AMAZING! From TPR (paraphrased): Does Beauty Give an Applicant an Advantage?

[The Fly]

---

Members do not see this ad.

After reading another post on this site, I went to the tpr website's discussion. There I found the following post:

<a href="http://discuss.review.com/forums/Thread.cfm?CFApp=100&Thread_ID=270368&mc=15" target="_blank">TPR Discussion
Topic: Good looking male -- advantage ? </a>

It could be that my [medical] school is biased or that I pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the hotties. Or it could be that your perception is biased. Did you go to an expensive undergrad with a lot of rich kids. Rich kids tend to have rich daddies whose dissatisfaction with mediocrity often doesn't stop at their choice of mates, and whose reproductive options are above average. Net effect: rich babies are born better looking. Add better diet, braces, rhinoplasty, etc. and you have a population that's clearly above the aesthetic norm. If that's your sample population, it will bias your perception of how truly homely average is. ••

I think this post contains such absurd assertions that I feel I must hear what this group thinks?

Do people really think that if you have parents who are well off that you're somehow going to be
better looking??

MORE Importantly (and more relevant for this group): Do you think that if you're better looking that you will have an advantage (whether subconscious or not on the part of the interviewer) in your medical school interviews??

What do you all think ?!?

 

[HardlyDavidson]

Before we contemplate anything, let us distinguish good looks from appropriate hygiene. I think any biases made on the adcom's behalf are purely subconscious, but existent nonetheless. I also think if you remind an officer of someone they know and have a certain regard or disregard for, then taht might also reflect on their decision. Our brains are crazy crazy organs. All the while, if you look like **** and haven't combed your hair, you can kiss your chances goodbye.

 

[The Fly]

No. . . for argument's sake, lets just say hygiene is fine--we're talking about beautiful people vs. well, the rest of us... 🙂

 

[Jalby]

I would say it looks does give people an advantage in any interview session. A first impression can be very hard to overcome and the first things that people notice about you is how you look. So I think an interviewer, concously (I know, I'm a terrrible speller) or not, would take different approaches to a model versus a normal person. And I think that it would tend to favor the model.

As for rich people have prettier kids, not going to touch that one.

 

[Original]

I have to agree completely with OlympicGold and Jalbrekt. In a perfect world, looks will play absolutely no role in the med sch selection process. If anyone believes that looks have no effect (conscious or sub-conscious) on med-school admissions, then they've got to be kidding me! BTW this is general and holds true for everything from job interviews to auditions to whatever. There are reasons why people buy $300 -$1000 suits for interviews.

 

[StitchEM]

I have to observe at my school which does have a high proportion of old school southern frat boys(with their daddys money), that they may be good looking but much shorter than the norm like 5'4. It's really odd and makes you wonder about the inbreeding,,, 😀

 

[Original]

You perhaps go to Vandy right? Your whole class is probably related 😀 I go to school in Alabama and I'm ready to get out. I had a great time here though!

 

[Ditwee]

I have to wonder if not only 'looks', but also weight can plan a role in medical school admissions. Discrimination exists everywhere (even if only present at a subconscious level) and I wonder if an overweight interviewee is at a disadvantage. Because weight and health are so intertwined, one might question the public perception of a doctor who is overweight. Is that doctor unhealthy and how would his/her patients react to he/she? What are your thoughts on this?

 

[brandonite]

I would tend to think that looks do not play a large role in an interview. I think that there are a lot of other far more important things that can be easily determined (ie - MCATs, GPA, how they conducted themselves...). Assuming that people display proper grooming and hygiene, unless a person is on either side of the extreme, that looks won't play a large role in things.

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic here.

As to the question of weight - again, I think that unless a person is very overweight, that it shouldn't enter into the decision making procses. I think people today, especially interviewers who go through thousands of students, are too saavy to be swayed be such superficial things.

 

[Katie]

I think that whether or not being good-looking in the interview helps your chances depends on who you get as an interviewer. Generally, if you present yourself well and have good hygiene it helps a lot, obviously I guess. But I've noticed (and heard from others)that male interviewers often tend to be more favorably swayed by attractive females, while female interviewers might be more favorably impressed by good-looking male interviewees. I'm a reasonably attractive white female (meaning I often get hit on when I go out and people other than my mom tell me I'm pretty 😀 )and I got into the 2 schools where I had male interviewers when I applied but didn't get into any of the schools where I had female interviewers. Maybe a coincidence but can't say for sure as the application process is generally beyond comphrension

😀 🙄

 

[lady in red]

man, I guess I am out of luck then...i sent a really nice picture of me, but i don't look like this in real life. so if a male interviewer sees my file, then me, and thinks I am ugly--bye bye med school 😀 😀 😀 😀
or maybe i will die my hair dark, or star in a movie "Medically Blonde" so people finally take me seriously 😡 😡 😡 😡
anyways, it sucks to be a female, people judge you on your looks.

 

[Osler Penfield]

Great topic. Looks play a role in any interview process. This has been shown time and time again (anyone remember the famous Harvard studies on this?)...the degree of how much beauty plays a role, I believe, is leaning toward negligible though in a med school interview. But this, of course, depends on many factors...sometimes it might play a larger role depending on who the interviewer is.

For some reason, rich people do seem to be more attractive. Having gone to school with the children of many of the richest people in Canada, I can definitely say that the people are better looking. I don't believe it's entirely genes as everyone knows that a beautiful couple doesn't always manke a beautiful baby and vice versa. For example, my mother was a runway model but I developed this horrendous nose...so I got plastic surgery and feel a lot better. this is very common among the people I know. That can be one reason why rich people are in general more beautiful. They also usually work harder at appearances...can afford the best personal trainers etc... I know in a wealthy neighbourhood in my city, u will see tons of people jogging in the morning..all have very nice body shapes. It is probably the incredible high maintenance grooming that makes them look better and not genes...but as i said, if u got bad genes, plastic surgery definitely helps.

I will be wearing a custom tailored $1500 (and that was during a big sale) Canali suit to my interviews. Will this help me get in. It will absolutely not have a direct effect. But it will have an indirect positive effect. That is because everytime I put on that suit, I gain incredible confidence. The fabric is so incredible, the way it fits my body, the way the fabric falls and moves is unparalleled. Whenever i have put the suit on, i have gotten compliments from many strangers. so what i am getting at is that i will feel strong and confident and i will be more sure of myself...this is definitely a positive thing.

By the way, anyone interested in the finest italian men's clothing should check out <a href="http://www.canali.it." target="_blank">http://www.canali.it.</a> The fabrics are sooo luxurious. And if you can afford 3000$ suits, check out Ermengildo Zegna and Brioni (The suits that James Bond wears) suits.

 

[lady in red]

Osler, are you a social Darwinist by any chance? 😀

 

[Slingblade the Surgeon]

Well here's my Southern, yet genetically varied opinion. Money affords one the options not available to your average welfare recipient. Waxed eyebrows (makes a difference), Great hairdo (Everyone knows that hair and clothes make a person), and of course nice clothes, straight teeth (braces are expensive), nice car (definitely makes a difference in dating...don't lie, you know its true), REAL jewelry (yes it is noticeable), and last but not least leisure activities (Golf at the country club is more expensive than pool at the biker bar, etc.).


So yes money does make a difference in how attractive one is, and I think it is a good thing or else people would stop trying to improve.


As for people with big noses, I think big noses are not as unattractive to others as the ones sporting them feel they are.


The straight dope is this: Always try to look your best, because first impressions do matter and what else do people have to base those on but looks. Just as in dating where you have to get the cool car and clothes and hang out in the right places, etc, etc, etc, to attract someone's attention so that they will want to get to know your personality. My friend used to say as he was fanatically working out with weights, "If you wanna catch a nice fish, you gotta bait the hook".
🙂

 

[LizardKing]

If you look back a few posts, I brought up the same passage from the TPR message board talking about beauty, med school admissions, and rich people. I think the theory that rich people tend to be better looking is bogus, and here's why:

The theory that rich people tend to be better looking based on the factors you mentioned doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think it might be true when you compare individuals below the poverty line to those way above it...but poverty-stricken people might only look worse because of limited access to nutrition, health care, hygiene, etc. I really don't think this difference in looks--a difference I don't think even exists--has anything to do with genetics. But if you're comparing mega-rich people to middle class individuals, the theory is even more way off. In many cases, mega-rich people tend to be ambitious to an extreme. Although there aren't any empirical data on this, I think there might be an inverse relationship between how good you look and how extreme you are in terms of ambition. Now good-looking people can and often are motivated--there are plenty of exceptions--but how many have you met who are also extremely (we're talking Napoleonic) cutthroat? Not many I suppose. In any case, if a mega-rich person who tends to be not so good-looking finds a spouse who is good-looking, this mating does not necessarily result in good-looking children, right? Basically a really ugly person + an attractive individual will most likely result in a mediocre looking child. So, if most people in the population are mediocre looking, what has the mega-rich person really done by mating with a really attractive person to make his/her children stand out compared to the rest of the population in terms of looks? Not much. In any case, as someone alluded to earlier, there's too much variability anyway to really make assumptions about who's better looking. I conclude my arguments by saying that the theory of rich people being better looking is not only flawed but also dangerous--it can lead to a false sense of superiority.

 

[LizardKing]

For med schools interviews, I think looking clean and confident definitely boosts your chances. It's automatic in our brains--we assume people who look clean-cut are organized and motivated. However, I really believe that looking too attractive, movie star-esque, would negatively affect your chances. Most of us buy the theory that no one's perfect, and therefore no one individual can have outstanding looks and smarts at the same time and have their **** together. How many really attractive doctors do you see? I have yet to see a hospital with someone like George Clooney working shifts. The admissions staff are gonna choose people who remind them of their own faculty, etc. so really good looks hurt your chances, I suppose. Enough babbling, out.

 

[FSUMED]

I am not sure if anybody brought this up yet, but I have known many very attractive people whose parents where outright UGLY, so ugly people can have chance at making attractive kids.

 

[HardlyDavidson]

I know some adopted kids too.

 

[jkchou]

Being beautiful might play a role in interview but I don't see how it can make such a dramatic difference as suggested by some. Of the schools that I interviewed at, the interviewer is only one of the many people on the admission committee, and some of them are simply liasons who interview you and then fill out a form for the committee to review. I think its obvious that they are not going to start your file by describing how attractive you look.

But that being said, now that I think about it, my class only has few overweight people and, while not many of us are super attractive, none of us are hedious either (by choice or by chance, I can't speak to that). Would it help if you present yourself as best as you can on the interview day, perhaps so. Would it hurt if you show up totally unprepared, definitely yes.

 

[DesperatelySeekingMD]

Interesting experience at a school that will remain nameless...
I was talking to a student who had a lot of experience with the adcom before my interviews. She said that I had nothing to worry about because I was "normal, fun, smart, had done a lot of exciting/interesting things/research and that I was attractive." She went on to say that they seemed to accept a large percentage of very beautiful women and that it could be an advantage in the interview. But, she thought that it was mostly from the subconcious effect. She believes that physical looks and how one carries themselves are underlying currents in the overall impression that an interviewee gives and that they cannot be ignored.
And I have to admit all of the students that I met on my visit both male and female were very attractive.

 

[The Fly]

Given all of this interesting feedback I am forced to recall something I read a few months back. . .

I remember reading an article/study where a lecturer would come to a elementary/jr. high school and give a talk about a relatively mundane topic for 30 minutes. Now...the lecturer presented the talk first in a 'fat suit' (a la Shallow Hal) and would later return sans the aforementioned suit and they would gauge the students change in perception with respect to attention paid to the lecturer. Their results (perhaps obvious, perhaps not so obvious) were that there was a significant difference in the degree of attention paid to the lecturer dependent on whether she was in the fat suit or not.

The point is, that no matter how well groomed you might be, if you're perceived as unattractive by your interviewer they might be less apt to pay attention to what you say during the interview. Of course, this is assuming that the results of the study can be extrapolated to an older population, but it seems sort of intuitive, right??

 

[E'01]

I wasn't the only one that had noticed it at the interview, but Columbia certainly seems to have a higher than average percentage of good-looking individuals.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Originally posted by GG16:
•Given all of this interesting feedback I am forced to recall something I read a few months back. . .

I remember reading an article/study where a lecturer would come to a elementary/jr. high school and give a talk about a relatively mundane topic for 30 minutes. Now...the lecturer presented the talk first in a 'fat suit' (a la Shallow Hal) and would later return sans the aforementioned suit and they would gauge the students change in perception with respect to attention paid to the lecturer. Their results (perhaps obvious, perhaps not so obvious) were that there was a significant difference in the degree of attention paid to the lecturer dependent on whether she was in the fat suit or not.

The point is, that no matter how well groomed you might be, if you're perceived as unattractive by your interviewer they might be less apt to pay attention to what you say during the interview. Of course, this is assuming that the results of the study can be extrapolated to an older population, but it seems sort of intuitive, right??•••

Yes, scooby is finally back!

Okay, this was a thing on 20/20 a while back I think. It showed how students reacted to an UGLY teacher versus a beautiful one. The students were 2nd or 3rd graders and with the beautiful one they were very attentive and when asked what they thought of her they LOVED HER!
The same woman then made herself ugly and came back to the SAME class and the students were roudy and would not listen to her! It wasn't just a fat suit...it was like an entired body and facial change on her. Same teacher..same tactics..different look...different outcome.
Which is why I think looks DO play a small role in the interview process! If you are borderline and have a nice smile...you're in!

E'01 - Once again I must disagree with you 🙂
I didn't see very many hotties at Columbia so I don't know what everyone is talking about. Let's just say my university has absolutely ZILCH hotties and we have a reputation for not having any cute / single girls. As far as the best looking girls at the places I have been...hmm...Would have to be Vanderbilt, USC, and probably Umich.

Back to topic, I think appearance (upkeep) and how you carry yourself will pay off MORE than beauty. If you can walk into a room and captivate everyone's attention without saying a word - you're golden!
I was at one admission's office, where they ask you to send in your pictures..and I glanced at a desk with a bunch of people's photo's and NO ONE WAS SMILING! It was straight up mug shots!
Granted this is a sample of about 7 out of thousands..but still...SMILE people! Unless you're missing your front two teeth...

 

[idiot]

The vast majority of students I saw on my interview outings (3) ranged from normal to downright dumpy. In fact, I was taken quite off-guard by this trend. I had previously thought that adcoms intentionally factored in beauty - but apparently not (at least not in the south!). That said, everyone knows a resident or student who most definately got accepted because they're absolutely beautiful/ charismatic and for no other reason.

 

[The Fly]

Scooby-
How RIGHT you are! I made the mistake of getting like 20 passport photos instead of color photocopying them--I know, BIG mistake! Although I was smiling in some of them, some were definitely bonafide mug shots and I could see how such a simple thing could make a big difference. I ended up sending the better pictures to the schools I wanted to go to more...pretty f***ed up, wouldn't you say ?!? 😀 😀

 

[IlliniEMT1]

To address the bearing of attractiveness on interview success-
I think there is alot of evidence that claims that attractiveness has a strong effect on success. I found a pysch class website (http://www.muohio.edu/psybersite/Attraction/attributions.htx) that has a good summary of info:

"Cialdini (1995) warns that... physically attractive individuals are more influential in changing attitudes and obtaining what they request."

"as compared to their less attractive counterparts, attractive people tend to have more distinguished positions, earn more money, and characterize themselves as happier (Umberson & Hughes, 1987; Diener, Wolsic, & Fujita, 1995)."

"In a classic experiment Michael Efran (1974) surveyed University of Toronto students about the relationship between presumption of guilt and attractiveness; they emphatically exclaimed physical attraction should not affect the assumption of guilt. Nonetheless, after Efran interrogated different students with a photographs of both an attractive and an unattractive party, they determined the most attractive defendant was least guilty. "

"Another pertinent study, performed by Chris Downs and Phillip Lyons (1991), discovered a pervasive tendency of Texas judges to distribute harsher, more serve punishments for their less attractive defendants."

sound like pretty strong claims - i think ill look up the refrences when i get a chance. I think there was a show on Discovery that addressed this issue too.

I agree with scooby, but not just w/ photos- Ive seen too many long faces at interviews- I try my best to smile and just have an upbeat demeanor no matter how badly I think the day is going - I think it has an effect on the interviewer (at least i hope so). The way I see it- although im not the most attractive candidate there by far, I can make up for it with some positive body language.

 

[The Fly]

I would say that although some of the the findings you list aren't necessarily all that surprising, they are (might I say) quite interesting. I too might look up some of those references (instead of working, of course!)
😀