Do ugly female IMGs get interviews? With poll

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Would you reject an applicant because they are ugly?

  • Yes, I only want attractive applicants

    Votes: 20 38.5%

  • No, I would interview them but not choose them

    Votes: 4 7.7%

  • No, I would interview because the personality may overcome the ugliness

    Votes: 11 21.2%

  • No, as long as they are friendly looking I don't mind ugly

    Votes: 22 42.3%

  • No, but someone else in my department will reject the application for this

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • Total voters
    52
V

valid username

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
234
Reaction score
139
This is NOT a joke. I want to know the truth. Ever since third year when I found out the application required a picture I was very disheartened. I see at pictures of residents when looking up programs and none of them are ugly.

Everytime I log into ERAS I see my ugly picture and think there is no way anyone is going to want to interview me. I try to be nice, I find the good in people, I work hard and I get along well with nearly anyone. I am in very good health with a normal bmi, but the fact is I am unattractive. When people look at my picture all they see is ugly. Once people get to know me they usually forgive me for my looks. Please do not suggest plastic surgery. I just want to know, when the powers that be sort the aps do they throw away the ugly people? I am assuming they do because when you have so many good applicants for so few positions why would you consider hiring an ugly woman? And of course, how else can you explain all these beautiful people on every program site? If it makes a difference, I still look like I am nice.

I know it's not something that I can do anything about now. I have tried to just not think about it, but like I said, logging into ERAS I see my hideous face and feel hopeless. I want to be wrong, but I feel that, unfortunately, I may be right to be concerne
Members don't see this ad.
 
valid username said:
This is NOT a joke. I want to know the truth. Ever since third year when I found out the application required a picture I was very disheartened. I see at pictures of residents when looking up programs and none of them are ugly.

Everytime I log into ERAS I see my ugly picture and think there is no way anyone is going to want to interview me. I try to be nice, I find the good in people, I work hard and I get along well with nearly anyone. I am in very good health with a normal bmi, but the fact is I am unattractive. When people look at my picture all they see is ugly. Once people get to know me they usually forgive me for my looks. Please do not suggest plastic surgery. I just want to know, when the powers that be sort the aps do they throw away the ugly people? I am assuming they do because when you have so many good applicants for so few positions why would you consider hiring an ugly woman? And of course, how else can you explain all these beautiful people on every program site? If it makes a difference, I still look like I am nice.

I know it's not something that I can do anything about now. I have tried to just not think about it, but like I said, logging into ERAS I see my hideous face and feel hopeless. I want to be wrong, but I feel that, unfortunately, I may be right to be concerned
Click to expand...
1) Yes, "ugly female IMGs" still get interviews. So do "attractive" female IMGs. So do "average-looking" female IMGs. So do "ugly" male IMGs. So do "attractive" male IMGs. So do "average-looking" male IMGs. In other words, ugly/attractive/average-looking male/female IMGs/non-IMGs all can get interviews.

2) A much better indicator of whether you will get interviews isn't whether you're "ugly," but your USMLE Step 1 and 2CK/CS scores, LORs, USCE, research, YOG, visa status.

3) I really doubt you are truly "ugly." Most people aren't truly "ugly." Statistically, the majority of people are average-looking.

4) Do looks matter for getting into residency? They shouldn't matter. But in reality, possibly yes. Attractive people may get advantages in life in general (including interviews for residency). But attractiveness can go in the opposite direction too. If a PD or aPD is jealous of attractive people for whatever reason, then an attractive person might not get an interview at that program.

5) This goes for almost any desirable quality. Smart people get advantages in life. Athletic people get advantages in life. People who had unique experiences like serving in the military might get some advantages from some surgical residencies. People of a certain race or ethnicity might get advantages or disadvantages in life even though it is illegal to discriminate against race, sex or gender, religion, etc.

6) The bottom line is don't worry about what you can't change. Try your best to take a nice professional photo of yourself, and to present yourself as attractively as you possibly can, but beyond that why worry over your natural looks which you can't change. Just do your best, and let your application speak for itself.
 
Last edited:
Youth and good health count for a lot and you have those on your side. But a lot of how people look these days is more to do with presentation than it is about natural good looks. Start with cleanliness: good skin care, good teeth care, clean hair. Add in good posture and a positive attitude: by projecting confidence in yourself you can change people's reactions to you. Beyond that, get some professional advice on an appropriate hair style for your face shape, and some professional lessons in a natural-looking makeup (note: you are not trying to turn yourself into a glamour model) that suits your natural colouring: practice doing that hair style and that make up for yourself (both are skills that take practice, don't get disheartened if your first attempts take a long time and still aren't perfect).

For your application, get a professional photograph taken: it is astonishing how much difference it can make.

But, honestly, when you meet people in person the biggest difference in how they will perceive you is how you perceive yourself and project that perception to the world. Head up, shoulders back and down, know that you have all the talent, attitude and education that your potential employer is looking for and make sure that you are telling them that with everything you do.

Good luck.
 
Why would you make the title of this thread ask the opposite question as the poll?
 
Sorry for not making the titles match. It was a mistake.

I am less concerned about "in person" than i am about the photo. I know that once I meet people my looks are less of an issue.

My bad looks are something I don't *usually* think about much-but when in this situation with so much on the line i just can't help but wish the photo was not a part of this. It's not just me either. I know a lot of people that are quite attractive just because they are warm and positive. But some of those people if judged by their looks from a photo--they would be seen as less than attractive.
 
A number of programs screen photos until after the interview. This is mostly to reduce bias, though it isn't perfect. They want to invite people based on their achievements and interest in the program.

We use the photos when we announce who matched with us, and some of the photos are very glamour shot like, rather than professional.

But if you're that worried about your photo, spend some time and money getting a professional headshot done. Do your hair and makeup and dress nicely and cleanly, and you'll be fine.
 
valid username said:
This is NOT a joke. I want to know the truth. Ever since third year when I found out the application required a picture I was very disheartened. I see at pictures of residents when looking up programs and none of them are ugly.

Everytime I log into ERAS I see my ugly picture and think there is no way anyone is going to want to interview me. I try to be nice, I find the good in people, I work hard and I get along well with nearly anyone. I am in very good health with a normal bmi, but the fact is I am unattractive. When people look at my picture all they see is ugly. Once people get to know me they usually forgive me for my looks. Please do not suggest plastic surgery. I just want to know, when the powers that be sort the aps do they throw away the ugly people? I am assuming they do because when you have so many good applicants for so few positions why would you consider hiring an ugly woman? And of course, how else can you explain all these beautiful people on every program site? If it makes a difference, I still look like I am nice.

I know it's not something that I can do anything about now. I have tried to just not think about it, but like I said, logging into ERAS I see my hideous face and feel hopeless. I want to be wrong, but I feel that, unfortunately, I may be right to be concerne
Click to expand...

Ugly people get interviews in all specialties except derm.
 
4) Do looks matter for getting into residency? They shouldn't matter. But in reality, possibly yes. Attractive people may get advantages in life in general (including interviews for residency). But attractiveness can go in the opposite direction too. If a PD or aPD is jealous of attractive people for whatever reason, then an attractive person might not get an interview at that program.

[/QUOTE]

I know exactly what you mean, happens to me all the time, discriminated because I'm so damn pretty 😉
 
AdmiralChz said:
Appearances are easily remedied in that field!

Also, I hope OP isn’t serious.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am quite serious. Like everyone else, I have a lot invested. Of course I am worried about everything. This process is anxiety-provoking at best. I did finally get an interview yesterday but I have heard colleagues talking about multiple invites.

According to the results of the poll, only about half would be willing to interview an ugly person. Granted, it's a small sample size. Even so, it seems reasonable to believe that ugly people have a harder time ~before~ interviews. Obviously once the interviews occur, looks will matter less.
 
Last edited:
valid username said:
Actually, I am quite serious. Like everyone else, I have a lot invested. Of course I am worried about everything. This process is anxiety-provoking at best. I did finally get an interview yesterday but I have heard colleagues talking about multiple invites.

According to the results of the poll, only about half would be willing to interview an ugly person. Granted, it's a small sample size. Even so, it seems reasonable to believe that ugly people have a harder time ~before~ interviews. Obviously once the interviews occur, looks will matter less.
Click to expand...
Because a poll on an anonymous message board with a small n and where people aren't taking you seriously is a valid data pool.
 
Goro said:
Because a poll on an anonymous message board with a small n and where people aren't taking you seriously is a valid data pool.
Click to expand...

I voted and was totally joking. But I wouldn’t complain if all my IMG applicants looked like Gisele, Katy Perry or Kate Upton. Haven’t seen any like that, at least yet.

This is a silly conversation. It’s no use worrying about it since there’s nothing you can do about it - try to look nice for your interview (meaning shower, brush your hair, etc...). I wouldn’t waste time worrying about this.
 
AdmiralChz said:
I voted and was totally joking. But I wouldn’t complain if all my IMG applicants looked like Gisele, Katy Perry or Kate Upton. Haven’t seen any like that, at least yet.

This is a silly conversation. It’s no use worrying about it since there’s nothing you can do about it - try to look nice for your interview (meaning shower, brush your hair, etc...). I wouldn’t waste time worrying about this.
Click to expand...

Would you choose an ugly AMG over a pretty IMG? Let's make this a little more interesting.
 
Very funny. An ugly AMG over a pretty IMG? That's crazy talk and you know it. Everyone knows there is no excuse to ever rank an IMG over an AMG.


eta-in light of "wow" redponse: i am an img. i certainly did not mean to imply anything about img's. but this is how it is. there is really nothing worse. AMG > FMG >>>> IMG
 
Last edited:
valid username said:
According to the results of the poll, only about half would be willing to interview an ugly person. Granted, it's a small sample size. Even so, it seems reasonable to believe that ugly people have a harder time ~before~ interviews. Obviously once the interviews occur, looks will matter less.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote because none of the answers fit how I feel. 'ugliness' is in the eye of the beholder, and I suspect that unless you have fairly severe malformations, that you are average looking.
 
Best looking docs are the ones I see on tv! Outside of that, pretty much derm and plastics as stated above...😉
 
valid username said:
According to the results of the poll, only about half would be willing to interview an ugly person. Granted, it's a small sample size. Even so, it seems reasonable to believe that ugly people have a harder time ~before~ interviews. Obviously once the interviews occur, looks will matter less.
Click to expand...
Do you sincerely believe that the results of this poll have any meaning whatsoever or that people are answering it honestly? Going to go ahead and put it out there that people are voting randomly or intentionally against what they actually feel because of how inane the question is.
 
Gastrapathy said:
So...if attractiveness has no effect, why so many pretty people in derm? Just cause we want OP to be ridiculous doesn't mean it is.

That said, it's remarkable what you can do with a photo without it being a mall glamour shot or a mugshot selfie.
Click to expand...
Are there a lot of pretty people in derm? I would agree that the derm residents/attendings I've seen generally tend to be better dressed/groomed than many other physicians I've run across, and I think that's a part of the culture. That said, I think there's a big difference between being unattractive and being unkempt.
 
Gastrapathy said:
So...if attractiveness has no effect, why so many pretty people in derm? Just cause we want OP to be ridiculous doesn't mean it is.
Click to expand...
Thank you. There is evidence for this in other fields. I am surprised how many people don't think it's a serious question. In an Italian study that included photos (n=10,000) unattractive females did quite poorly (7% call back vs 54% for the attractive females). Differences exist for males but they are less pronounced. While it is easy to dismiss the concern as ridiculous, the truth may be nearly as ugly as the concerned applicants. I want to believe there is more leniency for ugliness in this field than most--but if so: why are the photos available pre-interview?

Since this keeps coming up: I am not unkempt. As uncomfortable as it is to look at myself I have to make sure I do the best with what I have. I am ugly and honest about it. Of course most people are average but someone has to be at either end of the spectrum. Fortunately, I am pretty lucky in most ways.

Check Out How Much More Often Beautiful Women Get Callbacks For Job Interviews
 
There is very little ugly that you can't fix with decent lighting and some photoshop magic. Seriously. Nobody needs to look bad in a photo.

I'm sure there are dozens of websites with tutorials for decent photo lighting so I won't belabor that. Lots of online editing services that can do some clone stamp Kung fu on it for you as well for a very reasonable price. Retouching is pretty standard now for any professional photo.

I can't answer the underlying question about looks and interviews, but a tiny bit of effort can render it moot.
 
A nice body can make up for being ugly to a degree. If not, then personality and skills. By all means do not be ugly, mean and dumb... then you are SOL!
 
operaman said:
There is very little ugly that you can't fix with decent lighting and some photoshop magic. Seriously. Nobody needs to look bad in a photo.

I'm sure there are dozens of websites with tutorials for decent photo lighting so I won't belabor that. Lots of online editing services that can do some clone stamp Kung fu on it for you as well for a very reasonable price. Retouching is pretty standard now for any professional photo.

I can't answer the underlying question about looks and interviews, but a tiny bit of effort can render it moot.
Click to expand...

There's an app for that too.
 
The OP asks a reasonable question, although somewhat hyperbolically. A less charged question is: does physical attractiveness affect IV decisions and/or ranking?

Although I'd like to think the answer is no, it probably is yes. Plenty of studies on implicit bias have been done, showing that even people who think they don't have a bias, actually do. And so, I expect that if we actually studied this, we'd find an effect -- and perhaps it would depend on specialty for how much of an impact it has.

But it's a bit extreme to say that because you claim you are "ugly", you'll get no interviews. First, I expect that many programs screen photos to decide on whom to interview -- that decreases the impact of racial biases also. When the photo is "screened", I can see that you've submitted it but I can't see it at all. We make all of our interview decisions, and then unscreen the photos for interviews (so we can recognize you).

As has already been mentioned, it is amazing what a good photographer can do to approve your appearance. Ditto for getting tips from a makeup pro. Find a photo of a "famous beauty" caught without makeup and without control of the photo, and you'll see that their "beauty" is largely an illusion.
 
Apollyon said:
When I was a resident "all those years ago", I thought that, back then, at least, programs couldn't see the picture until they granted an interview.
Click to expand...

Programs couldn't see the photo until they checked off the "selected for interview" box. Nothing stopped you from checking the box, checking out the pic, and unchecking the box. The current system is better.
 
I actually think there is some truth to the "ugly" part. I saw a PD of podiatry residency saying "hey, she's cute" give her an IV. I thought it was a joke but I think the attractiveness of the photo made him consider the applicant more. It might be more of a psychological thing, and not an intentional. Let's say the female or male is less good looking and the PD is having a bad day... maybe then their threshold of the application is higher. I imagine that kind of stuff goes on all the time. That's why some people with similar stats don't get IV's at the same places
 
Shinken said:
As a program director, I couldn't care less what the photo looks like. Our criteria does not include physical attractiveness or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I have a different opinion. If the photo is absolutely terrible (like they didn't try at all), then I put that into consideration because it shows that the applicant doesn't care about how they present themselves. I've seen two AMG photos where I just thought, "why didn't they show that to their mom/gf/neighbor and ask their opinion?" this year. One involves the applicant trying to be funny, the other makes them look deranged.
The bulk of the photos, such as the med school photos, those are just fine.
But "ugly" vs "attractive" is not last on the list for me, it's not on the list at all. I'm sure there are PD's in the world who do care, though.
 
I dunno, my PD is kind of a pervy old man (and I love him for it) and we have mostly hot residents. They're all still really good but it's hard for me to believe it's a coincidence.
 
PDTY said:
I have a different opinion. If the photo is absolutely terrible (like they didn't try at all), then I put that into consideration because it shows that the applicant doesn't care about how they present themselves. I've seen two AMG photos where I just thought, "why didn't they show that to their mom/gf/neighbor and ask their opinion?" this year. One involves the applicant trying to be funny, the other makes them look deranged.
The bulk of the photos, such as the med school photos, those are just fine.
But "ugly" vs "attractive" is not last on the list for me, it's not on the list at all. I'm sure there are PD's in the world who do care, though.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good story...
 
Wordead said:
I dunno, my PD is kind of a pervy old man (and I love him for it) and we have mostly hot residents. They're all still really good but it's hard for me to believe it's a coincidence.
Click to expand...

There definitely is a “right” answer and a “real” answer.
 
Saw this thread at the perfect time. We are interviewing fellowship candidates right now and usually I don't pay attention to their appearance ( black/navy/brown suit, looks clean and ? unremarkable?).

This week, there was two candidates that stood out and not in a good way. One looked really frumpy? Poor fitted suit, bad posture, hair all over the place, and she just look too depress to be there. The other one's suit didn't seem appropriate? ( disclaimer: I like clothes). She was wearing a chambray suit with cheery red thread. Chambray in certain shades look like denim and it just looks unprofessional to me.

And I think programs, consciously or unconsciously, look at appearance. When I went to a high-tier fellowship interview last year, when I met the other candidates, I thought it was model contest or something. I told my friend and he was like: "It's freaking __name of program___, if they have choice with a lot of good candidates, of course they would pick the good-looking ones."
 
operaman said:
There is very little ugly that you can't fix with decent lighting and some photoshop magic. Seriously. Nobody needs to look bad in a photo.
Click to expand...

1. So maybe a little altering, to make it seem like just a really good photo is okay?

2. Why I specified female IMG:
IMG: AMGs will always get interviewed (the AMGs I rotate with were reassured: the worst AMG is always better than the best IMG)
Female: Of the studies I read about this trend in other interview settings, all reported a much stronger correlation for females than males. It's not nonexistent with males, but it's minimal.

3. aProgDirector, when you are describing the screen/unscreen routine, is that something internal? If not, then that means that no invites are based on looks.
 
valid username said:
1. So maybe a little altering, to make it seem like just a really good photo is okay?

2. Why I specified female IMG:
IMG: AMGs will always get interviewed (the AMGs I rotate with were reassured: the worst AMG is always better than the best IMG)
Female: Of the studies I read about this trend in other interview settings, all reported a much stronger correlation for females than males. It's not nonexistent with males, but it's minimal.

3. aProgDirector, when you are describing the screen/unscreen routine, is that something internal? If not, then that means that no invites are based on looks.
Click to expand...
reassured by whom? other AMGs...go over to the SOAP thread from the last few years tell that to the US seniors that did not match...

if the worst AMG was always preferred over the best IMG, then no AMG would go unmatched...

yes, you are at a disadvantage over US seniors...no one is disputing that..but the thing that is going to get you is your low self esteem...as someone stated before, very few people are really so unattractive that they would be considered "ugly"...its usually more of an issue of grooming and dress as well as maintaining a level of cleanliness.

maximize your application, apply broadly and widely and go to every interview you get and rank them all.
 
valid username said:
1. So maybe a little altering, to make it seem like just a really good photo is okay?

2. Why I specified female IMG:
IMG: AMGs will always get interviewed (the AMGs I rotate with were reassured: the worst AMG is always better than the best IMG)
Female: Of the studies I read about this trend in other interview settings, all reported a much stronger correlation for females than males. It's not nonexistent with males, but it's minimal.

3. aProgDirector, when you are describing the screen/unscreen routine, is that something internal? If not, then that means that no invites are based on looks.
Click to expand...

Alter the hell out of it if you have to. It just has to look sorta like you on your very best day ever. Make sure you or whoever is doing it knows what they're doing so it doesn't come out looking plastic and fake, but otherwise go to town on it.

There are tons of websites and example photos showing the power of some very basic lighting. Here's one I found with about 10 seconds of googling:
How To Take Beautiful Portraits of Women With Or Without Photoshop

There are tons of before/afters out there; this was just the first I came across on google images that shows some of the tricks and the lighting and other things photo nerds like me appreciate.

Here's another:
Devon Cass Studio - Home

Lots of before/afters from a brilliant photographer who has shot a lot of my friends. These are far more artsy as these are shots intended mainly for artists trying to get hired as such, but Devon typically does all the makeup, hair, lighting, retouching, etc., and has a real knack for making people look fantastic. One of his shots was my first intro to the power of good photo technique when he used just light and makeup (pre-photoshop) to take about 300 pounds off a singer. Obviously such a headshot would be out of place on an ERAS application, but it makes the point that you really can make anyone look good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Theekshana Fernando
Recruiting non-US IMGs in NYS for study on residency experiences
Replies
0
Views
1K
Theekshana Fernando
Theekshana Fernando
E
Second residency as IMG
Replies
1
Views
657
NotAProgDirector
NotAProgDirector
N
IMG - need residency advice
Replies
2
Views
744
NotAProgDirector
NotAProgDirector
Theekshana Fernando
Recruiting non-US IMGs who left their residency program (for any reason) in New York State- Doctoral Dissertation
Replies
1
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
T
No residency now for IMGs????
Replies
8
Views
2K
voxveritatisetlucis
V
Top