He is coming from an aerospace/military background so I assume he is providing this information in case the job requires working in confined spaces and/or lifting weights or other physically strenuous exercise.
I've been reviewing a lot of resume's lately that call out the candidate's exact date of birth and marital status. Many even call out their parents' occupation. I've seen more than one that say "Mother's Occupation: Homemaker".
Although I now realize this is a cultural difference issue, it caught me off guard at first.
Which country/region are these resumes from? I would be very surprised to see something like that on a U.S. or UK resume/CV. I know that it’s quite common for photos and personal details to be on CVs in parts of continental Europe though.
I didn't even think about this at first, but—perhaps the parents' occupation is there because of the caste system? I heard that it's still around not just in India, but also in diasporas like the Silicon Valley.
Could be. I work with a lot of Indians, both here and abroad. I won't/can't profess to be an expert on them of their culture. But I can say that I've learned a lot over the years. I can only speculate (but won't do so here) on the reason for giving parent's occupation. From what I understand, the caste system is not what it once was and is beginning to disappear into the past, but it's legacy can still be felt in some profound ways both in India and here in the U.S.
For example https://german.dartmouth.edu/opportunities/working-germany/w... mentions family info, which seems bizarre to British and US people, as it's not something a candidate can control, so it seems unfair to discriminate based on this. I know German culture is different of course.
While that site is basically correctly, "not that long ago" should be interpreted more like "within post-war era", not "a few years ago".
Photo yes, Familienstand yes still today for conservative companies, parents occupations not since probably the 80s in most places that would consider foreigners at all.
(It is, as you say, all fairly obvious bullshit designed to make sure the right social class gets preferential treatment...)
The provided link was fun to read (as a German). Personal highlights:
> German employers simply don't know what to make of an Art History major who wants to take a temporary job in an accounting firm before going on to medical school.
I'm still laughing.
I guess actually nobody knows what to make of an Art History major in the first place. That's one of the typical things one would study if your only plan in live is to become "a wife" (OK, today maybe also "a husband"), or when you have absolutely no clue what you want to do and need additional time to orientate.
Also nobody would hire an Art History major to do an accounting job. Never ever!
That's just ridiculous. You need professional training in accounting if you like to do accounting.
And going to medical school after getting an Art History major? Alone the idea is even more ridiculous than the idea that you could do an accounting job with an Art History major… You need almost teen years to become a full medic. Also getting into some of these universities require that you stand in line for quite some time, and have absolute top grades form school. The people that consider going for Art History study aren't the ones that would have any realistic chance to ever attend (a German) medical university.
So alone that sentence above is actually a kind of joke. But that's not everything funny in there.
> They may neither know what the Ivy League is nor know which university is more prestigious than another.
> In Germany, where you went to school is largely irrelevant.
Jop. And that's a big advantage!
Maybe not out of the perspective of some Dartmouth scholars, but most people on this planet agree that the anglo-saxon system for higher education is just complete madness.
The whole Bologna Process BS (which is modeled by the anglo-saxon madness) significantly decreased the quality of German's higher education, and at the same time almost invalidated the achievement of possessing an university diploma. Now everybody can get some "Art History Bachelor" degree, or some crap like that…
I strongly hope that we'll stop that madness at some point before our education finally hits the lows of the anglo-saxon equivalent!
There was a time that a German "Dipl.-Ing." or "Dr." title had some meaning. What you get nowadays with most "master" students are people that would miserably fail at "Vordiplom"… Also, "everybody" and his dog has a "bachelor degree" which makes it actually useless (and made just "regular school" out of university).
Amusingly enough, my German-as-a-foreign-language teacher had a degree in Art History and made great use of it. Of course, the relevant part for her resume was that she had a Art History degree from a German university conducted in German as a US-native. It demonstrated a much higher degree of language proficiency than the average foreign-language teacher at a high school in the US and gave her classes a unique twist.
The US (although not the UK) college system values taking multiple paths early on, especially for MDs and JDs, so an Art History major isn't completely absurd. At the university I went to, pre-med was a list of classes, but you couldn't select it as a major. Most students would major in something related, like biology, to maximize the overlap in classes, but a Classics major (with a heavy focus on learning Greek and Latin to help with medical terms) was considered a rare but very viable option.
That said, I think the greatest strength of the German education system is its trade schools. The US trade school system is much more ad hoc. Most jobs/problems don't need the heavy theory of a graduate degree, and honestly I think both the US and Germany could use fewer PhDs and more people with practical skills.
This makes no sense. If anything, "anglosaxon" countries are much less obsessed about prestigious schools than places like say, France. So to portray it as a uniquely anglosaxon trait doesn't make sense.
Also, german higher education is meh at best. Even beyond rankings, german universities are usually well in the middle of pack at best, in almost every quantifiable metric. Though putting the blame on the anglos for that is... very typically german I guess.
> Though putting the blame on the anglos for that is... very typically german I guess.
I'm not putting blame on anybody. (I wouldn't be here, or wouldn't have even learned the language if I wouldn't enjoy being with the "anglo people" as such ;-)).
I've said that the standards were undoubtedly much higher before the "Bologna Process", which adapted the German system in most parts to the anglo-saxon model, for net negative gains, imho.
> I strongly hope that we'll stop that madness at some point before our education finally hits the lows of the anglo-saxon equivalent!
Don't British and US universities significantly outperform German universities according to most rankings? I think there's just one Germany institution in the QS top 50 and it's... 50th.
Discrimination based on relevant skills surely - not irrelevant things like family situation? In other countries things like that are actually illegal.
I've been to a military museum few days ago and I was surprised how incredibly small some of the cockpits are. I'm 6'3" and wouldn't fit in most of the fighter jets and other vehicles. Not that I wouldn't be comfortable with my legs pushed to something - my shoulders are literally too wide to get in, my thighs/ass are too wide to even try sitting there. Might be a problem for aerospace tech.
And don't get me started on spaceships/capsules - I don't have any particular fear of confined spaces but this was a little too much (too less?).
Your comments made me wonder if there were height restrictions, found this verbiage on US Airforce site:
"For pilot and aircrew positions, height specifications vary by aircraft and most applicants can successfully pursue a career in aviation with the U.S. Air Force. Applicants who are significantly taller or shorter than average may require special screening to ensure they can safely perform operational duties. Applicants of all heights are encouraged to apply."
If you think much about the different platforms, it makes perfect sense that there are specific and varied requirements. Presumably they're pretty flexible about who flies a C-5, considering it's big enough to carry Chinooks or M-1 tanks [0]. OTOH, ejecting out of a fighter jet probably doesn't go very well if your knees are smashed up against the dashboard.
Sitting height is just as important for safe ejections as leg length. My dad was 5'10" but with a tall sitting height and he was just barely under the safety line for a seat in an S-3.
Having short limbs and a long body can indicate the presence of a medical condition known as "Hypochrondroplasia".
> Hypochrondroplasia is a genetic disorder characterized by small stature and disproportionately short arms, legs, hands, and feet (short-limbed dwarfism). Short stature often is not recognized until early to mid childhood or, in some cases, as late as adulthood.
When I was an undergrad I thought about seeing what it would take to be an astronaut. Turns out that the largest spacesuit they made back then was 6', so even if I had Buzz Aldrin's CV I wouldn't have been able to go.
Former USAF pilot candidate: there are physiological reasons specific to high-G maneuvering in fighter jets that taller people are disqualified for as well. Shorter people have less challenges with GLOC or loss of consciousness.
The New Mexico Museum of Space History has a Mercury capsule you can sit in. Even with most of the equipment removed (just the control panel and a bench) it's incredibly claustrophobic. To be strapped into that thing with full equipment, in a flight suit, on your back over tons of explosives, and launched into space for day or even a few minutes...I can't imagine.
1. This is an "old" resume. I'm not as old as OP's dad but I definitely recall putting my gender, height, probably weight, definitely "health: excellent", etc. on my resumes in the 1980s. Different times. Times of discrimination? Probably. :-/
2. As others point out, this gentleman was in aerospace and even though he wasn't a pilot, here's a fun fact for the morning ... I watched a documentary on the early years of fighter pilot selection and grooming. Russia apparently recognized and exploited the value of a short heart-brain distance in its pilots. If I recall correctly, pilots with shorter distances between heart and brain can pull higher G's (or maybe negative G's) before browning or blacking out in certain maneuvers. It makes sense when you think about it. So if you're an air force looking for every edge you can, you might select for this trait. Shorter men (specifically, shorter sitting height: reasonably correlated with heart-brain distance). Also some women, I would expect. Anyways, this is probably not why OP's dad shared his height, but sharing a possible TIL as it was for me... :-)
My first real job was 1986: Having a "stable" personal life was something employers would "need" to know. And god help you if there was a gap on your resume; it was advertising your deviancy.
Such attitudes all changed drastically just around that time, not in small part because the demand for EE and CS people started outstripping the supply.
From my memory of Engineering School in the “colonies” in 1990, CS were very geek, EE were normal geek, mechanical engineers were normal engineers, and civil engineers were social deviants (to use stereotypes). There was a certain geek pride abnormality that was almost expected of the better EE engineers . . . or perhaps I thought that because I identified as a geek? I don’t recall noticing any strong demand for EE engineers. I think I noticed the uptick in demand for computer skills in the mid-90s, although I admit I surely was unaware of the world around me.
This is pure speculation, but I would guess it was simply expected information at the time. In some countries, it is still expected or at least common to see information such as: a portrait ; date and place of birth ; marital situation and number of children ; and so on.
What!? Some countries force you to state your marital and familial situations!? That’s insane. It’s illegal for companies in the US to ask about that stuff.
That said, some other people pointed out he had a military/aeronautical background, so height and health might come into play for certain jobs. That makes sense to me. You probably can’t work in the cockpit of a plane if you’re 7 feet tall.
Friend worked for the military overseas. Locals would send in resumes and include details such as their social caste and were horrified (or delighted, depending) when that information was redacted before being sent to hiring folk.
On the upside, it apparently became an upward mobility avenue for "low caste" folk who would otherwise not be considered for valuable positions.
The downside is clear if you're upper-caste, but my point was to reinforce the (challenged) statement that over-sharing in other cultures is both commonplace and intentional.
Going back a little farther it was not uncommon to list your religion and what church you were a member of. Going back a little farther than that, if you were a candidate for an executive position at a company, they might interview your spouse as well.
afaik the line of thinking were : religious people were more honest, happily married more stable (ie, your relationship wasn't a source of stress/instability), and being a parent made you seem more responsible.
Nowadays cynicism has inverted those thoughts:
Religious -- hypocrites. Married -- soon will be divorced, may get pregnant. Parent -- how irresponsible for the environment.
The "Health: Excellent" seems amusing in today's context too.