<p>Ok so I have a somewhat dumb question but it's justifiable in a way.
Basically say 2 kids(Boy A and Boy B) have the same stats and are both applying to School X, School X wants to have a diverse student body like most schools do. They decide to admit Boy B and rejects Boy A because he happens to be more attractive and has a better image that the school might want. So does being attractive give you an edge in the application process because I'm sure schools like Andover and Exeter don't want to just admit nerds who are ugly?</p>
<p>And I know that looking good will NOT gain you admissions to a competitive boarding school, as I said I was wondering if it may give you an edge if compared to a ugly applicant ?</p>
<p>Note: This is not a discriminatory question or statement to nerds/geeks/ugly people so please don't be hatin' on me because I was curious.</p>
<p>I think that they wouldn’t want horribly ugly people like disgusting but I think they would be more lenient for ugly people if he/she has a good personality and the beautiful person doesn’t. They have to accept some beautiful people for the viewbooks and for touring families but I don’t think they don’t accept ugly people. It really depends on what you define as ugly and how ugly person B is. Weird conversation.</p>
<p>No obviously schools have to accept a few ugly people, a few average joes and some attractive looking people but would being attractive give you an edge? I wonder lol…</p>
<p>Well IDK if admission officers would be as shallow as to pick a beautiful applicant over an ugly one but in reality this wouldn’t occur because it is impossible for two applicants to have the same stats in everything. Beautifulness may come in to play when they admission officers are discussing applicants. The interviewer may have a slightly sour taste to an ugly applicant rather than a beautiful one and may let this prejudice affect how they campaign for an individual.</p>
<p>I think it would help you if u had a good personality and had an attractiveness. It would definitely be a bonus for them.</p>
<p>Mmh so Ugly + Good Personality < Good looking with Good Personallity and Ugly + Good Personallity > Good Looking with shallow/bad personallity. Do you guys agree ?</p>
<p>How do they even know what you look like unless they look you up on Facebook or something?</p>
<p>Well most schools encourage you to give a photo with your application and plus the interviewer might write down a description of what you look like.</p>
<p>Okay, so first of all, this imaginary world where we find two applicants who are identical except for just one thing: it doesn’t exist. </p>
<p>Nor is it a useful hypothetical because the admissions offices don’t play “battle of the bands” with applications, choosing A or B. Yes, you’re competing for limited spaces with other applicants, but that’s not meant to imply that the Dean of Admissions throws two applications down on the table and has them duke it out, head-to-head, to see which of the two get the one last admit for the year.</p>
<p>What’s more, they admit more applicants than they have space for…and if you have two otherwise equally qualified applicants (which, again, just doesn’t happen) then, even if there was one seat left for that year’s admission class (and, again, it just doesn’t happen that way during the regular admission cycle) they’d both get the same result.</p>
<p>Finally…have you seen the number of applications they have to sift through? Even if you had an admission office that processed applications in the way that’s presumed here, they’re not going to add yet another sieve/step to factor in a new criteria (good looks) and then go through the piles of applications to find similar-ish applications where they can then find the better-looking of the two and admit that one to the exclusion of the other. There’s just not enough time in the day for them to bother with that.</p>
<p>If the applications are that similar, the result would be the same. But if there is a different outcome, then it will be because of some other, meaningful distinction, which – no matter how many times people come up with hypotheticals that eliminate such distinctions – is always present in the files and adcom notes.</p>
<p>Did you see the title of the thread? If so, you will recognize that it is a dumb question that is yes immature but I was wondering hypothetically if this would ever happen. What’s more being attractive can help you somewhat a bit for viewbooks and DVD’s. Anyways I declare this thread closed because it’s too controversial.</p>
<p>Normally, when people say they are asking a “dumb question” they’re mistaken in their judgment. And I see nothing controversial here, nor is it immature, but – yeah – there’s no point in batting it around any further as it has about 0 touchpoints to the real world.</p>
<p>As I said it is controversial because some can say that it relates to the real world. And just so you know the Andover Adcoms go a bit like this- they put a pile of 20 Apps Spreadout on the floor. They compare them and take the ones they like into a provissionary admit pile, they do this process again from the provissionary admit pile and finish with a complete and final admit pile. Obviously I think in all 3-4 People read an entire application and the Dean of Admissions reads every single one. This was a shortened version of their Admissions Cycle, it’s somewhere on the Andover website if you want to read about it.</p>
<p>I believe that the effects on their acceptance or rejection of their looks will be found in the indirect factors that are related to looks. When you are talking to someone more attractive it is often easier to pay attention and understand their point just because you are paying more attention. People of normal looks are more likely to be socially accepted and more social, and I think that helps a good bit with interviews. </p>
<p>I may be completely wrong.</p>
<p>I actually think this is a great question. If you google physical attractiveness and success, you’ll find numerous studies correlating the two in all kinds of settings. There are two ways, as I see it, that physical attractiveness could affect the admissions process:</p>
<p>First, and most obviously, it might well lead to a better interview</p>
<p>Second, it might lead to success in other areas–better grades, leadership positions in ec’s and sports, etc. (though your original hypothetical examples made your two candidates equal, as D’yer points out, there’s not such thing in real life)</p>
<p>Way back in the dark ages when I was getting my masters in ed., we read several studies about the way that teacher’s surface-level impressions of students affect the way they treat and even grade those students. While I don’t think many of us like to admit that looks affect our perceptions, the evidence tells us we do. I just try to keep my inborn biases in mind.</p>
<p>That said, there’s a broad spectrum of attractiveness–I don’t think you have to be homecoming queen or king to make a good impression. Good grooming and a good smile go a long way :)</p>
<p>It’s well known from psychology studies that attractive people get selected more often for all opportunities whether it be jobs, schools etc. At the interview, I think being attractive would be a plus in terms of a favorable impression, but obviously, one would need more than looks to get in to a top tier BS.</p>
<p>first of all admissions people meet with thousands of students for interviews, i doubt they will remember every face of every average joe, and even if they somehow did, i doubt when it comes down to it, they would be like " Hey lets admit joe a after all he is much better looking than joe b" seems a little too shallow to be plausible.</p>
<p>Well, if they have the same EVERYTHINGs (say their interviews and everything were exactly the same), I’m pretty sure the Admissions Committee wouldn’t look at the person’s appearance, because that’s just kind of, well, shallow and not very nice, considering the fact that they should have an equal chance at getting in. But like RBGG said, if they were to look at the person’s appearance, the ‘nicer’ looking one would probably get in.</p>
<p>The point that both RBGG and I were making is that while hardly anyone would intentionally choose one candidate over another based on appearance, almost all of us would rate the attractive person higher without realizing consciously that we were doing it. There have been many, many studies documenting this effect.</p>