Established long before you · Discretion assured

Rent a BradbyNepotech

Behind the joke

The Bias Is Real

Rent a Brad is a joke. The problem it jokes about is not.

Below, each claim this site makes is paired with research on it: what was found, where the finding stops, and where to read it. We state every result no more strongly than its source does, and where one has been challenged, we say so.

The joke

“Recruiters scan names.”

Names on résumés

The research

In a field experiment in Boston and Chicago, otherwise identical résumés with white-sounding names got 50% more interview callbacks than those with Black-sounding names. A 2022 study sent more than 83,000 applications to 108 of the largest US employers: distinctively Black names lowered the chance of an employer getting in touch by 2.1 percentage points on average, and the fifth of firms that discriminated most accounted for nearly half of the contacts Black applicants lost.

Fine print

“50% more” is relative: absolute callback rates were in single digits. The 2004 study covers two cities around 2001–02 and mostly entry-level jobs, and a name can signal class as well as race. In the 2022 study the average gap is modest and varies a lot between firms, and the average gender gap was not statistically significant.

The joke

“Gatekeepers filter based on photos.”

Auditions behind a screen

The research

Goldin and Rouse estimated that auditioning behind a screen raised the chance that a woman advanced out of certain preliminary rounds by about 50%, and that the switch could explain 30–55% of the rise in women among new hires at major US orchestras.

Fine print

An influential and plausible result, but statistically weaker than its fame suggests. The authors themselves report large standard errors and at least one persistent effect in the opposite direction, and say the hiring effects are not statistically significant. A 2019 reanalysis of the published tables by Jonatan Pallesen found the evidence weaker still.

The joke

“His confident delivery opened doors that were previously closed to me.”

Startup funding

The research

In 2024, around $730 million went to US startups with a Black founder or co-founder: about 0.4% of all US startup funding, a multiyear low and down by more than two-thirds in share from three years earlier.

Fine print

The figure counts any team with at least one Black founder. Crunchbase says it is likely missing companies, especially at early stage, and that the 2024 totals will rise as data comes in.

The joke

“Reviewers make snap judgments.”

Peer review

The research

More than 3,300 researchers were invited to review the same finance paper. With only its Nobel-laureate co-author's name shown, 23% of reviewers recommended rejection; anonymised, 48% did; with only its little-known co-author's name shown, 65% did. At a 2017 computer-science conference, reviewers who could see the authors were more likely to recommend acceptance for papers from famous authors, top universities and top companies than reviewers who could not.

Fine print

Both experiments show an advantage for prestige, not bias by race or gender: one paper in one field, and one conference. In the conference experiment the effect against female authors was not statistically significant.

The joke

“People assume I know what I'm talking about before I even speak.”

John or Jennifer

The research

127 science faculty at research-intensive universities rated the same application for a lab-manager job, randomly given a male or a female name. They rated the “male” applicant more competent and hireable, offered him a higher starting salary ($30,238 against $26,508 on average) and more mentoring. Female and male faculty were equally biased.

Fine print

A small sample, a hypothetical decision and three fields (biology, chemistry, physics): evidence of bias in judging identical early-career applications, not proof that all academic hiring is biased. A large 2023 review by Ceci, Kahn and Williams found women in tenure-track academia at parity in grant funding, journal acceptances and recommendation letters, and advantaged in hiring; it did find bias in teaching ratings and salaries.

The joke

“The application sailed through initial review.”

Research grants

The research

Black applicants for the main research grants of the US National Institutes of Health (R01) were 13 percentage points less likely to be funded than white applicants, and still 10 points less likely after controlling for education, country of origin, training, previous awards, publication record and employer.

Fine print

The data cover roughly 2000–2006. A 2019 NIH follow-up found the gap arises at several stages, and that topic choice alone accounts for over 20% of it: Black applicants more often propose community- and population-level research, which is funded at lower rates. A persistent funding gap, then, partly built into which topics get funded.

What organisations can do

None of these needs a Brad. Each is backed by research, with its limits noted.

  1. Hide names at the first screening

    In Swedish field data, anonymous applications raised women's and non-Western-origin applicants' chances of an interview, and women's chances of a job offer. Ethnic minorities' disadvantage at the offer stage persisted: anonymity ends at the interview.

  2. Review papers, grants and talks double-anonymised

    Reviewers who can see the authors favour famous names and elite institutions, as the peer-review experiments above show.

  3. Structure interviews

    Ask every candidate the same questions and score the answers against a rubric. A 2022 re-analysis of personnel-selection research ranked structured interviews as the most valid selection procedure, so this is no trade-off against quality.

  4. Compare candidates side by side

    In experiments, evaluators who assessed candidates together relied more on individual performance; those who assessed them one at a time relied more on gender stereotypes.

  5. Make someone accountable for outcomes

    Across 708 US private-sector employers from 1971 to 2002, diversity training and evaluations did least to bring women and Black people into management. Giving someone responsibility, such as a task force or a manager, produced the broadest gains, and made training and mentoring work better.

  6. Centralise hiring and audit your own pipeline

    Among large US employers, racial gaps in getting a reply are smaller where recruiting is centralised, and a few firms account for much of the discrimination, so measure your own callback and selection rates by group. This is a correlation, not a tested intervention.

Bias against names, faces and backgrounds can be measured, and some of the fixes can be too. Until they are everywhere, the joke stays on the site.

Back to the joke

Trusted by committees that would rather not change

  • Old Boys Capital
  • Legacy Admissions
  • Gatekeeper & Co.
  • Panel Partners
  • Shortlist Holdings