<p>As intellectual rigor rises, do you think that attractiveness on average tends to decline? I know that it isn't the case for all, but I've personally observed that the more advanced classes in my HS are filled w/ less attractive people, and the regular classes are filled with more attractive people. This is a huge generalization, of course, but I think it holds true to a certain extent.</p>
<p>What's your take on this matter? Also, is there a difference for girls vs. guys?</p>
<p>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At least you don’t care being a shallow, superficial person.</p>
<p>I’ve seen some strange threads before but this one is one of the best. I don’t go to your school or live in your community of course. </p>
<p>Let me put it this way. Yesterday I was at an ALL STATE Orchestra Performance for my youngest daughter. The Conductor was a distinguished man who recently retired and had spent years conducting and teaching music at the high school and university level. He spoke to the audience not so much about their exceptional musical skills, which are very obvious, but of their exceptional intellects and dedication to practicing and “doing the right thing.” “They are the future leaders of tomorrow. Trust me, I have seen it for over 40 years.” </p>
<p>That is beauty, in my books. There were kids of all races, though it was predominantly asians and caucasians. Some were very attractive kids and some were shall we say, “plain?” But that had as much to do with what he said and what was going on than whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. </p>
<p>My oldest child is in college and graduated with more than 8 AP courses. Her graduating class had an extraordinary number of “scholars”, and it was a large public school not in the northeast. The list of colleges they would be attending at her graduation ceremony brought tears to the eyes of many, many people in the audience, for their own children as well as others. They were rich, poor, middle income. It wasnt a country club or prep school. Doctor’s kids, lawyer’s kids, sanitation worker’s kids (true story). Some were stunning beauties and some were very average in appearance. 94% were going to a 4 year college. The kids with the best grades and highest SAT’s were some of my daughter’s better friends and some of them were highly attractive and some of them were “plain” but all were beautiful kids with high ambitions, an incredulous work ethic, and a deep commitment to serving others in some capacity. </p>
<p>I’ve raised my children to judge people by their character. Period. Stay away from bad people. Help others when you can, but better yet help them to help themselves! None of which has to do with who looks the most attractive or not in what high school classes.</p>
<p>As you grow older you may well find that your truest and BEST friends are the ones people often avoided because they lacked that popular or “cute” look in school. The ones that turn out to be cads and flighty or very poor examples for parenting often were the “most attractive” people, and some of them may not have the highest test scores either. </p>
<p>There is a strong genetic inclination to be attracted to more attractive people…“the beautiful people” gene factor, I call it. They have done studies in education that show some bias of teachers towards more attractive children particularly in elementary and middle school, but wanes a bit in high school. By college, professors are much more interested in your thoughts and test scores than how pretty your hair is or if your polo shirt matches your socks. Job interviewers also have a bias towards more attractive people, its a known fact. But the most skilled job interviewers are able to compartmentalize their keen eye for beauty and focus entirely on the substance of what that person knows and how they can benefit the company or organization.</p>
<p>That being said, it always benefits people to dress their best in professional settings, keep their personal appearance at its best and personal hygeine even better. </p>
<p>If you are asking if “stunning beauties” are genetically overcompensating for not being the brightest in the gene pool, or “awkward looking people” focus on learning to make up for their physical challenges…I dont know. Many people have postulated theories for this or that concept for decades but always, its just a generalization with so many exceptions (on both sides of the equation), that it simply doesnt hold much water. </p>
<p>The bottom line is “never judge a book by its cover.”</p>
<p>^^ It seems to me that you judge the quality of a persons character but their intellectual achievements and goals rather then their genuine personality.</p>
<p>In a sense, I think that’s just as wrong as judging someone by aesthetics.</p>
<p>I understand the motivations for all the responses so far, but student01 did ask a straightforward question, and I’ll try to provide my best try at a straightforward answer.</p>
<p>No, I’ve come to the conclusion that the opposite is true. I’ve sat at outdoor tables at Harvard on move-in day during two falls and watched new students go by, and I’ve been struck by how physically attractive they are. First of all, they appear to be a remarkably fit group. Because I’m from the South where much of the diet is deep-fried, I’m accustomed to seeing a significant number of obese people in any group of a certain size. Obesity is rare at Harvard, and I’ve noticed that it seems rare at other selective campuses I’ve visited. On the one hand, outstanding students know the things to do to keep in shape and maintain themselves for the best results in both wellness and appearance, but most importantly, they have a high degree of self-discipline. It appears to me that they tend in greater numbers - male and female - to act on the principles of diet and exercise that enhance attractiveness.</p>
<p>But what you perceive may have more to do with patterns of behavior rather than actual physical appearance. It seems to me that students at highly-selective campuses are less likely to spend a great deal of time and effort on make-up, clothes, hair, etc. Here in Georgia, you’ll find a lot of impeccably-done up students who clearly spend a lot of time in front of the mirror. You’d probably take special notice of female students who are dressed to impress, because they’re still wearing sundresses in November. Meanwhile, up at Harvard, students are wearing sweatpants with either hoodies or North Face jackets, and they typically don’t look as if they’re chronic preeners. You may not get the first impression that you would down here. But if you thought about it, you’d probably realize that the percentage of average-looking people, good-looking people, and exceptional-looking people are about the same in both places; again, with the exception that the students at the more rigorous schools are more likely to be in good shape. That’s my take on it.</p>
<p>Thanks, gadad.</p>
<p>EDIT: didn’t read all of what gadad wrote. it’s basically my theory, ha!</p>
<p>less attractive people tend to be less social. instead of filling up their time like the social kids do with parties (just an example), they spend their time studying, reading, writing, entering contests, etc. where the environment is more academically based (not judged on appearance). </p>
<p>so while the playing field is equal inherently for everyone (including good-looking people), there are more less-attractive people who pursue academics, leading them to prestigious universities. </p>
<p>of course, this isn’t to say that there aren’t many attractive people who do pursue academics. these people tend to be the most successful. confident both socially and academically, leading them to the best universities because they aren’t limited in any way… (Harvard as gadad mentioned). </p>
<p>the smart gene doesn’t come with the ugly gene, just as the dumb gene doesn’t come with the attractive gene. more of a nurture thing than nature.</p>
<p>p.s. just a theory. don’t hate!!</p>
<p>Yeah, I can see what you’re saying. Behavior does play a big role for perceiving “hotness”. There may be some neutrally-attractive males/females but the way they behave/attitude pushes them over to either hot or not.</p>
<p>I agree with gadad. However, I have to admit that 19 year old college students look a lot better to me now than when I was 19 myself. Almost everyone looks gorgeous at my alma mater. Didn’t used to be that way!
But I think that there is a widespread belief that people going to tippy-top colleges are unattractive or socially out-of-it. In my experience people have reacted with surprise that heavy drinking goes on in the Ivy League.
My daughter’s picture appeared in our city’s newspaper about the time she was admitted to Princeton. People who knew she was about to go to Princeton but hadn’t met her were astonished at how good looking she was. One of my friends put it this way- “People think if you were smart enough to go to a school like that, you must of been hit with the ugly stick”.</p>
<p>The hottest girl in my graduating class is at Yale right now.</p>
<p>well, Yes.</p>
<p>just check out the various websites that rate colleges, and two of the rankings will usually be “hot babes” and “hot guys”.</p>
<p>Those rankings are pretty accurate from what I’ve seen in my experience. There’s no value judgement there. I happen to think phyical attractiveness is overplayed. In fact, I might prefer to hire someone less attractive because I’m prejudiced about an attractive person’s work ethic or intelligence. I’m not actually, but it is a common prejudice that gives rise to the “dumb blond” jokes. The stereotypes about the attractiveness of students in the arts/humanities vs. sciences are there for a reason, with social sciences in between. </p>
<p>Attractiveness <em>is</em> in the eye of the beholder, and there are significant cultural biases in terms of skin tone, nose shape, head shape, body type, hair color, etc. This does not change the fact that it is an important criterion in mate selection, and backing up just a step, dating and socializing. Attractiveness by definition means: minimal variation from the mean.</p>
<p>Do we have any words from ppl who attend Ivy league colleges? Are chicks there any ‘different’ from the ones you’d see at good public universities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering like 30 of my classmates are at Ivies right now, I think I have a pretty good idea; they’re not really any different, just more motivated and harder workers. The majority of the attractive girls from my graduating class are not at Ivies, but several are.</p>
<p>This is a moronic thread.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s moronic, like the ones that incessantly ask “How hot are the (girls / guys - pick one) at ___________ ?” The question here is whether the common perception that brains are inversely proportional to physical attractiveness has any merit. The answer is clearly “no,” but I’d suppose that the assumption of that inverse relationship is responsible for a lot of middle school students with great intellectual potential intentionally hiding or undermining their potential out of fear of social rejection.</p>
<p>gadad:</p>
<p>There are at least two questions of interest here:</p>
<ol>
<li>Are brains inversely proportional to physical attractiveness</li>
<li>Do the social rewards attendant to physical attractiveness influence a young person’s choices in developing intellectually/educationally? I have heard that intelligent middle school girls are known to purposely perform poorly on tests so as to avoid the “smart girl” label. I suppose middle school boys could as well, depending on their peer group expectations.</li>
</ol>
<p>Personally, I honestly think there would be more physically attractive guys than girls at more prestigious universities. This is because not much social emphasis is placed on a guy’s looks (especially among other guys) as much as it is on girls.</p>
<p>Thus, a really hot guy could be totally nerdy all his life and never get a gf, whereas it’s unlikely to find a really hot girl who is totally nerdy that never gets a bf.</p>
<p>In fact, this is somewhat similar to my situation (a guy).</p>
<p>jk about what i said above</p>