It’no secret we are a culture consumed by image. Economist have long recognized what’s been dubbed the “beauty premium” — the idea that pretty people, whatever their aspirations, tend to do better in, well, almost everything. Handsome men earn, on average, 5 percent more than their less-attractive counterparts (good-looking women earn 4 percent more); pretty people get more attention from teachers, bosses, and mentors; even babies stare longer at good-looking faces (and we stare longer at good-looking babies). A couple of decades ago, when the economy was thriving, we might have brushed off those statistics as superficial. But in 2010, there’s a growing bundle of research to show that our bias against the unattractive is more pervasive than ever. And when it comes to the workplace, it’s looks, not merit, that all too often rule.
Newsweek surveyed 202 corporate hiring managers, from human-resources staff to senior-level vice presidents, as well as 964 members of the public, only to confirm what no qualified (or unqualified) employee wants to admit: from hiring to office politics to promotions, even, looking good is no longer something we can dismiss as frivolous or vain. Fifty-seven percent of hiring managers said qualified blit unattractive candidates are likely to have a harder time landing a job, while more than half advised spending as much time and money on “making sure they look attractive” as on perfecting a resume. Asked to rank employee attributes in order of importance, meanwhile, managers placed looks above education: of nine character traits, it came in third, below experience (No.1) and confidence (No.2) but above“where a candidate went to school” (No.4). Does that mean you should drop out of Harvard and invest in a nose job? Probably not. But a state school might be just as marketable. “This is the new reality of the job market,” says one New York recruiter. “It’s better to be average and good-looking than brilliant and unattractive.”
Today’s working women have achieved “equality”: they dominate the workforce, they are household breadwinners, and they balk at having to subvert their sexuality, whether in the boardroom or on the beach. Yet while the outside-work milieu might accept the empowered yet feminine ideal, the workplace surely does not. Studies show that unattractive women remain at a disadvantage in low-level positions like secretary, while in upper-level fields that are historically male-dominated, good-looking women can suffer a so-called bimbo effect. They are viewed as too feminine, less intelligent, and less competent — not only by men but also by their female peers.
1.The “beauty premium” called by economists means that（ ）.
2.What have researches in 2010 proved when it comes to workplace?
3.What can we learn from the survey conducted by Newsweek?
4.What can we learn about today’s working women?
5.What is “bimbo effect” according to the last paragraph?
