At one company I worked at, most of our tech/finance staff was male. When we interviewed for a junior data science position, we had one female candidate who many would consider to be very attractive. Most or all of the other interviewees were male.
That became a matter of some consideration, because there were arguments that she would be too disruptive within the office because of her age, appearance, and gender.
What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. Should we consider those factors, effectively making her personal characteristics a negative, or should we continue with the knowledge that she would likely get too much attention (some of which she might find uncomfortable)?
In the end, we chose a male candidate who seemed to be a better fit based on skills and academic focus. But had it been an equal match based on background alone, I think we still would have chosen the man.
FWIW, I was providing only analysis of the candidates based on their in-person interview performance primarily related to general problem solving, so I did not affect the selection based on those personal factors.
That became a matter of some consideration, because there were arguments that she would be too disruptive within the office because of her age, appearance, and gender.
What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. Should we consider those factors, effectively making her personal characteristics a negative, or should we continue with the knowledge that she would likely get too much attention (some of which she might find uncomfortable)?
In the end, we chose a male candidate who seemed to be a better fit based on skills and academic focus. But had it been an equal match based on background alone, I think we still would have chosen the man.
FWIW, I was providing only analysis of the candidates based on their in-person interview performance primarily related to general problem solving, so I did not affect the selection based on those personal factors.