The Area Code Rating for Women and Candidates

by

I had lunch with a group of recruiters and the conversation was weird, random, and raucous. This is par for the course. We talked about workforce planning strategies, the benefits and myths of job boards, and why a certification standard for recruiters might make sense.

We also talked about bawdy things including the Area Code Rating System for Women.

I almost died. I lived thirty-five years without knowing about a methodology used by some dudes — frat boys, drunken sales reps, and sailors — to describe the hotness and worthiness of a chick.

Honestly, the system is barfy. Woman are sized up and the resulting “rating” looks like an area code. The system goes something like this.

  • The first number equates to prettiness. Facial appearance is rated on a scale of 0-9.
  • The second number is a binary number. 0 = won’t do her/1 = do her.
  • The third number represents the body. The hotness is rated on a scale of 0-9.

The ideal area code/rating for a chick is 919, which happens to be the area code in Raleigh where I live.

I was totally appalled and offended, but I have to say something: this is a more concise way of rating someone than most behavior-based interviewing processes. The second digit, the binary number, is especially interesting to me. Would you sleep with someone? Is a candidate eligible for hire? This is a simple yes or no.

Can you imagine if companies used a more concise way of measuring the knowledge, skills, and abilities of candidates? What if we used a system that gave us a a number that clearly identified the leading candidate? What would that number look like? How would we get there? Could it be like the area code rating system?

I can’t shut my HR and career industry brain off, apparently.

Previous post:

Next post:

Google