<p>First things first. My post might have came out offensive - I personally apologise about that, please forgive me. I didn't mean for it to come across that way, and if you're a girl at CMU sorry for stereotyping based on useless websites.</p>
<p>Second of all, CMU's still at the top of my list. To the poster who mentioned it, I meant CMU was at the bottom of their list. It's still a great school with all the offerings that I want. </p>
<p>The general concensus is that if you're a guy at CMU it's quite difficult to get hooked up. Yeah well I suppose there's still the UPitt and Dupresne girls.</p>
<p>who would want to go to a school with a bunch of ugly people... i dont care how shallow this post sounds or how offended all the ugly people get or how politically incorrect it is ...</p>
<p>maybe all those girls at cmu should start combing their hair and brushing their teeth and **** to make themselves presentable... and being a nerd who does nothing but homework is not a good excuse either.. girls at better schools than CMU look better</p>
<p>im not afraid to say it .. looks do matter... all things being equal, i would choose a school with a student body that is aware of their appearance and socially competent over the school with nerds who cant dress themselves or speak properly</p>
<p>obviously this does not apply to every single person at CMU... and throwing a hissy fit and arguing about how cruel the OP etc rather than looking at this objectively is another issue in and of itself...</p>
<p>now im not saying this should be the sole issue to pick a college on... hell, im going to CMU... but if i had the choice of all things being equal i would pick the campus with social and attractive people, because theyre easier to live with, more fun to be around, and more appealing to look at.</p>
<p>and one more note to **** off you people...</p>
<p>why does no one get offended when someone comes on here and says how stupid people at their local community college are? intelligence is similar to looks in many respects.. youre either born with or without it.. they are both criticisms of genes out of our control are they not?</p>
<p>the answer is that people here are smart but not all are good looking. so when someone comments on dumb people it is no biggie because yea were smarter... but when someone comments on looks notice how it turns into a moral crusade... because people need to feel superior in every way and justify themselves.. and if they cant do it then it should not even matter</p>
<p>right?</p>
<p>and why are girls who put effort into their appearance ditzy? and who is to say being a loser and sitting alone doing homework is better than socializing? is that possibly because you(krazykow) would rather sit and do homework than.. <em>gasp</em>.. put effort into looking attractive and become a complete bimbo by doing so? and if the girls at CMU can look so great than why dont they skip a few meetings of the DDR club and buy some new clothes...?</p>
<p>As a girl at CMU I would agree with the flipped version of sabertoothtiger...
All the decent guys "have girlfriends back home", and the single ones generally (and unfortunately) fall into the socially awkward/smelly category.</p>
<p>I would say that based on couples I know, CMUers start dating each other later in college.</p>
<p>"and why are girls who put effort into their appearance ditzy? and who is to say being a loser and sitting alone doing homework is better than socializing? is that possibly because you(krazykow) would rather sit and do homework than.. <em>gasp</em>.. put effort into looking attractive and become a complete bimbo by doing so? and if the girls at CMU can look so great than why dont they skip a few meetings of the DDR club and buy some new clothes...?"</p>
<p>Haha I agree and I too am coming to CMU. It's not the most important factor but it's certainly a factor. Looks matter....they'll matter in school, throughout your career and in life. Deal with it. </p>
<p>Haha and KrazyKow although it may be hard for you to comprehend, its quite possible to manage looking after yourself and finishing your school work.
<em>gasp</em> There actually are people that are both intelligent and good-looking.....</p>
<p>yeah, I have to say that I am more bothered by the suggestion that well dressed, well groomed girls are ditzy than that CMU's female population is ugly. I HATE being stereotyped as a bimbo because I'm blonde, and I tend to look pretty put together. I will brush my teeth before class, and I will probably not be wearing pajamas. And yet, I will also do really well in class. I don't see why CMU girls would have to choose between being attractive and intelligent...</p>
And if you're actually in SCS or CIT and care about your grades, don't worry - you won't have time for a full-time girlfriend anyway.
</p>
<p><em>wave</em></p>
<p>But you're right about most single girls ceasing to be so within the first few weeks. It's like a protracted, nerve-wracking game of musical chairs.</p>
<p>Lbtg47: the issue here is that it's offensive to blithely stereotype CMU people (whether guys or girls) as being ugly, which is what OP was apparently doing. I'm not going to deny that looks do matter, or that a good proportion of people at CMU put little effort into their appearance. The stereotype is offensive, though, whether true or not.</p>
<p>If you are planning on going to CMU later, but have not actually been there for at least a semester, feel free to refrain from posting about how attractive the stereotypical girls are. This just makes sound stupid.
On another note, I have met girls from nearby schools (Pitt and Duchesne) at parties, and in general they aren't very intelligent, they are mostly interested in getting drunk. I would not count on meeting a future Mrs. at one of these parties</p>
<p>I'm not saying that CMU girls don't brush their hair and teeth and never shower. In fact, most guys seem to handle that pretty well, too. I'm saying that most CMU girls won't wake up early to spend an hour styling their hair and doing their makeup. To me, this seems quite fair- it's generally acceptable for guys to spend no more than 5 minutes on their hair in the morning and not wear makeup, so why should girls be expected to spend so much time on their appearance? There is a difference between being presentable (and sanitary) and trying to be as attractive as you can be.</p>
<p>If I shouldn't sterotype good looking girls as ditzy, you shouldn't sterotype 'bad' looking girls as being members of the DDR club. I apologize for sterotyping, wishmeluck. And I'm all for buying new clothes, as many people are, but some of us have trouble seeing the logic in spending $100 on jeans (what's wrong with cheaper ones?) or wearing miniskirts in December (doesn't it get kind of cold without even tights on?), but these things seem to be important to fashion.</p>
<p>Homework can be a social thing, actually, messenger. I've had 5-10 people in my room before, working together on difficult homework problems. Anyways, ugly girls and not-hot girls can have social skills, too. Actually, it's probably more likely that extracurriculars and sleep displace hair and makeup time, and extracurriculars are usually somewhat social activities.</p>
<p>All things being equal, I think everyone would pick the more attractive campus. But with picking colleges, nothing is ever all things being equal.</p>
<p>"well I spend like a good half hour getting ready as a guy but I’m in high school"</p>
<p>If that's shower included you're still A-ok.. jk my dad takes about an hour and a half to get ready so I guess that’s not too bad. Once again we are just stereotyping that it takes guys 5 minutes to get ready. If I’m not taking a shower I just put on gym shorts, a tank top, brush my teeth and I’m done (that’s where the sterotype comes from).</p>
<p>"As a girl at CMU I would agree with the flipped version of sabertoothtiger...
All the decent guys "have girlfriends back home""</p>
<p>yep sorry girls Im takin ;)</p>
<p>But seriously</p>
<p>"and why are girls who put effort into their appearance ditzy? "</p>
<p>They aren’t... but from my experience I could probably safely say that dizty girls put effort into their appearance.</p>
<p>Everyone here has it backwards. It's not necessarily hott=ditzy but more so that ditzy=hott although there is still ditzy not so good looking girls.
Back in my post I compared ditzy vs good personality because ditzy is a personality and is not neccasarily comparable or related to looks.</p>
<p>Things everyone learned from this post.
Stereotypes should be used on groups not individuals.
There is at least one hott girl at CMU.
There are hott=smart=nice girls
There are ugly=dumb=mean girls
There is everything in between
Don't choose you're school based on looks
This thread is dumb
I'm taken</p>
<p>This notion that everyone at CMU needs to "start combing their hair and brushing their teeth and **** to make themselves presentable" is absurd. There are all different kinds of people at CMU -- 5000 undergrads and even more graduate students from a variety of backgrounds and majors. To meet someone who is noticably unshowered is pretty rare (I know maybe 3 or 4 guys like this, and they're not exactly the most popular people on campus). Most people look and act pretty normal, even in SCS.</p>
<p>I haven't seen many CC threads about "how stupid people at their local community college are", but I don't think it's very prevalent if it exists at all. That doesn't make it cool to stereotype large groups of people based on stuff you've read online. If you really don't like how people act or look, just don't associate with them. It's not like you're being forced to hang out with ugly or dumb people or even go to CMU in the first place.</p>
<p>Errr... well, it all depends on how smart or efficient you are, what courses you're taking, the extent of your involvement in research and extracurriculars, how demanding the other person is, whether you're taking the same courses as the other person, etc. A lot of cmu couples that I know of are in the same classes and spend a lot of time together doing homework.</p>
<p>so you're telling me, that you are going to pick a school based, not on the education one recieves, but rather on superficial properties? I am sorry man, but that is really shallow...</p>
<p>The OC said later
"First things first. My post might have came out offensive - I personally apologise about that, please forgive me. I didn't mean for it to come across that way, and if you're a girl at CMU sorry for stereotyping based on useless websites.</p>
<p>Second of all, CMU's still at the top of my list. To the poster who mentioned it, I meant CMU was at the bottom of their list. It's still a great school with all the offerings that I want. </p>
<p>The general concensus is that if you're a guy at CMU it's quite difficult to get hooked up. Yeah well I suppose there's still the UPitt and Dupresne girls."</p>
<p>Honestly, people are making a big deal about something of which they know nothing. Out of the 100+ people I've seen in my class (2010) on facebook, there are maybe 3 or 4 truly ugly girls. And I can't even know if they're hideous or maybe they're just not photogenic. The rest of the girls are normal, and there are quite a few that are attractive. I have no idea why the girls were ranked at a D+, but last time I checked, rankings are pretty unreliable. The site creators probably asked some anti-social jerk and that's it. </p>
<p>Stop obsessing. If you don't hook up/have a girlfriend, it's not the fault of the school, it's your own fault. Chances are, you wouldn't hook up at any other school either.</p>