<p>There's a thread on that scholarific.</p>
<p>What About The Best Looking Guys???</p>
<p>I'm right here...but if you wanted more options someone else started a thread about guys:</p>
<p>haha thanks</p>
<p>B Brown University Providence, RI</p>
<p>Laughable. I've been here for the semester and have seen MAYBE five hot girls on the entire campus. Every guy I've talked to here is in agreement. . .D at best.</p>
<p>Tulane and LSU both deserve A+s. Didn't see Tulane on the list, probably not higher than a B+/A- because of last year's senior girls (AHHH) but the incoming freshman class is gorgeous.</p>
<p>beautiful doesn't always mean stupid, there's plenty of hot people who aren't part of the typical sketchy college party scene.</p>
<p>(I go to ASU, and my heart gets broken about fifty times when walking across campus)</p>
<p>stupid doesn't always mean beautiful either, thanks to the state of Kentucky we don't have to argue this point!</p>
<p>C- MIT Cambridge, MA</p>
<p>B Wellesley College Wellesley, MA</p>
<p>A Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA --- dam n
A- University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA --- dam n
A- College of the Holy Cross Worcester, MA --- dam n
A- Emerson College Boston, MA --- dam n
A- Northeastern University Boston, MA --- dam n
too much competition!!!</p>
<p>but this is not fair.... wellesley girls dont "look nice" most of times cuz there's no guys in class... i walk around in pjs all day long... or sweathshirts and sweatpants... and wear no makeup... who am i trying to impress?? my female professor? only on the weekend do i actually wear something nice... its a waste of good clothe on the weekdays</p>
<p>I disagree with morada on one note-there are plenty of hot girls that don't party, but a whole lot of them do, and I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with intelligence. (unless they are flashing their boobs about, then they may not be so smart) Being smart and partying are almost entirely unrelated. Being smart and smoking pot, now there's a correlation for you.</p>
<p>And I do agree on another point. Beautiful does not always mean stupid, but it if she isn't stupid she is probably a beotch. "Fat on the inside" as ,my friends and I would say.</p>
<p>Eh...I don't agree with this. Harvey Mudd has a C+. But I find the girls there more attractive than most of the other girls I've known. Or maybe it's because their personalities click with me more.</p>
<p>Hotter girls tend to party alot in college since they're used to partying in high school where looks determined a person's social status. The girls that are going crazy at college parties though tend to be the average ones that weren't cool enough to party in high school so now they're trying to go as wild as possible to reaffirm their self esteem. The cooler hotter girls tend to be more in vibe at parties. I'm not sure how that relates, but someone mentioned parties in relation to hot girls. The hot girls that dont party are exceptions since even good looking girls that dont drink will attend parties and social events; there's no such thing as a hot girl that doesnt go out with friends unless its beauty in the eye of the beholder nonsense.</p>
<p>I didn't say that parties were bad, just the sketchy ones.</p>
<p>from bible study to the most horrendous frat party imaginable, you will find attractive people</p>
<p>So this list should be telling the not-too-attractive girls where to go to school - at ones where, by comparison, they will be hot. (Damn, would probably have some reasonable fascimile of a love life if did not attend "B" college.)</p>
<p>haha, i enjoy your way of thinking ariesathena. and your quite right actually, if this list has any sort of credibility to it whatsoever, it would make sense that if you have your choice of all around great schools, that you take the one that you may be more inclined to have a better social life at, as well as education.</p>
<p>But, If everyone did what u said, then it would mess up the ratings. Hmmm, a never ending circle.</p>
<p>ariesathena: seriously.
going to an 'A+' school REALLY screws up your chances.
time for me to look into transferring to Carnegie Mellon or something.</p>
<p>I'm applying to carnegie mellon, ready to join the ranks of Extreme Ugliness I guess.</p>
<p>Girls who are "intelligent" aren't as "hot" as the dumb girls because the intelligent girls put less time into their appearance and more time into their studies. The girl who spent all night studying isn't as eager to apply sexy eyeliner for school the next morning as the girl who spent all night with her digital camera taking Myspace pictures that optimize her cleavage.</p>
<p>no, i know plenty of intelligent girls who are really hot. i haven't noticed the correlation...in fact, i know a lot of ugly girls who are really stupid too...i honestly think that intelligence has little to do with looks in general, except maybe if you are not intelligent, you have nothing else to do but to obsess over your looks so you may put more time into it...</p>
<p>Just ponder this idea...</p>
<p>Maybe that list details two diverging evolutionary paths for human females. There tend to be better looking girls at the bigger state schools, however, the "smart" girls (who focus on their smarts/future/success/accomplishments in order to procure more resources and a better environment to raise offspring in), who are fewer in number, go to the more selective schools. So the girl that wakes up early every morning to do her hair and put her makeup on (who tan, jog, become cheer-leaders, shop for clothing to make them look better) are (subconciously for the most part, although some girls do it knowingly) trying to attract the best male (in terms of status/resources/physical conditions) in order to give the best chances for their offspring. So you have two sets of females who achieve the same goal (successful yielding of offspring) through two distinctly different paths.</p>
<p>Of course this hypothesis paints broad strokes, and in the natural world nothing is black and white, but if there was a quantifiable way to take averages of something like this, I would argue (although it's my arguement) that this is somewhat true</p>
<p>However, this reasoning assumes your rational (and have had enough exposure to biological science) enough to accept that our bodies', as a multi-celled organisms, only purpose is to produce offspring.</p>
<p>(can you tell I like parenthesis?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Girls who are "intelligent" aren't as "hot" as the dumb girls because the intelligent girls put less time into their appearance and more time into their studies. The girl who spent all night studying isn't as eager to apply sexy eyeliner for school the next morning as the girl who spent all night with her digital camera taking Myspace pictures that optimize her cleavage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, some of the schools listed up there can be considered pretty good. University of Texas for example required kids to be in the top 10% of their class, so it's not like they're total idiots. UMich is generally understood as an all around good school. </p>
<p>lets take a look at the list.</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon D+</p>
<p>US News Ranking for Carnegie Mellon - 22</p>
<p>Northwestern B+
Vanderbilt A+
Yale B+
Stanford B-
Duke B
Harvard B-
Princeton B</p>
<p>all of the above schools ranked higher than Carnegie Mellon on the US News Rankings and the above grades (the A's, B+, etc are from the list of attractive girls). HYP have better looking girls than Carnegie Mellon and HYP are much harder to get into in comparison to Carnegie Mellon.</p>
<p>The conclusion I draw from the list isn't that good looking girls go to less selective schools. It's that schools with huge math and science focuses attract ugly girls (MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Cal Tech, Georgia Tech are all towards the bottom of the list)</p>