<p>I thought some schools do require a picture attached. In order to evaulate things base off what is submitted on application.</p>
<p>I almost feel like in some cases there might be a bias AGAINST really attractive people. A subconscious jealousy thing, or the irrational belief that beautiful can't also have legitimate skills. But this'd be a really tiny, almost imperceptible bias. :P</p>
<p>Of course looks matter! Not conciously, most of the time, but still. We're genetically programmed to judge people based on their looks (smart healthy non-diseased mate v. smart one that is ugly). So with two identically qualified girls, one hot the other not, the hot one will most likely get picked IF it comes down to one or the other.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that a female admin would necessarily pick the ugly chick. As a girl, I find that girls are more willing to assosciate with the prettier girls.</p>
<p>In any case, ugly people likely won't be the exact same as pretty ones. A pretty person will be shaped by the people around them, for better or worse. They might be super vibrant and over-acheiving, encouraged by their peers and seniors. Then again, they may become popular and get dragged down by the wrong people. </p>
<p>An ugly person might hone their intellect and ec's because it's all they have, or they might give up and be complete sloths.</p>
<p>Looks DO matter.</p>
<p>Have to agree with IBB above. I think that physically attractive candidates of either gender may draw a somewhat more positive response from interviewers, who may be completely unaware of the fact that they have let physical appearance impact their assessment. Similarly, poise, polish, and maturity will generate positive responses, but the interviewer will readily be able to say that they were impressed with the candidate because s/he was so "poised." Candidates who can add poise to physical attractiveness generally "pwn" interviewers (as my 14-year-old likes to say).</p>
<p>First of all, not many top schools (except for maybe Columbia) ask for photos, so how would they know if you're smoking hot or not (maybe the interviewer would say something about it! lolz).</p>
<p>Second of all, yes, I am smoking hott, and I will use that factor relentlessly and shamelessly to my advantage ;)</p>
<p>Dr. Gregory House stated why hot girls - especially smart ones - have a distinct advantage.</p>
<p>I'm hugely paraphrasing here, but "You're hot, and you're a doctor. Actually, you're so hot you could've just gone to college, found a smart guy, married him and been set for life. But you're smart and a doctor, so that means you really love it."
Hot is good. Smart is good. Hot and smart is better :)</p>
<p>Well whatever your interviewer writes about you on that little pad of paper carries a lot of weight. They most likely won't write down "smokin' hot", but they might write down slightly better stuff because they get a better feeling from you. Also, better looking people DO tend to have more self-confidence and poise.</p>
<p>and hookem168, me too. me too.</p>
<p>but really, it's not like the interviewer is thinking "ooh, she's hottttt. Im letting her in!" or "man, I wonder what HE looks like without his shirt on"</p>
<p>1) because it would be very creepy because the majority of their applicants are 13/14 years of age and the admins are generally like at least 3 times that</p>
<p>2) because most people don't realize the subconscious preferential treatment they give to good-looking, charismatic people.</p>
<p>I have to agree with lunar_years. I think that there's probably more bias against hot girls than the other way around. However, I think a hot guy would have an advantage over a less attractive one.</p>
<p>Yes. A hot guy would have more advantages than a hot girl, because guys don't tend to be as jealous of each other.</p>
<p>But honestly, I think anyone who looks average, but comes off as classy and personable-- would have an advantage in <em>college</em> over someone who comes off as a hot ditz (even if they really aren't.)</p>
<p>depending on the personality of Girl a vs. Girl b
Hot girls usually exert more confidence and are better socializers haha
Beat girls are the opposite and therefore lack social skills
I know..both stereotypic statements but lets get real
yes, there are times when these statements are false but! for the most part they play true.
Best bet...if you lack social skills and very nervous play it safe and avoid an intreview
but my philosophy is that if a person aquires a great personality and is a good person.intreviews are beneficial if your hot or ugly!</p>
<p>Most of you are thinking , " who the @#@$ does this kid think he is" haha
Dont take me seriously... im just writing bull$%#@.</p>
<p>I must confess my DD, a cheerleader has had many doors of opportunity opened because of her looks, but it was her intelligence that encouraged others to invite her in!</p>
<p>Speaking as a girl who interviewed people before, i'd surely be more 'lenient' towards good looking guys. Why? Cause it's human nature and you just can't help it. Lol</p>
<p>If i meet a hot girl, i'd tend to be more reserved. Yes hot girls tend to have better social skills, but many of them also tend to overdo it and become pompous and downright annoying. I personally find certain hand gestures that girls who're attractive (or think that they are) do very annoying (watch Paris Hilton, or Tatiana Del Toro & Bikini Girl on American Idol). Things like that subconsciously turn an interviewer off and do not work in your favor.</p>
<p>Even in school and in life, hotness or attractiveness can work both ways. Hot girls attract attention, that's for sure, but not all kinds of attention are good. Some other girls can find you threatening, or an object for intense jealousy, to the extent that they might sabotage you and make your life miserable. I find that beauty + brains + ambition can be a recipe for both the most amazing successes and most terrible disasters all at the same time. Lol</p>
<p>This is probably why interviews do count in admission, but not that much.</p>
<p>Of Course looks play a tacit role in college admissions. Colleges are very concerned with their images, and none want to be branded as a school with "ugly" students (Uchicago may be ambivalent). Also, statistically speaking, attractiveness does correlates with success. Why do you think georgetown asks for a picture of each applicant?</p>
<p>I think the smarter you are, the less attention you pay to your appearance. It can take a LOT of time for a girl to look fresh and attractive (hair, nails, make-up, clothes-shopping, job to pay for clothes, etc) Time that wouldn't be spent on studying or reading for pleasure. If you're really smart, you grew up loving to read and learn! There would have been a lot of positive reinforcement in this regard, so looking good would come second.</p>
<p>Also, if you look great, it increases your opportunities for an active social life, which in turn takes time while increasing your exposure to alcohol, drugs and social drama (being in a relationship and/or having your heart broken in your junior year of high school can be life-changing!) So anyway, I think it actually works against people for gpa and sat potential, becoz school can easily be put on a backburner. If you don't get an interview in the first place, being really attractive isn't going to help you!</p>
<p>I'm sure that if it were true, CC would be all over it and start a thread saying "Does this seem FAIR to you?" Then there'd he huge affirmative action debates on beauty. </p>
<p>Ah yes.</p>
<p>^^ I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.</p>
<p>Just because it seems ridiculous, and not many people have thought about it before, doesn't mean you can discount it as a valid theory.</p>
<p>I think that the best thing (look-wise) is to be above-average, but not like supermodely. So that if you took no time with your appearance and let it go to pot, you would be ugly, but wwhen you do your hair and such (which is such a chore for me becuase straightening it takes soooooooooo long because it is thick and curly), you look good. Guys definitely have it easier. </p>
<p>This way, you look good and make a nice impression in your interview, but you wont have the negative effects that might come with being too good-looking.
The only con might be that you see yourself as less-than becuase you have been surrounded by better-looking people for your whole life.</p>
<p>On College ******* - which many college kids use to find the inside scoop on how the various campus feel - Girls and Guys are graded pretty brutally. I would think that a Campus that was full of ugly girls/ guys by reputation would love to accept the diversity of a hottie. Perhaps most hot kids look for schools with other hot kids - their comfort zone? Unattractive kids find a campus full of unattractive kids less intimidating? There certainly seems to be a general view that southern schools have more attractive, fit kids than most.</p>