<p>I can understand why teens pose questions on college forums regarding the physical attractiveness of the students on different campuses (immaturity, shallowness) - but why in the world do some "informal" college guides have such ratings? To quote some lines from the College Prowl-r "Off the Record" books: "Don't come to campus looking for an abundance of hotties." "College X does have a reputation for having guys who are more attractive than the girls." "Y Univ. can definitely be considered somewhat of a meat market - not only are the campus facilities aestectically pleasing, but the students who attend are equally beautiful." "As well as having a lot of 'eye candy,' the student body is very friendly." </p>
<p>What student would use that random factor as a criterion for college selection? It's one thing to learn about a campus' culture and personality, but physical appearance? Most admissions officers don't even know what the bulk of the applicants look like! Not only that, but every year, there is a 25% student turnover.</p>
<p>Did you ever here about how they cast for "dirty" movies? its "good looking" girls and "average" to ugly guys, so the guys think it could be them</p>
<p>When ever someone asks about looks when it comes to colleges, i just tell them to grow up. To the point.</p>
<p>There are many books out there that give the numbers about college - x undergads, y majors and the average SAT is z. I think these books are trying to differentiate themselves from the pack. If the prospective students are concerned with the attractiveness of the student body and are willing to pay for that info, chances are someone will write about it. With "over 100,000 copies sold", College Prowl'r seems to have a substantial market.</p>
<p>I wouldn't really call it a random factor, perhaps one I won't consider next year (I'm a junior), but not random. Lots of students chose schools because the campuses are beautiful, some extend that to include the people on campus.</p>
<p>First of all - some schools require photos to accompany the application, and those colleges tend to have more attractive students. The bias for attractive people has been well-documented in studies.</p>
<p>Second of all, I think it could be a consideration for some students - and not as a shallow thing. I would not be comfortable at a school where my size 4 figure makes me chunky and the girls spend hours primping every day. Then again, I like my skirts and wouldn't want to go somewhere that I would be looked at askance because I wasn't wearing tie-dye and dreds. </p>
<p>There are some really, really "beautiful people" on the undergrad side of my school. Perfect teeth, perfect figures, C-cups, and Ralph Lauren every day. Not for me to be among them - but there are people who would recognize those who share their values and habits and be comfortable around them.</p>
<p>Photographs to accompany applications...hmmm I know that Brown has that option. Does that really work? I don't think so :P</p>
<p>Now Colgate and Midd on the other hand, how do those schools wind up with models? My best bet is that a prospective who isn't comfortable in her own skin and looks WOULD NOT want to be part of an attractive student body. So therefore, if a prospective feels that s/he can handle that kind of unconscious pressure, then more power to him/her.</p>
<p>Partially, it's about economics: the wealthy kids can afford the dental surgery and the plastic surgery. They can also afford the nice clothes.</p>
<p>There's somewhat of a campus environment issue: the more athletic schools (like Williams) place a lower emphasis on outward signs of wealth, of which beauty is one. I imagine that, generally, more Greek life would equate to more pressure to look good.</p>
<p>I agree with ticklemepink. I know I am not stunningly beautiful nor do I have a perfect body, so I don't want to surround myself with people who look substantially better than I do. </p>
<p>I think it's also a guy thing. Looks are not the major factor for me in a relationship, and I don't care about eye candy. Sometimes I think kids on this forum fail to realize that more beautiful girls on campus doesn't necessarily increase their chance of getting one.</p>
<p>Yes, Brown did in fact have an optional page to submit your photo. However, I've been told by people that Brown students aren't very physically attractive.</p>
<p>There is a lot of evidence that good looking people do better at everything. The world wants them to succeed. There is a strong correlation between hight and business success--the taller the better. Kids often get interviewed for colleges, I bet the bias is there.</p>
<p>Quite simply, guides like that cant match more established guides like Fiske so no one would buy them for general information about academics, social life, scores, etc so they have to market themselves differently - as a place where you can get "the dirt" on the college. What people don't realize is that the way this information is harvested is by interviewing a small number of students, who might often end up either exagerrating or saying ridiculous things and that those really are just a few people's opinions on the school.</p>
<p>imo, it definitely makes sense that teenagers would consider what a student body looks like when making a college decision. for instance, if you generally have high standards on physical level regarding who you will date, it would make sense that you would want to go to a school known for having more attractive students. i don't think it can be chalked down to immaturity or shallowness, because even adults take those things into account when choosing a mate, an employee, etc. i do, however, believe that it should be one of the least important factors when choosing a school.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I can understand why teens pose questions on college forums regarding the physical attractiveness of the students on different campuses (immaturity, shallowness) - but why in the world do some "informal" college guides have such ratings?<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>You answered your own question. The guides have these ratings because teens pose the question in the first place. They want to sell as many guides (or get as many on-line clicks) as possible, not only to the serious students but the shallow and immature ones as well.</p>
<p>I take as much glee in harpooning the bloated egos on the "Any Hot Chicks Going to Chicago?" threads as anybody on this board But I believe fit for some (not all) could include the opportunity for a dating life , if that is a meaningful part of the college experience to you. I believe that most students who plan on dating in college will make some measurement of the available resources and the prevailing dating vs. random hookup philosophy. </p>
<p>So, I guess I take the contrary position to some. Potential dating partners is a reasonable search question. I believe that a traditional dating life is somewhat rare on some campuses . If you desire that at Random Hook-Up U, you may be very disappointed in your social options.</p>
<p>Now, Hottie U wouldn't pass muster in my book anymore than Un-Dateable College. A school should get pummeled for makeup and perfect clothes at an 8:00 class as much as a school with the students who don't take any care in their appearance to the point of being un-hygenic . I've seen both.</p>