when it comes to job searching, and numbers range from ⅓ to 85% of jobs are the result of personal connections [7]. Regardless of the exact figure, connections appear to be highly useful. Learning cultural and social capital are as much a part of college as any academic learning, forming the hidden curriculum.

6. The person reviewing your application or interviewing you will have their own personal biases, but who reviews your application is left up to chance. 

Though it may be obvious, it is still worth noting that there is an element of pure chance in the hiring process. Hiring managers will resonate with different types of people, who are involved in different activities. It may just happen that a hiring manager has the same hometown as the candidate, the same extracurriculars, or perhaps they were in the same sorority in university. Under a system where hiring managers have only seconds to review resumes, these points of similarity can be pivotal for making a candidate memorable, and in an interview, they may be the spark that allows the interviewer to develop a connection with the candidate. 

Often, hiring managers look for candidates who are like them, who will fit in with company culture. Unfortunately, this usually means someone of similar demographics. Thus, it may be worth it to consider the demographics of the company that you are applying for, and how that might also boost or harm your chances. This also manifests itself with extracurricular activities, as there are certain barriers to engaging with them which have to do with a person’s demographics. For example, in the world of investment banking, some hiring managers  consider rowing more valuable than ping pong because it is perceived as being more athletically intensive, even though it is also less accessible due to being a very expensive sport [4]. Part of the reason why this bias developed could be because many people who work in investment banking were rowers themselves in high school, but not ping pong players.

Despite all of these inequities, however, it’s not all doom and gloom. I hope that that has not been your main takeaway! While it is true that there are many things wrong with the current US hiring system, I do not mean to discourage you from applying to jobs. In fact, I hope that this only shows that the system was not built to be fair, and rejections should not be personal attacks on your character. In fact, I think knowing about this unfairness shows that there is an element of luck to the process. While it is easier for everything to align for some demographics compared with others, you never know when they will, so it is still worth doing the best you can and giving it a try. 

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.

P.S. I think many of these same thoughts can be applied to both the Cornell club application processes and the internship application process! Keep your head held high, don’t sweat it. 

References

1. O’Donnell, R. (2018). Eye tracking study shows recruiters look at resumes for 7 seconds. HR Drive. https://www.hrdive.com/news/eye-tracking-study-shows-recruiters-look-at-resumes-for-7-seconds/541582/#:~:text=revealed that the time recruiters,an average of 7.4 seconds.
2. Quadlin, N. (2018). The Mark of a Woman’s Record: Gender and Academic Performance in Hiring. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418762291
3. Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(41), 10870–10875. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114
4. Rivera, L. A. (2011). Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2010.12.001
5. At Home with Harvard: Inequality in America | Harvard Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/06/at-home-with-harvard-inequality-in-america
6. Algren MH, Ekholm O, Nielsen L, Ersbøll AK, Bak CK, Andersen PT. Social isolation, loneliness, socioeconomic status, and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods in Denmark: A cross-sectional study. SSM Popul Health. 2020;10:100546. Published 2020 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100546
7. McClear, S. (2019). How will you find your next job? Networking, probably. Ladders. https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/how-will-you-find-your-next-job-networking-probably

Disclaimer: Of course, all of these points should be taken with a grain of salt! Contact Angella Lee (al2354@cornell.edu) if you have problems with anything in this article. Several of these studies point out that experiences still vary by major, and most of these studies were US-based. We are happy to look into specific majors and industries upon request—book an appointment with us, and feel free to ask about our specific experiences.