I have continuously found intriguing the answers the authors of this book look for in their studies and this one was no difference. What's in a name, really, from an economic perspective?
An interesting part of the chapter was the account of the father who named one of his sons "Winner" and his last son "Loser". We learn that Loser, or "Lou" as his friends call him, went to college and joined the New York Police Department. Winner became a career criminal. I thought that was pretty funny. But the study into the uniqueness of a person's name was focused on how African-American names are very different from other ethnicities and whether this has an effect on a person's success in life.
Using several decades of name data drawn from California birth certificate records, Levitt’s analysis revealed a number of interesting trends. I was a little surprised about the study the authors talk about in this chapter that shows that similar résumés with white and distinctively black names result in job offers being extended to the white-sounding applicant far more frequently than the black-sounding applicant. Considering these two applicants are equally qualified, it would seem that the tiebreaker was their respective names in most cases that landed them the job, and perhaps not how they carried themselves in an interview. It is a little disheartening to think that some employers still act that way or allow that type of practice in their organizations.
I think the epilogue of the book helps find a balance to all of the authors' conclusions. By showing us that Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, came from a privileged background and had access to all of the resources that are typically correlated with success, whereas Roland G. Fryer, an African-American man who was raised in an impoverished, unstable family environment, is now a promising Harvard economist, we see that economic analysis is only a limited tool for examining issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Gabe,
I agree that the epilogue did show that all of Levitt's conclusions DO have exceptions. That is great to know because a lot of his book was quite disheartening for lower-income people and African-Americans.
As I've stated before, this book was persuasively written in the way it positioned different stories and in the focus of most of its topics. Additionally, the statements in the epilogue really hit home with a punch because the book attempts to tell one story and the epilogue, in not so many words, shows the other side of what was being said.
Overall, I enjoyed the book...it broadened my mind and exercised my critical thinking ability.
Regarding “Winner” and “Loser”, do you really think that this was true? When I was reading that section, I just could seem to get myself to believe that someone actually did that. Either way, we will assume that it is true. The results were very interesting; in fact I wonder if it would be similar results if someone else was to do this…I doubt it.
The study about employers hiring individuals with more white sounding names is disturbing. In fact, it may be naive of me, but I still don’t truly believe that this goes on. Many companies see how useful a diverse workforce is and I truly believe that companies hire the most qualified applicants. Plus, statistics are always skewed. As you mention in your final paragraph, not everything is completely true and there always exceptions to everything in life.
I thought that the father naming two of his sons "Winner" and "Loser" was the perfect way to lead into the chapter. It doesn't matter what your name is, it matters how qualified you are.
I think some companies may take into account names (all else being equal) into who they hire because there are so many companies out there and there are bound to be some racist qualities in some. However, I think most go by the most qualified individuals, regardless or race.
This book overall helped my critical thinking above all else. It showed me to look beyond the obvious and really delve into what the real cause or effects of a certain situation are.
I was happy to see that in the epilogue the author gives example of cases where they go against his conclusions. He talked about how the unabomber came from a good family and yet resorted to crime. I think the whole point of the book was to get people to think outside the box and get them to try and have a different prospective. I don’t necessarily believe he is 100 percent convinced on all of his conclusions. I sure hope not at least.
Post a Comment