Is this judging:Hiring a pretty girl over a boy?

Okkkk! so this topic came up in Buisness class. And the class poll was hiring over someone whos good at the job but does take time for apperance or hiring someone who takes time but stinks at the job.

In these cases its over a pretty girl and a ordinary boy.

so basiclly if you were a boss of a CEO company would you rather hire someone who looks like who's a model or hire someone who has brains but no good looking traits?

My teacher said that in todays economy it depends but shockingly(not rele) the ceo will hire the pretty girl instead of the smart guy. He said "Why have a male when you can have beautiful?"

Judging from first apperance or disgusting or just plain both?

i say disgusting. you shouldn't hire someone who's beautiful over someone who's ehh ok.

i'm ask for your opion not on my misspelling.
i'm just expressing myself.
No spam.
thats just even more patheic...-_-(this is not spam)

 

People tend to expect attractive people to do better than unattractive people. We talked about it in psychology. We can't really help it. If I was the boss of that company, I won't lie, I'll be more inclined to hire whoever is more attractive but, I'd consider that a plus.

And it depends on their job. I mean, desk jobs don't need pretty faces.

 

People are more inclined to buy from someone who is better looking, like with bartenders for example.

 

well...It'd all depend on the impression they make right? It wouldnt matter if the girl hadn't a clue what she was doing if she made thew notes on how to get the job and do ok of course you'd be led to beleive she was the better of the two...

The boy...depends on how hygenic you simply COULDN'T hire someone with such a bad hygene it'd cause complaints and distraction from other workers no amtter how skilled he is...And also no matter how smart he is..He still has to show you what he can do properly and make the good impression.

So from what I've said about the two...As I said it would seriously depend on how bad...But in honesty I think I'd take the girl so as to avoid disputes on hygene, as important as it is to be hygenic and be good at the workj you do you still need to be able to get on with your co-worrkers, therefore, a pretty popular girl fits the agenda perfectly.

 

Honestly, appearance is important. People like to say that they don't judge on appearance and that they respect people for who they are, not what they wear, but it's a factor. In my mind it doesn't outweigh brains at all, but it has to be considered. If it was a challenge between a pretty girl who's a ditz and an ordinary looking guy who's a whiz, obviously it'd be smarter to hire the guy, especially if it's not a job in which he'd be interacting much with other people. But let's say the guy is a genius but doesn't shower as much as he should and doesn't iron his clothing, and that the girl was maybe a little less competent but always made a good first impression? I would side with the girl.
(note that the girl/boy thing doesn't matter, there are plenty of women who don't shower as much as they should)

 

That's known as selective hiring/employment and is illegal. However it is still done, despite that fact.

 

It depends on the job...if its Hooters, for example, (I dont know why a guy would sign up for a job at Hooters but lets just stay with the analogy) where looks matter a lot, I'm pretty sure that as a CEO/manager I would hire a pretty girl who I know will reel in more cash instead of an ugly guy.

When it comes to a office job, where looks really don't matter, it would be stupid to not hire the more qualified person in my opinion. If a CEO really wants to be around hot chicks he (in this case he -not that there aren't female CEO's) should go to a goddamn strip club.

 

It depends what kind of job they are hiring for. There's no shame in hiring the best person for the job, and there are some jobs where good looks increase the efficiency of the employee. Advertising is one that comes to mind.

 

For a front line, interacting with customers job, a pretty girl is probably a far better choice. However as a behind-the-scenes job, a pretty face would be wasted.

It depends on what you're hiring for.

 

I would say it depends on the job and that the pretty girl actually will lose out in some instances. Pretty girls, for example, aren't going to be hired over some sloppy guy for work in a factory or fast food place, or restaurant unless the person is meant to be out front and a representative of the company in some way.

For sales, of course you are going to go for who is neater, who cleans and maintains themselves and who speaks well and seems amiable. Whether male or female, if someone is sloppy, unkempt, lacks speech skills, etc, it shows poor hygiene, but also depression and a lack of caring. This same attitude isn't going to win you an office job or computer tech job or medical job either. The neater and better you present yourself for a job interview, the more likely you will get that job. Best way to get a job is to see what others wear day to day at the job you want to apply for and then dress just that little bit better and come in clean.

So whether it seems to be a profiling of sorts or not, employers expect things and there is no way that some 'ordinary' guy would come in to a job looking like a slob and unclean anyway. That's called a stupid guy who doesn't want a job. I'd hire the neater girl too because she seems to care more. That 'ordinary' guy can shave, clean up and wear something decent. It would be more profiling to me if the guy in your description was actually wearing nice clothes and clean too. Then the girl would have won off of beauty which well, you have to be curious as to how long she's actually going to want that job when she finds that out that the boss hired her because she's basically hot.

 

You haven't said anything about the two people's individual qualifications.