pito on Thu Aug 2 20:14:08 2012 said:

ok perhaps in the social networks (FB and co), and also in personal/work websites, I'd understand why some would use their authentic photos esp if they're promoting something- themselves, their products and services but it's not really that common in anonymous forums although may be the trend is changing...how about in CVs, would you prefer those with photos on them (I heard that the French do this)?

casandra on Sun Aug 5 16:42:20 2012 said:

Its funny you mention the CV thingie...

its a big discussion to be honest: some are pro others are anti..... Most agree that a small, normal picture can be added.
On the other hand: some advise not to do it because people might judge you based on a picture (they should not, but we are all humans and thus many of us still judge based on pictures)
And the funny part of it all is that often the worst people are females.... A study showed that especially woman are not "neutral" or objective in picking people if a picture is included.

On the other hand: one might wonder if it matters anyway => no picture, gets selected, they see you => they can still kick you out based on the picture...

I think we can all agree on one thing: if you send it a picture with your cv, then dont send in the picture showing you half naked and drunk at some party...

pito on Sun Aug 5 20:35:04 2012 said:

I guess only very few people here could use bioforum for the CV, because they write daily lots of scientific stuff and help others...the rest are people like us (a recruiter would think people who waste just time), people who need help (recruiters would think they're helpless and clueless) or just information gatherers (recruiters would think they're not very helpful to others but just opportunists) .

Anyway I like the idea of CVs without photos...isn't it even mandatory in the US to omit a photo to avoid racism and discrimination? And the same you could ask about age, gender, even names far as they indicate an origin or social layer.
And yes if they don't want you or like you they kick you out, but at least you have a chance to present yourself and your knowledge and skills. A tiny bigger chance

hobglobin on Mon Aug 6 14:54:54 2012 said:

I just read an article today that in the USA a lot of people leave their middle name or part of their name out of their job applications to prevent racisms or something like that.
I do understand this, however: whats the point? In the end you show up and they can still not hire you because of that fact.. (unless you keep that name a secret) , but this just works for things like a middle name (and even then: dont they check this, or dont they read your full name in official documents?) so whats the point for leaving a picture out to prevent them from seeing you are asian or... whatever...
+ would you like to work for a company that would not hire you just because you are a girl/asian/black or ... ?

I always wonder what the point is of hiding something that would show up anyway ...

On the other hand, coming back to the picture issue: I think its indeed good not to show a picture => prevent a bad first influence like that... In an interview you can still "rock" while a picture of you could make them think "bad things". A picture often doesnt show people how they really are and in the end: we all judge based on pictures...
So I am pro not showing pics in a CV


And using bioforum for a CV? nha, that doesnt work, just because its anonymous.. Thats the thing about (for example) =spam edited=: because its not anonymous (or it should not) you can indeed use that or even make a network with scientists in your field.. So this could help.. But thats because you are surrounded by "real" scientists (read as in: real names).

and I just read an article in The Economist about the anonymous model used in the Belgian public sector- no candidate's name is even necessary? How true is this?

Here in north america, we usually don't include photos- that's the norm...also no marital status, no sex, no age, no religious affiliation etc you don't include anything that can be a basis for bias or discrimination but I agree, they'd find out soon enough during the interview but at least you'd get a chance for an interview if you hadn't been rejected based on whatever (hopefully most HR people are ethical and would not just be flipping through CVs and resumes and trashing those which at least deserve to go to the next level).

Anyways, back to the photos...esp here...we don't include them unless looks are essential and can be the basis for employment...if they are not impt and only skills and experience matter, then there's no sense in including them...and accdg to the Economist (referencing an Israeli study), if one is very attractive, then it could even be a disadvantage bec most HR depts are staffed by women and due to old-fashioned jealousy and pettiness, will not favour the hiring of beautiful women...but the hunks get a better deal.....

Here you include everything, except the religion and that's the norm...well some trials about age and photo-free applications were made, but the average recruiter would insist on it....
and a name-free? how can you identify the person then?
and you have to paint your face ugly then and wear nerdy glasses...perhaps it increases your chances

casandra on Tue Aug 7 04:02:49 2012 said:

yes: its true, they can not select on name/religion/... So indeed: you can do it without a name. But to be honest... its a bit stupid... if they dont know your name or details... they cant contact you again

No, they often remove the personal information (the name) before the ones that make the selections get to see thc CV , so they will not be influenced by those things.

and let's say a position for a professorship is free or a postdoc position...usually your name (i.e. your reputation, experience and the many publications) is a very important factor...you don't want a nobody without much experience whom nobody knows...I wonder how they'll manage this with a completely anonymous cv

hobglobin on Wed Aug 8 17:19:02 2012 said:

Yeah, but I was talking about the "public sector" , meaning: working for the governement..
For post docs or professorship its different.

But in the end: the complete anonymous CV stuff.. it sounds nice in theory, but in practise..

I'll give an example: you are not allowed to "discriminate" a person based on a physical problem, but a few days ago someone hired a man who stuttered as a telephone operator (he had to hire him, because the person said he stuttered a bit during the jobinterview because he was nervous, and if the boss would not have hired him, the stutterer could file a complaint for racism or whatever because he had a good CV in general, not mentioning his "physical problem, the stuttering" and was send by the "social security system"...) He got fired 4 hours later.. because of that problem (which is normal I think). But now the person thats stuttering is filing a complaint because of "discrimination" ...
I mean......

I am against discrimination, but sometimes you do need to select based on physical things... Thats just how the system works.. But our governement is too soft on this and too extreme in the no discrimination thing.

but with an obvious lie you can kick people out...and here it's the same...EU anti-discrimination laws...anyway there are still many (and necessary) constrictions that are allowed and you find them in the advertisement, e.g. when you have to do field work (e.g. walking lots over fields or climbing trees to collect birds, plants etc) or work in the tropics (working outsides at high temps and humidity) then they write that the candidate has to be fit enough to do such stuff...and they're allowed to refuse applications of people who cannot do this, because well they cannot do their work without help by others, so it's useless...