In today’s New York Times, there’s an article telling us about how one Ms. Tiffany Block, age 28, landed a $13-an-hour job as an administrative assistant at a truck-driving school in Indiana, beating out almost 500 other applicants. With so many applicants possessing good qualifications, all of them hungry for employment, the company had a difficult task sorting through all the applicants and settling on the precious few whom they would interview. In the end, they selected eight for an interview. Each of the finalists was then subjected to an hour-long, one-on-one interview, consisting of 100 questions.
How did Ms. Block win this job? What led to her success? The article suggests the usual reasons—such as how luck played its part, and how those who were doing the hiring wanted someone with experience, but not too much experience. Chris Kelsey, the school’s director, said they “like to get someone with fair and middling talent that will work for the wages and groom them from within.”
The article reports that Mr. Kelsey was “immediately impressed” when Ms. Block came in on the second day of interviews. “Dressed in a conservative business suit, Ms. Block patiently answered all of the 100-plus questions,” we learn. Mr. Kelsey “liked that she remained consistent in her answers and showed independence.”
Uh, anybody ever heard about how a picture tells a thousand words? Forget reading the article. Instead, click “Enlarge” on the Times’ photograph of Ms. Block — who is facing us — sitting across from Mr. Kelsey, whom we see only from the back.
Does anyone need to have me point out the obvious? That’s a spicy bit of cleavage peaking up above what looks like a nice tight black Lycra top—the kind that clings to the chest the way Cling Wrap hugs a cheese ball. Note the body language (being female, I hereby assert my expertise in interpreting females). Ms. Block is leaning ever so slightly forward toward Mr. Kelsey, smiling a big, feisty, all-American smile. And why not? She got the job. Not for Mr. Kelsey any of those lumpy-looking men in the other picture (to see what I mean by this, click on “Enlarge” for the second Times picture accompanying the article).
Who am I to say Ms. Block wasn’t the “most qualified” for this particular position? I, for one, am the first to admit I wouldn’t know how to begin to sort through 500 applicants in any way that constitutes fairness.
But one can’t help but suspect. Landing a job is a triumph that requires all the skills and strategies an applicant can muster. And with women — ever since Eve first worked her ways on Adam — women have relentlessly played the powerful hand Nature dealt them — their looks and their charm — to get what they need and want from men. In today’s ferociously competitive economic climate, this means wearing sexed-up clothes, showing cleavage, going for that $300 haircut and color job, tending to the lipstick and makeup, and flashing a lovely, usually expensively maintained smile. These constitute the contemporary woman’s arsenal. When going for an interview, a woman would be a fool not to haul out all the weaponry that seems appropriate for the assault.
Really, when all is said and done, would Mr. Kelsey prefer to work with a guy looking like one of the lumpy-looking males shown in the second picture in the Times article or with Ms. Block? How about Mr. Kelsey and some middle-aged woman wearing a blouse with a neckline as tall as the Sears Tower, or a young man struggling with a bit of acne, or a stutter? How about a black guy, who seems a bit shy? Or an older man — you know, a guy in his thirties — who never took care of that crooked, slightly brown tooth?
Today, of course, the fashion for young women is to display lots of cleavage, in all sorts of places where it seems — at least to women like me — that the display of cleavage doesn’t belong. Cleavage shows up at the bank, or the doctor’s office. It’s all over college and university campuses — especially come springtime. One should never get one’s knickers in a bundle. Breasts are breasts, after all, and half the species possess them. Besides, it’s no more than a matter of fashion (in Jane Austen’s day, women practically presented their breasts on platters).
One could readily dismiss everything I’m saying as the rantings of a modern prude (which I happily admit I am). But heck, who better than a prude like me to remind other prudes that they’d do well to lower their necklines if they really want employment.
Congratulations to Ms. Block on her new job.
33 Responses to Cleavage and the Job Market
macheath - October 22, 2009 at 1:45 pm
The story, professor, isn’t about someone’s cleavage. It is that close to 500 people showed up for one job opening. It is about huge levels of unemployment and social pathology and distress. Getting a job in this circumstance isn’t about how you dress, it is like winning the lottery, and that’s the point. Get a grip.
goxewu - October 22, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The story about 500 people applying for one job opening was the Times’s story, and a legit one. But I read the Times, too (online) and was struck by EXACTLY WHICH APPLICANT out of the 500 got the job. I, too, said “Hmmmm” to myself. And I’ll bet there are others. (The Times, I suspect, knew what it was hinting at oh-so-subtly by picking that particular photo to run.)
ex_ag - October 22, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I have to agree with macheath. And after following Ms. Fendrich’s link to the Times article, I can only agree with Ms. Fendrich’s summation of herself as a “modern prude.” I didn’t see anything particularly offensive about Ms. Block’s attire. Nor did she appear to be the sexpot that Ms. Fendrich suggested. Maybe my standards for sexpots are far too high and my expectations for cleavage far too low?
bigfruitbasket - October 23, 2009 at 8:16 am
The assertion this article makes in utter nonsense. It should be printed under the fantasy or fiction section of The Chronicle. Sounds like the author has an ax to grind.
brucedavis - October 23, 2009 at 9:06 am
Oh, c’mon–this is way overreaching and quite shallow. The emphasis on appearance is misleading and without depth. To suggest that Ms. Block got the job by displaying the “spicy” 1-inch of cleavage is preposterous. “Leaning forward” as a gesture of overt sexiness in a job interview would require much more exposure and an unprincipled lecherous interviewer to be successful. And in the irrelevant background, I count one “lumpy guy” in the second photo–simply a man with his shirt out; the others are even more normal folks. How could their behavior or character be judged by that? What difference do they make in this process? Jeez!The author seems hung up on the less substantive attributes and oblivious to the latter parts of the article that explains how Ms. Block nailed the job with her answers and character (e.g., catching the baseball). There are other factors ommitted here, probably because they detract from Ms. Fendrich’s central thesis of looks over substance and circumstances. Overall this piece is unbecoming of CHE, lacking merits of thoughtfulness and veracity. It is very judgmental of people, a poorly considered premise in light of countering information in the NY Times article, and just plain mean-spirited. I vote this piece to be one of CHE’s least worthy (kind word for worst) in a long while.
athibo - October 23, 2009 at 9:35 am
Are we getting up-tight or what? The article specifically indicated that Ms. Block showed up in a conservative business suit. The photo is an on the job photo, post hiring. She is wearing comfortable attire that appears to be appropriate for the environment. Re the cleavage in the phote, it is minor at best, plus like all posed photos, the photographer most likely had her leaning forward as it makes for a better picture. AT
paulkraimer - October 23, 2009 at 9:48 am
AT … THANK YOU for pointing that out. This photo was not taken at the interview, at least nowhere in the article does it say that. The article DOES say, “At the end of each hourlong interview, he and Ms. Seawood each jotted down a rating for each applicant and then compared them.” Apparently Ms. Seawood would have also liked the cleavage IF it were shown in the interview. I am really surprised this article was printed in the Chronicle, there are so many missing parts. At least it was in the opinions section.PK
stinkcat - October 23, 2009 at 9:50 am
Perhaps she showed up to the original interview naked? That would be strong evidence of Laurie’s hypothesis.
cwinton - October 23, 2009 at 9:52 am
I too am mystified by the catty tone of this article. It says a lot more about Ms. Fendrich than Ms. Block, who from the photographs actually appears to be quite tastefully dressed. Perhaps Ms. Fendrich would prefer that female applicants be required to wear a burka?
suth0059 - October 23, 2009 at 10:17 am
As a professional woman who also happens to be well endowed, I take offense to the suggestion that a woman’s curves are her only recommendation. As others have already offered, Ms. Fendrich has missed the point and apparently most of the details in the original article.
maxey - October 23, 2009 at 10:37 am
The photo in the Times article suggests to me that the job candidate also has a winning smile and a cheerful disposition. Who would you hire?
tiburon - October 23, 2009 at 10:42 am
What cleavage? She is dressed like a nun.- Puritan!
dulaw - October 23, 2009 at 10:53 am
This article was poorly conceived. The points the author makes seem to be based on personal and emotional responses to the piece in the Times that have obscured a logical analysis. Moreover, to further athibo’s point about the photographs, where is the evidence that the “lumpy-looking men in the other picture” are the other applicants and not current or prospective students at the school?Ms. Fendrich states “Forget reading the article”…I think it might deserve at least second read by her.
lawman - October 23, 2009 at 11:35 am
I’m going to come to the defense of CHE and say the article was well worth runnig, even if folks disagree with the author’s take on this particular case. Way back in the dark ages I was a psych major in college. There were studies then and since that confirm the fact that good looking people have an advantage over the rest of us in interview situations. Indeed, this phenomenon was then called the “halo effect”.
pjanus - October 23, 2009 at 11:46 am
Several presumptions appear necessary here: the majority of us who read this web site are faculty members; the majority of us teach at coeducational institutions; and, the majority of us from time to time have interviewed for a potential job. Thus it’s possible for us to take this issue to its illogical extremes. The aging Gray Lady of print journalism apparently is rethinking its liberal agenda by publishing an article which has conservative overtones. The article itself was written by Michael Lou with a byline who, as a male, certainly must have purient intent in exposing such a blatant display of a female using subtle sexual coercion on a hapless and hopelessly mindless male who undoubtedly has a breast fixation. The photographer who took the picture, one Sally Ryan, obviously has an accolade agenda as, since President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in advance of any semblance of peace, surely Ms. Ryan has a shot at a Pulitzer for exposing such unsavory and heretofore unknown conduct by Ms. Block who’s the dastardly female villain in this sordid example of the female manipulation of mindless male executives. I’m privileged teach at a conservative, faith-based college which is ranked in the top 25 of private, liberal arts institutions. I also suspect that age 64 I may well fall into your category of a “lumpy-looking male.” Your observation that today’s female college students (being a victim of peer pressure or (gasp) perchance one of those Blockian disciples who embraces the notion that an ample display of female cleavage trumps intellect and ability – and it appears cleavage and intellect are mutually exclusive) do indeed lean towards more cleavage-revealing attire in the warmer months. Ms. Fendrich, between you and me, your next foray into this world of the female manipulation of the vacuous male mind and raging male libido should be an exposition on those tight shorts with the name of a college or a mascot emblazoned on the posterior. I must seasonally summon what scant male self-control I have to not simply award these conniving vixons with an “A” and a glowing vocational recommendation. My dear Ms. Fendrich, embrace your self-described prudish beliefs and behavior as being the singular you and, if I might offer a sincere suggestion, “judge not lest ye be judged.”
madamesmartypants - October 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I think she looked fine–very little make-up, I’d add, which is atypical for a “sexpot”–and it did say that she was dressed in a conservative business suit for the interview. Why assume that she got the job because of her “charms”? That’s accusing her and her new employer of being sexist–with zero proof. As far as looks and interviews go–I’ve also heard about how good-looking people do better than the rest of us. But surely that can’t apply to academia; I’ve never seen more awkward-looking people than at a faculty meeting. In fact, I suspect the opposite. Does looking “too” good at an academic interview constitute a handicap–either by alienating female faculty members or by pigeonholing yourself as a bimbo/mimbo?
mdorland - October 23, 2009 at 1:05 pm
A “spicy bit of cleavage”? Really, m’dear, these things are truly in the eye of the beholder!
dank48 - October 23, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I don’t suppose there’s any chance that the article was written at least partly tongue in cheek?
mssmiley - October 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Desperate times call for desperate measures!!! I don’t think $13.00/hr does Ms. Block much justice; sounds like she could have negotiated a higher salary. I wonder if Mr. Kesley even heard the rest of her responses after she answered the first two question. Good read for a slow Friday afternoon.On a serious note, it does underscore the difficult job market out there when 500 people applied for this one position.
greenhills73 - October 23, 2009 at 4:21 pm
In Ms. Fendrich’s defense, regardless of the point of the article, I thought the photo looked more like an interview than an on-the-job instance, so this photo may have been taken at the first interview. I think that in order to eliminate even the possibility that cleavage will play a part in the decision, more conservative attire could be chosen. I agree with Laurie – no cleaveage at all is better in a business environment than any cleavage, unless you are interviewing for a position in which you are expected to show it. We live in a society that STILL often condemns young mothers for breastfeeding their babies in public, even when they are showing nothing, so don’t tell me no one thinks cleavage couldn’t possibly have influenced the intervewer. Politically incorrect or not, Laurie is not so far off base.
stinkcat - October 23, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I don’t think it is an issue of whether cleavage could have influenced the interviewer, the real question is whether that cleavage did influence the interviewer. As to the second question, Laurie has provided zero evidence. After all, is anyone going to seriously argue that was the best possible cleavage out of 500 applicants?
minnesotan - October 23, 2009 at 6:46 pm
My female students certainly seem to think that more cleavage = a better grade. Maybe at some subconscious level they’re right; who knows what goes on in my plodding man-brain. Either way, they work much, much harder than this lady at enticing their way into a better life for themselves.Then again, the sight of sweatpants with the word “Juicy” on the rear end negate all of the many good things the rest of their outfit could potentially do to influence my grading process. ;)
laoshi - October 24, 2009 at 8:12 am
In the NYT photo, Tiffany Block clearly doesn’t show enough cleavage to warrant hiring.
goxewu - October 24, 2009 at 10:19 am
Just asking:Why did The New York Times reporter Michael Luo feel to write, “Dressed in a conservative business suit, Ms. Block patiently answered all of the 100-plus questions”?It’s sort of like the suspect on a crime show saying, “I didn’t murder my mother-in-law, who was a wonderful woman and didn’t hold my gambling debts against me enough to change her will next week to cut my wife out of it.” A little too much hopeful pre-emptive information?
rw142332 - October 24, 2009 at 11:56 am
kathden - October 24, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Is it time to move on to something else?
nadienne - October 24, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Did Ms. Block include a picture of her cleavage with her initial application? I hope Laurie Fendrich is not assuming Ms. Block is a bimbo who flirted her way into a prestigious, career-building job, leaving more-qualified applicants stranded. It seems to me that Ms. Block got the interview because she was qualified for the job. If we assume that the eight interviewees were more-or-less equally qualified, then what other criteria should interviewers consider? Shared interests? For example, if Ms. Block had been chosen from among the eight because she and her interviewer shared an interest in knitting, would that be unethical? Even if the interviewees were not equally qualified, even if Ms. Block was the least qualified of the eight, apparently she did nothing to prove that she was not qualified. At the very least, her interview proved that she was good enough for the job. It is unfair to not hire the best candidate, but what incentive does any company have to hire the best candidate, especially when “good enough” is good enough?I know this is tangential to the central question of what constitutes appropriate dress. However, it seems to me that the onus of objectivity should rest with the interviewer.
mstake - October 25, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’m sorry, but this is out-and-out sexist. Suggesting that a woman’s success is due not to talent or hard work but to looks and sexuality? Policing of women’s clothing and appearances? I expect more from the Chronicle.
22276891 - October 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm
If almost 500 applicants were narrowed down to eight finalists to be interviewed, I think we would learn more about the process by analyzing how the eight were chosen, not the one winner. Those final eight were probably close to indistinguishable–on paper, if not in a photograph.
dotsandloops - October 25, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Wow. This kind of woman vs. woman sexist thinking is exactly why my generation of thinkers wishes we didn’t have to work with yours. Thank you for showing everyone what we’re up against until you finally retire and allow the rest of us to become a productive group of humans again.
innocentpasserby - October 26, 2009 at 4:30 am
Yow! Guess I’d better hurry and retire–I don’t pretend to speak for a whole generation, but I wouldn’t be caught dead showing that much chest in a professional environment. And I can’t see what’s sexist about suggesting that women are still expected to display a sexual appeal that men aren’t, even in professional situations. (Tells you everything you need to know about who still does most of the hiring, after all.) “The powerful hand Nature dealt them”? Not so much.
davetosufan - October 26, 2009 at 10:48 am
I am a firm believer in, “May the best candidate win”. This is not limited to those who posess the finest educations or the most experience. There are too many variables involved. Most of what we do, as human animals, is based on animal instinct, whether we will admit it or not. To become upset with this girl, or this article, is to deny our first basic instinct: SEX! Followed closely by the addage of SEX SELLS! Not my rule, but I must adhere to it. Have you ever seen an extremely obese and very unattractice female news anchor? I think that bringing condemnation to her for the reason the writer intends is like making the Michael Vick story about race. It’s not about that. She was able to land a job in this frightening market by using a tool that all, okay, most women have and, for the most part, use to their advantage as well. As some say, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Why would you not try every trick in your bag?
eddocstudent - November 24, 2009 at 9:44 pm
This article is simply ridiculous and insulting to Mr. Kelsey, Ms. Block, the men in the second picture, and readers of the Chronicle. First of all, Ms. Fendrich makes several unwarranted assumptions that are clearly faulty once careful inspection of the article in the Times is made. Both pictures are post-employment. Ms. Fendrich has no idea what Ms. Block wore to her job interview. There’s nothing wrong with Ms. Block’s attire even if it was a job interview. “Spicy cleavage?!” Has Ms. Fendrich spent anytime walking around a college campus and observing what young women wear to their classes? Secondly, the “dumpy” men in the second picture are truck-drivers who work at the company and not men interviewing for a job. Why, Ms. Fendrich, is it okay for you to refer to the men as “dumpy” and then characterize Mr. Kelsay in an unflattering way without having your facts straight? This article should never have been run. Obviously, the editor who allowed it did not do his job either. I expect more from the Chronicle and believe they should print an apology to Ms. Block and Mr. Kelsay. Next time I see Ms. Fendrich’s byline on an article, I won’t even bother to read it.