Lookism in Phd Hiring

johnyy92

Hi,

I have recently qualified with a taught masters degree. I have earned first class honours in both my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. My degrees are in environmental science.
I am currently trying to pursue a Phd in my discipline. The last two positions I have attended interviews for, I have lost out to women which did not have my experience nor did they have first class honour grades. These women were however very attractive.

I find there is a trend where attractive young women have a distinct advantage over everyone else when it comes to landing a phd position. My view on this is further reinforced as I have female friends who would not be very attractive who cannot get past the interview stages of a phd application yet they have first class honour degrees while I have other attractive female friends with 2.1 degrees who had no trouble securing a Phd position.

I have found in Ireland most Phd positions are awarded based on who you know or they are given to an attractive candidates (this may not be the case with International Students).

I cant ask anyone about this without sounding sexist but I think it is the faculty of the institutions which are sexist. I was just wondering if anyone else has a similar experience when it comes to academia in Ireland as lookism seems to be explicit in my field.

lawred2

It's the way of the world

Have you tried a paper bag to cover your hideous mush?

sullivlo

Don't know where I fit in to this scenario. I had a 2.1 but I'm not attractive. I still got offered a PhD scholarship.

Is it possible, just thinking out loud here, that the girls were hired on merit? That despite their paltry 2.1 that they had a better understanding of the topic? That they have better/more relevant lab techniques? That they interviewed better? That they engaged more freely with the interviewer?

In my experience, grades don't always translate to good laboratory scientist or experimentalist. There's a hell of a lot more to getting a PhD scholarship than getting a 1st.

Ask for feedback from the interviewer. Ask how you could improve. Study for the interview. Be enthusiastic about the research. Read a few papers of the interviewer and recent papers in the field. Show that you've taken an interest in the field. Sell yourself. Relax. Don't force it.

johnyy92

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I know you have to be optimistic but the girls that were picked were straight out of college with no previous experience so how much merit could they have had. They could have given a better interview but in my view the interview is used as a mask so they can hire whoever they like.
It just in my experience they happen to be attractive women. I know of others who got Phds because they were friendly with the project supervisors. It just seems to be across the board this is going on.

I assume you had adequate professional experience or maybe you are underselling your own attractiveness. I agree previous professional experience is a plus but they are hiring graduates with no experience, publications or first class honours primary degree over others who are more than qualified. so why are they hiring them other than if they have an inside connection or catch the eye of a lecturer.

I think the only way for it to be fair is if all these positions are exam based regardless of what degree you receive and they should be anonymously graded.

newacc2015

Look at this way. A supervisor is going to have to help a PhD students for 3/4 years. I personally would not hire a 1st class honours student with zero charisma or likeability. I am going to deal with them for 3 years, would I choose to work with dick?

I don't see how your argument 'only attractive females get PhDs'. If they are not particularly intelligent why would a college take them on? You don't want to hold someones hand for 3 years. Plus lot of people involved in hiring are married, female etc.

Have you ever asked why you didnt get the PhD versus assuming it is because you aren't an attractive female? From your attitude in these posts, I would not take you on for 3 years.

Maybe you lack interview skills or communication skills.

Markx

You will need to provide more than anecdotal evidence for me to subscribe to the above thesis.

johnyy92

Hi
I'm not saying all phd positions are given to attractive females. It seems to be prevalent tough. Obviously there are many talented women who are capable of completing a phd. If you read my posts I said that female friends of mine are having the same problem of being pushed aside for models without the credentials.

Secondly should charisma be a component of undertaking a Phd student. I would think capability should be the most important factor in the hiring process. If they look at how likeable you are is that not superficial. You are there to undertake a phd not drink beer with supervisor.

A 2.1 student is more than capable of completing a Phd, you have four years to complete everything, if you are willing to work anyone could probably complete one in my field. The grading system was introduced to give employers a system to compare you to others with the same degree. If the lecturer ignores that what was the point of grading degrees.

Markx

Well I guess it's like any hiring process. Once candidates are above a certain skills/capability/experience threshold it really does come down to how the interviewer feels a candidate will fit in terms of personality and character. That's particularly important if the candidate is expected to work in a team.

It's possible that looks can come into it for a specific interviewer but it's not something I ever came across. It's far more important for most people to work with a competent person with a good attitude who they can get along with than anything else.

I've been doing a PhD for a few years now and I have seen absolutely no evidence to support your claim. While PhD positions are often filled on a 'word of mouth' basis, ie to people already known to or recommended to the supervisor, there is definitely no widescale bias towards 'attractive females' :rolleyes: As other people have already pointed out, undergraduate grades are not the only relevant criteria when considering someone for a PhD position ; technical capability (if it involves lab work or similar), personality, reliability and demonstrated interest or knowledge in the area are just as important as intellectual ability. I've seen many students come through our labs who have very good grades but are hopeless with hands on lab work, or have completely intolerable personalities and rub everyone up the wrong way.
It's also not uncommon in certain fields for people to go straight into a PhD from their undergraduate degree without any additional 'qualifications' in between, I did this and it doesn't mean I got to where I am because I'm pretty :rolleyes:

If you're wondering why you or your friends didn't get a position you applied for you should look at yourselves first before blaming it on imaginary biases. Maybe ask supervisors why you didn't get a certain position, or consider whether your references might be lacking. If I was looking to take on a PhD student I wouldn't be overly enamored with the attitude you've shown in this thread anyway.

johnyy92

I know things such as character play a factor in it too but its not just a coincidence that these women get phd positions over the girls I know. The girls I know are outgoing and competent. They have a distinct advantage on paper over the other candidate but when it comes down to it the lecturers choose the attractive female.

It is sexist to grade a females capability based on her looks and it is cronyism that a Phd position is awarded on a who knows who basis or who supervised who (its Favourtism).

newacc2015

johnyy92 wrote: »

Hi
I'm not saying all phd positions are given to attractive females. It seems to be prevalent tough. Obviously there are many talented women who are capable of completing a phd. If you read my posts I said that female friends of mine are having the same problem of being pushed aside for models without the credentials.

I have no issue with attractive women, but....

Honestly I dont know where you getting this notion that only stunning women get PhDs. I have met plenty of female PhD students and most of them were not Megan Fox

johnyy92 wrote: »

Secondly should charisma be a component of undertaking a Phd student. I would think capability should be the most important factor in the hiring process. If they look at how likeable you are is that not superficial. You are there to undertake a phd not drink beer with supervisor.

I disagree. I have been to job interviews and I was one of the less qualified, but the fact I was charismatic and funny got me a job offer. I have spoken to investment bankers who said a first in college is great. But when you are working 60-80 hours with someone, you want to work with someone you like. I have been in job interviews I came across as funny and likeable. So the interviewer will start selling the job to you ie they ensuring you work for them as they would want me on their team.

FYI I know a lot of PhD students who do go for beers and drinks with their supervisors. Do you think a supervisor wants to take on a chill person or someones who attitude is that I should be hired on my merits and not because I am likeable?

johnyy92 wrote: »

A 2.1 student is more than capable of completing a Phd, you have four years to complete everything, if you are willing to work anyone could probably complete one in my field. The grading system was introduced to give employers a system to compare you to others with the same degree. If the lecturer ignores that what was the point of grading degrees.

If you know a grade is a grade, why are you saying that since you have a first you should get a PhD over a 2.1 student?

I honestly think if you go and ask for a feedback on why you didnt get a PhD, it probably not due to your grades, experience etc. It is probably due to the fact you dont come across as likeable or have an attitude. I know it sounds harsh, but if you work in a corporate job, everyone will tell you 'we like to weed out the A-holes' or 'we have a no A-hole policy'. Being likeable in a job often trumps qualifications and experience. No one wants to spend 4 years with an A-hole.

Those attractive females might not be hired due to their looks, but likeability. Would you rather supervise someone who got a 2.1 and is extremely likeable who happens to be good looking or someone who got a first and is there on their capabilities and doesn't see why you should chill after work?

ahnowbrowncow

He's not claiming something totally outlandish, it's proven that appearance plays a role in interviews.

sullivlo

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

He's not claiming something totally outlandish, it's proven that appearance plays a role in interviews.

But based on my experience and the experience of many others on the thread and in academia, there are very few lookers in science

I think it comes down to whether or not you think you'll get on with the student. There is a lot more to PhD life than being book smart. One of the most important things is to be able to interact with someone, be it your lab mates, your supervisor or collaborators, or networking at events - science and techniques can be easily taught/learned. Charisma and soundness are harder to learn and even harder to fake.

stinkle

Did you interview with others in the group, OP? Any decent research group will have you do this, and it's so that they can all see how good a fit you are. If you're qualified in a technical discipline, then that's really collaborative and they're going to want to have someone on the team who they can all work with. Environmental science I assume involves a lot of field work, and lots of potential for using people skills.

Maybe you need to work on your interpersonal skills. If you did get to meet with several different team members, this was definitely part of the interview and you need to act accordingly in these situations, no matter how minor they seem - e.g. someone escorting you to the lift, someone on reception calling ahead to let your interview panel know you're there.

Being book smart isn't always an immediate advantage in a research environment. Did you have a chance to do any actual research in your undergrad days as part of your degree? Did you do a summer internship or any other work experience? If not, perhaps this is why you're not having the success you hoped for. Good luck with the applications.

johnyy92

johnyy92 wrote: »

I know things such as character play a factor in it too but its not just a coincidence that these women get phd positions over the girls I know. The girls I know are outgoing and competent. They have a distinct advantage on paper over the other candidate but when it comes down to it the lecturers choose the attractive female.

It is sexist to grade a females capability based on her looks and it is cronyism that a Phd position is awarded on a who knows who basis or who supervised who (its Favourtism).

How do you know it's not just a coincidence that women you consider to be attractive got the positions? Did you sit in on all the interviews? Have you read all the candidate' CVs?

You can call awarding a PhD position on the basis of a colleague's recommendation cronyism if you like, but this is a practice widespread in most industries. Taking on a PhD student is a big commitment; often a supervisor's own career success is dependent on the student being able to deliver results and present them effectively, and if the position is attached to a project that is important to a supervisor they're going to want to make sure the student is not only capable of performing the work but has a good attitude and will get along with the rest of the team (especially in science which is extremely collaborative). Unlike most other jobs, once a supervisor has committed to taking on a PhD student they can't easily get rid of them until they've completed the PhD, so it's even more important that candidate selected is capable and personable because if it turns out they aren't suited to the work or don't get along with others it's not like the supervisor can just let them go.

OP, if you really are convinced that PhD positions in your department have been unfairly awarded on the basis of physical attractiveness (and have convincing evidence to support your claim), then you should take a case against your university. Good luck.

Tom Dunne

Let's look at your little experiment from a scientific point of view.

Your hypothesis is that only attractive females get selected for PhD research.

Your sample size is a total of two instances of the phenomena, two interviews which you underwent.

You do not indicate whether you sat in on other interviews of other candidates, I think it is safe to assume you did not. I think it would also be fair to assume you did not review the CVs or experience of the other candidates, nor did you have any exposure to the scoring sheets of the interview process (assuming the interview panel would base their selection criteria on a scoring mechanism).

You are concluding that your hypothesis is true, based on a methodologically unsound sample size, with subjective criteria in your hypothesis that essentially renders it invalid. If you presented this data to a supervisor, never mind a viva panel, you would most likely to be directed over to the Social Science department.

johnyy92

Most professionals criteria is on linkedin. People post the experience and qualification they have. That is how I know they had no experience and a lower degree and no publication in the field upon which they earned their degree. Other instances of what I experienced happened in my own graduating class.

You cant take a case against a university. That is the fastest way to get blacklisted from future positions. It seems they can do what they want.

You all cant be completely oblivious to this happening.

I have more then two instances. Its more like 12 if you include phds awarded based on who knows who.

johnyy92

johnyy92 wrote: »

Most professionals criteria is on linkedin. People post the experience and qualification they have. That is how I know they had no experience and a lower degree and no publication in the field upon which they earned their degree. Other instances of what I experienced happened in my own graduating class.

You cant take a case against a university. That is the fastest way to get blacklisted from future positions. It seems they can do what they want.

You all cant be completely oblivious to this happening.

I have more then two instances. Its more like 12 if you include phds awarded based on who knows who.

Uh huh. Most scientists I know with LinkedIn profiles don't bother to update them very often. I forget about mine for months at a time. A LinkedIn profile also won't tell you whether someone is personable or capable in the lab.

I'd be willing to bet that as a PhD student that I know more PhD students than you. I can't say I suspect any of them were hired on the basis of their looks. I'd maybe be willing to believe you've found a case where one academic is selecting candidates based on their looks, but not that it's a widespread problem. Again, PhDs aren't exactly the same as jobs, there's nothing wrong with giving a PhD position to someone who you know is suited to it or is recommended to you. I'd wager the majority of PhD positions are never advertised. If you really want a PhD you should be contacting academics whose research you are interested in and show some initiative rather than sitting around waiting for them to be advertised to you.

You definitely can take a case against whatever supervisors you think are displaying unfair hiring practices, if there's a bunch of you who all feel the same then go for it, there's strength in numbers!

Tom Dunne

johnyy92 wrote: »

Most professionals criteria is on linkedin. People post the experience and qualification they have. That is how I know they had no experience and a lower degree and no publication in the field upon which they earned their degree. Other instances of what I experienced happened in my own graduating class.

You cant take a case against a university. That is the fastest way to get blacklisted from future positions. It seems they can do what they want.

You all cant be completely oblivious to this happening.

I have more then two instances. Its more like 12 if you include phds awarded based on who knows who.

I'm not saying it is not happening.

But the case you present is based on subjective opinion, not empirical evidence.

You are aggrieved because you perceive the pretty girls got selected and you didn't, it's understandable. But don't for a minute try and tell me that emotion isn't clouding your perception.

Perhaps rather than trying to find somebody to blame, you should take a look at yourself and how you conduct yourself at such interviews. I may be open to correction here, but I believe you can request feedback from interviewers on why you didn't make the cut. Rather than rant here on the internet, turn this around and make it a learning experience to better prepare yourself for the next interview.

cruizer101

The majority of people I know on PhD's went straight from undergrad to PhD, there is a certain advantage to this. Also most got their places through knowing their supervisor. My supervisor actually specifically stated getting on with the person is far more important to him than grade.
Finally do you know the breakdown of their grades, maybe they scored particularly well on subjects related to the PhD, maybe they got very good grades for their academic writing but fell down elsewhere.
There could be any myriad of reasons which you are not privy to that they got the places rather than you. You really are just making assumptions based on their looks when you havn't had the chance to judge them on their full merits which the lecturer has.

Morte

If you want to search, there's heaps of studies which confirm that beautiful people are naturally more liked than others and are more successful in life as a result. This applies to men and women, it's not just pretty girls who benefit. In one study little children were placed in groups of the same sex. They naturally gravitated to trying to make friends with the better looking ones from the group. Height is actually a very good indicator of success, at least for males. 14.5% of US males are over 6' but 58% of Fortune 500 CEOs are. 3.9% are over 6'2" but 30% of CEOs are.

So those physically blessed do have an advantage but it's not overwhelming. It's generally a small subconscious bias. I'm not in academia but I've met plenty of phd students and didn't notice them being particularly attractive or female.

"It's not what you know it's who you know" is a phrase repeated in every walk of life the world over. Often times it's cronyism and the best person doesn't get the job. Often times it's good to know what somebody is really like as opposed to the false facade they put on for one interview.

Markx

Morte wrote: »

"It's not what you know it's who you know" is a phrase repeated in every walk of life the world over.

I can guarantee you earning a PhD is a lot more about what you know than who you know (unless its an honorary award ).

Tom Dunne

Morte wrote: »

If you want to search, there's heaps of studies which confirm that beautiful people are naturally more liked than others and are more successful in life as a result. This applies to men and women, it's not just pretty girls who benefit. In one study little children were placed in groups of the same sex. They naturally gravitated to trying to make friends with the better looking ones from the group. Height is actually a very good indicator of success, at least for males. 14.5% of US males are over 6' but 58% of Fortune 500 CEOs are. 3.9% are over 6'2" but 30% of CEOs are.

And again, if I were to take the scientific approach, how generalisable are the results from such studies? Are these studies based on limited case studies, or wider, randomised controlled trials? Have any of these studies been carried out in an academic setting, such as interviewing for a PhD?

Again, I'm not debating the findings of the results, I'm debating the applicability.

Looking around the science department where I work, with a significant number of PhDs, I would most certainly say the hypothesis is false.

johnyy92

Update.

I have recently went through the application process for two more phd positions.
The first I lost out to a girl who graduated with a 2.1 in 2016. She had no Professional experience and her thesis was not related to the phd position. I did not even get an interview for this position.

The second position I got to the last three of the interview stage. I was beaten by a Male who also graduated in 2016 with no experience. I have recently found out that his uncle was one of the lecturers on the hiring panel.

Neither candidate had a masters

Now tell that is not blatant cronyism.

sullivlo

johnyy92 wrote: »

Update.

I have recently went through the application process for two more phd positions.
The first I lost out to a girl who graduated with a 2.1 in 2016. She had no Professional experience and her thesis was not related to the phd position. I did not even get an interview for this position.

The second position I got to the last three of the interview stage. I was beaten by a Male who also graduated in 2016 with no experience. I have recently found out that his uncle was one of the lecturers on the hiring panel.

Neither candidate had a masters

Now tell that is not blatant cronyism.

It speaks more about you as a candidate more than anything. I would suggest going to a career guidance person to get some advice on your interview skills and your CV/cover letter.

From personal experience, a candidate can look great on paper but have absolutely zero interpersonal skills and I wouldn't choose them as a colleague as I would have concerns about how they would work as part of the team.

I have been offered a job that I'm not technically qualified for. Not because of cronyism, but because I'm good at interviews.

It's easy to blame others, but you need to look at yourself too.

johnyy92

So the fact his uncle was on the hiring panel says more about me, surely that is an obvious sign of bias in the hiring process that his nephew got the role.

In the other case the girl had a degree which was not relevant to position advertised. I have no idea what she could have talked about in her cover letter which could have given her an interview let alone the position over all the other candidates which have studied and worked in that field.

I feel like ringing Joe Duffy at this stage.

sullivlo

johnyy92 wrote: »

So the fact his uncle was on the hiring panel says more about me, surely that is an obvious sign of bias in the hiring process that his nephew got the role.

In the other case the girl had a degree which was not relevant to position advertised. I have no idea what she could have talked about in her cover letter which could have given her an interview let alone the position over all the other candidates which have studied and worked in that field.

I feel like ringing Joe Duffy at this stage.

gctest50

johnyy92 wrote: »

So the fact his uncle was on the hiring panel says more about me, surely that is an obvious sign of bias in the hiring process that his nephew got the role.

No, but this does :

johnyy92 wrote: »

In the other case the girl had a degree which was not relevant to position advertised. I have no idea what she could have talked about in her cover letter which could have given her an interview let alone the position over all the other candidates which have studied and worked in that field.

You must come across as quare useless in letters n things

johnyy92 wrote: »

I feel like ringing Joe Duffy at this stage.

sullivlo

johnyy92 wrote: »

So the fact his uncle was on the hiring panel says more about me, surely that is an obvious sign of bias in the hiring process that his nephew got the role.

In the other case the girl had a degree which was not relevant to position advertised. I have no idea what she could have talked about in her cover letter which could have given her an interview let alone the position over all the other candidates which have studied and worked in that field.

I feel like ringing Joe Duffy at this stage.

Oh maybe she had a photo on her CV and got the interview cos she's a babe?

gctest50

sullivlo wrote: »

Oh maybe she had a photo on her CV and got the interview cos she's a babe?

Twas you wasn't it

sullivlo

gctest50 wrote: »

Twas you wasn't it

This is the pic I used

Tree

johnyy92 wrote: »

So the fact his uncle was on the hiring panel says more about me, surely that is an obvious sign of bias in the hiring process that his nephew got the role.

In the other case the girl had a degree which was not relevant to position advertised. I have no idea what she could have talked about in her cover letter which could have given her an interview let alone the position over all the other candidates which have studied and worked in that field.

I feel like ringing Joe Duffy at this stage.

I'm not sure what absolute relevance of degrees has. Unless it's a law degree looking for a position in mol bio research (and not from an ethics angle), a different degree can bring some very good insight into a research area. You will often find physics wandering around in the biological sciences (they're very welcome even if they don't understand the safety stuff).

johnyy92

Its funny till your losing out on positions after all the work you put in. As the sayin goes "everyones against cronyism till they're benefiting from it".

28064212

johnyy92 wrote: »

So the fact his uncle was on the hiring panel says more about me, surely that is an obvious sign of bias in the hiring process that his nephew got the role.

Maybe you weren't hired because you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation? Pretty critical knowledge for a research position

sullivlo

johnyy92 wrote: »

Its funny till your losing out on positions after all the work you put in. As the sayin goes "everyones against cronyism till they're benefiting from it".

Not being funny here but I hope that the spelling and grammar that you use in your CV and cover letters are better than what you posted here.

dar100

johnyy92 wrote: »

Update.

I have recently went through the application process for two more phd positions.
The first I lost out to a girl who graduated with a 2.1 in 2016. She had no Professional experience and her thesis was not related to the phd position. I did not even get an interview for this position.

The second position I got to the last three of the interview stage. I was beaten by a Male who also graduated in 2016 with no experience. I have recently found out that his uncle was one of the lecturers on the hiring panel.

Neither candidate had a masters

Now tell that is not blatant cronyism.

So it's also cronyism as well as sexism? Do you suffer with alcoholism by any chance? 😊

Also worth pointing out again OP that having a masters doesn't automatically make you more qualified than someone without one. They're by no means a requirement to do a PhD, and in some cases when considering research careers it can actually be a disadvantage if it looks like you were arsing about/weren't able for research at undergrad level. Obviously that's not the case for everyone with a masters, and I can't say if it is with you, but might be worth getting a bit of perspective before you dismiss anyone without a masters as less qualified than you!

johnyy92

Deleted User wrote: »

Also worth pointing out again OP that having a masters doesn't automatically make you more qualified than someone without one. They're by no means a requirement to do a PhD, and in some cases when considering research careers it can actually be a disadvantage if it looks like you were arsing about/weren't able for research at undergrad level. Obviously that's not the case for everyone with a masters, and I can't say if it is with you, but might be worth getting a bit of perspective before you dismiss anyone without a masters as less qualified than you!

I am not saying anyone without a masters is less qualified. I am pointing out that the candidates in my examples do not have a first class honours in their primary degree nor any research experience. I on the other hand have two first class honours degrees and nearly a years worth of voluntary experience on multiple research projects where I have published reports for stakeholders, performed laboratory work and field experiments. In comparison why am I having trouble even getting an interview?

I have asked for feedback in relation to the position in which your mans uncle was on the interview panel. He said I was an all rounder in terms of research fields/experience and that it hurt my chances of getting the job. what bull as the candidate they picked had no previous research in the PhDs field.

Asking for feedback is pointless as they will say something like "You gave a good interview but we are looking for blah blah blah and even though you had blah blah we feel other candidate had blah. So as i said previously they can pick who they want.

So from my experience you don't need to come top of your class or have relevant professional experience in order to pursue a Phd. Why cant everyone get them then lol

johnyy92

johnyy92 wrote: »

I am not saying anyone without a masters is less qualified. I am pointing out that the candidates in my examples do not have a first class honours in their primary degree nor any research experience. I on the other hand have two first class honours degrees and nearly a years worth of voluntary experience on multiple research projects where I have published reports for stakeholders, performed laboratory work and field experiments. In comparison why am I having trouble even getting an interview?

I have asked for feedback in relation to the position in which your mans uncle was on the interview panel. He said I was an all rounder in terms of research fields/experience and that it hurt my chances of getting the job. what bull as the candidate they picked had no previous research in the PhDs field.

Asking for feedback is pointless as they will say something like "You gave a good interview but we are looking for blah blah blah and even though you had blah blah we feel other candidate had blah. So as i said previously they can pick who they want.

So from my experience you don't need to come top of your class or have relevant professional experience in order to pursue a Phd. Why cant everyone get them then lol

A good philosophy for researchers to keep in mind when starting out is Occam's razor - the simplest solution is nearly always the correct one. So which do you think is more likely: that the entire research sector in Ireland is corrupt and everyone here who works in research, have done or are doing PhDs in this thread got hired based on looks/nepotism, and we're all complicit in this scam and are lying to you about it.

Or, there genuinely is some weakness in you as a candidate that has resulted in you being looked over for these positions.

I know what I would hedge my bets on.

Fwiw I don't think it's appropriate that someone's relative was on an interview panel but saying that Ireland's research sector is very small so sometimes these situations are unavoidable, and you don't know what went on behind closed doors, perhaps this uncle abstained from commenting on/voting for their nephew. In my experience researchers here tend to be a fair bunch.

stefanovich

johnyy92 wrote:

I cant ask anyone about this without sounding sexist but I think it is the faculty of the institutions which are sexist. I was just wondering if anyone else has a similar experience when it comes to academia in Ireland as lookism seems to be explicit in my field.

I think it is just a fact of life. Pretty people get treated better in general.

Tom Dunne

You seem to know an incredible amount about your competition, which I find surprising.

However, notwithstanding the above, have you sought feedback from the interview panel? You can ask to see where you ranked and any comments that were made about your performance.

Jimmy Bottlehead

An ex of mine was at pains to point out to everyone that would listen that she had a first class honours degree AND a first class masters degree from a respected and prominent Irish university.

She went for a PhD position and didn't get it. Near lost her mind asking why, how could they pass her up, didn't they know she had TWO first class honours degrees, etc.

You sound wholly entitled and short-sighted. Academia isn't based on being pretty, it's based on being knowledgeable AND personable. You might have smarts, but you clearly don't know how to sell yourself and if your people and communication skills are similar to how you are on Boards, its no wonder you've been passed on consistently.

The world owes you nothing. Academia owes you nothing. You need to find out what you're lacking and then spend time plugging the holes.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

An ex of mine was at pains to point out to everyone that would listen that she had a first class honours degree AND a first class masters degree from a respected and prominent Irish university.

She went for a PhD position and didn't get it. Near lost her mind asking why, how could they pass her up, didn't they know she had TWO first class honours degrees, etc.

You sound wholly entitled and short-sighted. Academia isn't based on being pretty, it's based on being knowledgeable AND personable. You might have smarts, but you clearly don't know how to sell yourself and if your people and communication skills are similar to how you are on Boards, its no wonder you've been passed on consistently.

The world owes you nothing. Academia owes you nothing. You need to find out what you're lacking and then spend time plugging the holes.

+1. People who harp on about their leaving cert points/first class honours degree/Masters/etc tend to either be really arrogant or compensating for some other lack of ability or experience, neither of which make for attractive (not in the physical sense!) PhD candidates.

Zoinks

johnyy92 wrote: »

Hi,

I have recently qualified with a taught masters degree. I have earned first class honours in both my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. My degrees are in environmental science.
I am currently trying to pursue a Phd in my discipline. The last two positions I have attended interviews for, I have lost out to women which did not have my experience nor did they have first class honour grades. These women were however very attractive.

I find there is a trend where attractive young women have a distinct advantage over everyone else when it comes to landing a phd position. My view on this is further reinforced as I have female friends who would not be very attractive who cannot get past the interview stages of a phd application yet they have first class honour degrees while I have other attractive female friends with 2.1 degrees who had no trouble securing a Phd position.

I have found in Ireland most Phd positions are awarded based on who you know or they are given to an attractive candidates (this may not be the case with International Students).

I cant ask anyone about this without sounding sexist but I think it is the faculty of the institutions which are sexist. I was just wondering if anyone else has a similar experience when it comes to academia in Ireland as lookism seems to be explicit in my field.

"Lookism" is certainly something I haven't encountered in academia, I strongly doubt that is holding you back.

Instead of focusing on the things you cannot change (whether real or imaginary--I won't dwell on the external factors you complain of), you should focus on being the best candidate you can be. Avail of career services, ensure your CV and cover letters are up to standard, and in interviews be confident but not arrogant. Presentation and communication are important, you don't need to be James Bond, but be sure that you are calm and clear in communicating relevant information.

I would suggest looking into an unfunded position under a supervisor in your research area and applying for the research funding from a third party like the IRC--the process is merit based, blind-peer review. The next round of applications should be between October and February. At least in this case, you can be 100% positive that no "lookism" or cronyism is involved, and you will get an independent evaluation of your research proposal.

dudara

johnyy92 wrote: »

Update.

I have recently went through the application process for two more phd positions.
The first I lost out to a girl who graduated with a 2.1 in 2016. She had no Professional experience and her thesis was not related to the phd position. I did not even get an interview for this position.

The second position I got to the last three of the interview stage. I was beaten by a Male who also graduated in 2016 with no experience. I have recently found out that his uncle was one of the lecturers on the hiring panel.

Neither candidate had a masters

Now tell that is not blatant cronyism.

I went straight from my B.Sc. into my Ph.D. and did not even consider an M.Sc. That argument holds no water. In fact it could be argued that a supervisor would prefer a fresh undergraduate rather than a more ingrained masters student.

All that matters is if you strike a connection with your future supervisor, because that relationship is what will drag you through the misery and doldrums of your Ph.D. (I know, I paint a great picture ). If you are failing to connect, you've got to start turning introspectively and ask why.

And purely qualitatively, having spent all my Ph.D. time around Physics and Electrical Engineering departments, I can tell you that good looks were never a factor

ahnowbrowncow

dudara wrote: »

And purely qualitatively, having spent all my Ph.D. time around Physics and Electrical Engineering departments, I can tell you that good looks were never a factor

How do you know? Maybe the other candidates were even more grotesque?

dar100

As an after thought

TimeToShine

I agree that the OP is being overlooked for other reasons but if you don't think looks matter in the selection process you're insane. We are innately more receptive to attractive people from either gender - it is an evolutionary trait that indicates health and wellbeing which can't just be switched off. Not saying it's fair but that's the way of the world. Solution? Eat healthy, do some exercise every now and again and don't drink too much or smoke. Everybody wins.

djpbarry

dar100 wrote: »

As an after thought

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, then please don't bother posting.