Do you think looks matter?

[p00psicleSTICK]

Say there's 2 applicants with similar stats/ECs but one just has better looks (better dressed, groomed, scores 8+ on hot or not). But the catch here is that there's only a SLIGHT difference - the other "inferior" guy is in no way ugly or terribly dressed, it's just that the "superior" guy is shining like a celebrity.

If the ADCOM had to make a choice between the two, do you think they would pick the one w/ a slightly better image?

Just an interesting thought for the day... I think looks are one of those intangible things that can make a difference.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrHuang]

i think it matters

 

[pslee]

Say there's 2 applicants with similar stats/ECs but one just has better looks (better dressed, groomed, scores 8+ on hot or not). But the catch here is that there's only a SLIGHT difference - the other "inferior" guy is in no way ugly or terribly dressed, it's just that the "superior" guy is shining like a celebrity.

If the ADCOM had to make a choice between the two, do you think they would pick the one w/ a slightly better image?

Just an interesting thought for the day... I think looks are one of those intangible things that can make a difference.

it definitely matters!! (This might be unrelated to this topic) There is like a set standard in business school that a successful male businessman has to be about 6 feet tall, great smile, well toned up body, neat, etc. i think looks really matter in an interview. Also on average, tall, hansome person gets more salary than who is not.

 

[scotte8]

I am a 9.9 on hot or not (with my shirt off) but unfortunately my interviewers haven't let me take off my shirt on interview day. Oh well, guess I got with my other assets. I'd say looks have little weight to an interviewer's judgement.

 

[Messerschmitts]

There wasn't one unattractive girl on the UCSF class of 200X (I honestly forgot which year it was) bulletin board with polaroids of their class. Similar findings at class pictures at other med schools. Something's wrong here, people! I mean I shouldn't complain, my female classmates are gonna be hot, but ugly girls need lovin' too!

 

[Gavanshir]

I've heard that NYU ranks high on sexiness.

 

[cali7925]

of course looks matter. looks matter in life in general. you think all those hot pharm reps get their jobs because they're smart?

why bother with this topic though....are you thinking of getting a little nip/tuck before the interviews?

i dont think its worth it, but that's just my opinion.

 

[p00psicleSTICK]

I am a 9.9 on hot or not (with my shirt off) but unfortunately my interviewers haven't let me take off my shirt on interview day.

Yea I'm sure you would've done that to a male interviewer.

There wasn't one unattractive girl on the UCSF class of 200X (I honestly forgot which year it was) bulletin board with polaroids of their class.

Link plz.

why bother with this topic though....are you thinking of getting a little nip/tuck before the interviews?

Just wanted to know if people are as biased as I am...

 

[MDCali]

Looks matter. Even for admissions.

 

[tank you]

this is kind of a silly question, of course looks matter, why wouldnt they? they matter in all social situations, dont u think?
lifes not fair, even more so if ur unattractive =p

 

[Napoleon4000]

"Do you think looks matter?"
Let me see, how would Alito answer this:

To answer this question we need to understand if breathing is important? When animals are euthanized under oxygen deprivation, they typically suffocate. This leads to hypoxia within critical areas of the central nervous system, such as the centers that regulate breathing and heart rhythmicity. If prolonged, these oxygen deprived cells undergo cell death. Loss of these critical nuclei, such as those that regulate breathing for instance, can lead to life threatning, and potentially fatal conditions. I cannot directly answer your question, but I can say, that it is my understanding, as a result of my previous statement, that breathing is clearly important. However, there are instances, where breathing may not be important, as in the case of methanobacteria. Although I cannot comment on looks and their significance, I can site my previous statement on the necessity of breathing as significant precedent, which I deeply respect. If this comes before me, I will be sure to thoroughly examine all of the facts and use the established breathing precedent to understand the context of looks and its significance.

 

[astrife]

I can imagine where you have an ugly male/female interviewer and they interview someone of their corresponding gender and due to all the flack they have recieved their entire life for being ugly they take out their social frustrations on the attractive person in their eval of them...

 

[astrife]

"Do you think looks matter?"
Let me see, how would Alito answer this:

To answer this question we need to understand if breathing is important? When animals are euthanized under oxygen deprivation, they typically suffocate. This leads to hypoxia within critical areas of the central nervous system, such as the centers that regulate breathing and heart rhythmicity. If prolonged, these oxygen deprived cells undergo cell death. Loss of these critical nuclei, such as those that regulate breathing for instance, can lead to life threatning, and potentially fatal conditions. I cannot directly answer your question, but I can say, that it is my understanding, as a result of my previous statement, that breathing is clearly important. However, there are instances, where breathing may not be important, as in the case of methanobacteria. Although I cannot comment on looks and their significance, I can site my previous statement on the necessity of breathing as significant precedent, which I deeply respect. If this comes before me, I will be sure to thoroughly examine all of the facts and use the established breathing precedent to understand the context of looks and its significance.

You do understand that a person nominated for the Supreme Court will be disqualified if they give any indication of how they would rule on cases that would come before them?

 

[Napoleon4000]

I don't believe I have given any clear indication on how I would rule. But I did establish that there is a clear precedent - breathing. I did however, say that to consider the question so looks and its signifiance, that I would examine all of the facts and look to precedent to come to a ruling. Thanks for reading.

 

[pschmom1]

Have you not seen all of those documentaries that put "looks" to the test? Basically, as shallow as it sounds, most of the time better looking people have an advantage. There was a demonstration of this on Dr.Phil when his son (who is nice looking) dressed up like an ugly person and went shopping ect, and tried to talk to people and he was shunned. However, when he did the exact same as he looks normally, he was thoroughly acknowleged and was treated very well. Just like the famous movie star (can't remember the name at this time) dressed up as an obese person and was treated badly. Anyways, it is a fact, whether right or wrong, that trim good looking people have an advantage over less "fortunate" people. And for those who are less "fortunate" beauty is in the eye of the beholder .

 

[crazy_cavalier]

Yes. The attractive guy wins. Handsome people have a natural superior advantage. This is Darwinism at work.

 

[drmota]

sure looks matter. but a lot if it is in how you carry yourself. if you're confident you automatically become more attractive. there are some good looking people that don't carry themselves right and end up looking way worse than they should/could.
-mota

 

[crazy_cavalier]

And for those who are less "fortunate" beauty is in the eye of the beholder .

The media has catered my perception of beauty.

 

[drmota]

lets just say if adriana lima showed up to a med school interview in a runway outfit, she'd be in. sans mcat. sans a college application. no, really.
-mota

 

[dilated]

Not really. Because while I'm sure looks have a subtle effect on your interviewer, I just don't think the interview is that important. They're going to choose to admit you based on whether or not you add things they want to the class, not whether you got a "5" or a "4" on your interviewer rating. Based on my experiences it seems an interview can rule you out if you turn out to be a social reject but a really good interview is not going to make you that much more likely to get in unless you're being interviewed by the Dean.

 

[Law2Doc]

Based on my experiences it seems an interview can rule you out if you turn out to be a social reject but a really good interview is not going to make you that much more likely to get in unless you're being interviewed by the Dean.

Totally disagree with this statement based on my own experiences. Once you've gotten to the interview stage, you've cleared most of the other hurdles already (i.e. most schools only interview a fraction of applicants), and so the interview is paramount. (Some schools even say they treat folks who have reached the interview stage as equal.) Thus how you do in the interview becomes the most important factor in getting into med school once you get to that stage. And I've certainly seen plenty of folks who had great interviewing skills vault past folks with objectively higher numerical stats (who ended up waitlisted or SOL), so yes, a good interview can make a big difference. (As can a bad one). You just don't see all that many.
Looks will help a little. Psychology studies will tell you that folks bestow good looking people with a variety of positive attributes, some of which are worth points in an interview. However (1) this is not something you can control, and (2) it's only going to help a little, not change a bad interview into a good one.

 

[MahlerROCKS]

"Do you think looks matter?"
Let me see, how would Alito answer this:

To answer this question we need to understand if breathing is important? When animals are euthanized under oxygen deprivation, they typically suffocate. This leads to hypoxia within critical areas of the central nervous system, such as the centers that regulate breathing and heart rhythmicity. If prolonged, these oxygen deprived cells undergo cell death. Loss of these critical nuclei, such as those that regulate breathing for instance, can lead to life threatning, and potentially fatal conditions. I cannot directly answer your question, but I can say, that it is my understanding, as a result of my previous statement, that breathing is clearly important. However, there are instances, where breathing may not be important, as in the case of methanobacteria. Although I cannot comment on looks and their significance, I can site my previous statement on the necessity of breathing as significant precedent, which I deeply respect. If this comes before me, I will be sure to thoroughly examine all of the facts and use the established breathing precedent to understand the context of looks and its significance.

If I could give you a dollar I would

 

[dilated]

Totally disagree with this statement based on my own experiences. Once you've gotten to the interview stage, you've cleared most of the other hurdles already (i.e. most schools only interview a fraction of applicants), and so the interview is paramount. (Some schools even say they treat folks who have reached the interview stage as equal.)

I don't believe it. It simply doesn't make sense by numbers. Many schools accept 25% of those they interview. Do you think the interview report contains enough information to distinguish between 1 out of every 4 interviewees? Do you think they're sitting there saying "Well, this guy was 'very eloquent', but this girl had 'good posture'". It doesn't make sense on a fairness basis either - adcoms have to be cognizant of the wide variability of interviews, both in connecting with your interviewer and the type of interviewer they are, whether you get Dr. Feelgood or Mr. Grinch. I had one interviewer who loved me and let me see him max out the scoring sheet for interviewing. Hello, waitlist.

I've gone to schools where the Dean/head guy for admissions essentially told me I was getting in on the spot (i.e. "I wouldn't worry about it"), before he heard from any other interviewers. After a ten minute conversation. Why? Because he could see I had minimal social competence and had a profile their class was looking for. While I'm sure there are exceptions, what I've seen leads me to think interviews are mostly something that excludes applicants rather than gets them in.

 

[p00psicleSTICK]

While I'm sure there are exceptions, what I've seen leads me to think interviews are mostly something that excludes applicants rather than gets them in.

Based on your assumption that 25% of intervieweres get accetepted, you're saying other 75% are social rejects? That seems a bit high to me. Gah this entire process seems more mysterious than ever. I was thinking Law2doc is right but you have a point also.

They're going to choose to admit you based on whether or not you add things they want to the class

So what are these "things" that they want to add to class? Personally, I dislike med schools that proudly talk about their students saying, "we got people who explored the Amazon river, and another ran in Boston marathon, etc." It sounds really silly to me as those accomplishments won't determine whether someone will be a good doctor or not.

 

[dilated]

Based on your assumption that 25% of intervieweres get accetepted, you're saying other 75% are social rejects? That seems a bit high to me. Gah this entire process seems more mysterious than ever. I was thinking Law2doc is right but you have a point also.

You're misinterpreting what I said here. I don't mean that 75% of people get rejected on the basis of bad interviews - that's my whole point, I don't think the interview is as important as some people would say. I think maybe 25% (random guess) of people have "bad" interviews that disqualify them for whatever reason. The remaining 75% are judged based on their cumulative files and achievements, of which the interview is a part (but not, I don't think, a huge part).

As far as "things" they want, it's not just some crazy achievement, it's everything you think you need to get in. They want a class with high GPA/MCAT, with clinical experience, with volunteering, etc. It's also your personal statement, your secondary, the evidence you've shown of being dedicated to medicine. That's what I'm suggesting - that, excluding people that interview badly, they're going to accept people that give them the class with the overall factors they want, which is not anywhere near the same as the class that gets the highest interview grades.

 

[BOBODR]

I have interviewed at 4 schools and been waitlisted or havent heard from all four. I must be fugly

"But there is more to life than being really, really, really good looking and I intend to find out what it is..." - Zoolander

 

[angel5]

On my last interview, everyone was really good looking! The way we were sitting around the table felt like we were on the Apprentice.

Angel

 

[EastCstBound]

On my last interview, everyone was really good looking! The way we were sitting around the table felt like we were on the Apprentice.

Angel

I don't know what the HECK you guys are talking about. It is my perception that the amount of good looking people PLUMMETS once you enter med school. Maybe perception changes given what you're able to work with (i.e. how even the fugly girls in the navy get a lot of play b/c well.. there are very few of them so all of a sudden they don't look as fugly)

That said, I plan on hitting on the law school boys

 

[Pretty POHA]

Have you not seen all of those documentaries that put "looks" to the test? Basically, as shallow as it sounds, most of the time better looking people have an advantage. There was a demonstration of this on Dr.Phil when his son (who is nice looking) dressed up like an ugly person and went shopping ect, and tried to talk to people and he was shunned. However, when he did the exact same as he looks normally, he was thoroughly acknowleged and was treated very well. Just like the famous movie star (can't remember the name at this time) dressed up as an obese person and was treated badly. Anyways, it is a fact, whether right or wrong, that trim good looking people have an advantage over less "fortunate" people. And for those who are less "fortunate" beauty is in the eye of the beholder .

Tyra Banks dressed up as a obese person and did a show on it.

Looks matter. You don't have to be beautiful to be successful, but it sure does help.
If you're not beautiful, but you're clean, well dressed, well maintained, and have a confident personality, it shows that you take care of yourself, which is also part of "looks matter."

 

[bbas]

I don't believe I have given any clear indication on how I would rule. But I did establish that there is a clear precedent - breathing. I did however, say that to consider the question so looks and its signifiance, that I would examine all of the facts and look to precedent to come to a ruling. Thanks for reading.

If you actually want to appear that you know what you're talking about, I think you should go back and watch confirmation hearings of past years. You will quickly see that not only have past applicants answered in the same way, but many have flat out refused to answer questions. Based on these posts, you seem to know nothing about the judicial process.

 

[Dominion]

I would think as long as you were clean and trim, nice haircut, etc that you'd be given the same chance as everyone else.

 

[BaylorGuy]

I wouldnt think that looks would matter as much as your overall attitude. Heck, you could look drop dead gorgeous, but if you got an attitude, chances are you will most likely be tossed to the side (at least thats what i do )

It matters to an extent, but i dont think it something that is going to primarily factor into whether or not you are accepted.

 

[Dominion]

I agree, I thiink that it's more your appearance as far as what your wearing, clean trim, etc that trumps physical appearance.

One interview is a 10, nicely dressed, great haircut but has a bad attitude and some quirk about them, would be less likely than a 3-5 on the scale that has a great attitude, clean, trim, etc.

 

[CerealBox]

If you actually want to appear that you know what you're talking about, I think you should go back and watch confirmation hearings of past years. You will quickly see that not only have past applicants answered in the same way, but many have flat out refused to answer questions. Based on these posts, you seem to know nothing about the judicial process.

the posts are funny. give him a break. geez...

he's not saying Alito is wrong for answering this way (or any of the past candidates).

 

[Med-tallica]

Looks are most definitely important. No matter how much you deny it, you make decisions based on looks all the time. It doesn't make you lesser a person, just human. Babies have been studied and are much more responsive to "more attractive" people. Court cases involving neglect are much more likely to convict a baby-faced person of lesser crimes, while hardened more angular features are much more likely to receive harsher convictions. Anyway if you're in it to win you've jumped countless hoops already, in a way this is just another.

 

[deuist]

I don't believe it. It simply doesn't make sense by numbers. Many schools accept 25% of those they interview. Do you think the interview report contains enough information to distinguish between 1 out of every 4 interviewees? Do you think they're sitting there saying "Well, this guy was 'very eloquent', but this girl had 'good posture'".

Law2Doc was not saying that people who interview well are granted acceptances. He was saying that the person who is a phenomenal interviewer will get the acceptance. However, a person with those kinds of social skills is pretty rare. The vast majority of people---while putting forth a good interview---are average. Those people in the average group are the ones who have to rely on their numbers, rec letters, and EC's.

I've gone to schools where the Dean/head guy for admissions essentially told me I was getting in on the spot (i.e. "I wouldn't worry about it"),

And how many of these schools have given you acceptances? I also want to know many times you've scored an interview with the dean who is then able to guarantee acceptance.

 

[45408]

I don't believe it. It simply doesn't make sense by numbers. Many schools accept 25% of those they interview. Do you think the interview report contains enough information to distinguish between 1 out of every 4 interviewees? Do you think they're sitting there saying "Well, this guy was 'very eloquent', but this girl had 'good posture'". It doesn't make sense on a fairness basis either - adcoms have to be cognizant of the wide variability of interviews, both in connecting with your interviewer and the type of interviewer they are, whether you get Dr. Feelgood or Mr. Grinch. I had one interviewer who loved me and let me see him max out the scoring sheet for interviewing. Hello, waitlist.

Law2Doc didn't use superlatives - not ALL schools follow ONE protocol. However, Mike Istwan came right out and said at the MCW interviews (after we were all done interviewing) that our acceptance at this point hinged solely upon the interviews. Good interview? You're in. Bad interview? You're out. No other considerations mattered any more at that point. You were all invited to interview, so you were all on equal footing.

 

[45408]

I would think as long as you were clean and trim, nice haircut, etc that you'd be given the same chance as everyone else.

This is pretty much it. I'm not seeing these fabulously gorgeous people in med school that others seem to be finding, but there were some cuties....

anyways, at my interviews, most of the applicants were well-dressed and groomed, and even though some were obviously not as attractive as others, I doubt it affected their application more than just a tiny bit.


On a side note, I was at work last night, and I brought a patient up on an L&D floor, and the DO who came in to do the pelvic looked like he could have been the janitor. He looked very young, maybe mid-twenties (but he was past residency), and he looked like a real country fellow. If he had overalls and a mop, he would've looked like the custodial staff. So, obviously looks must not matter that much

 

[Doogie Howser]

its just not the media that plays beauty up, its the human race in general. There have been psychology experiments where people are asked to rate how successful, friendly, and numerous other attributes between two separate people, one being good looking and the other being just average. Hands down, every single time the attractive person is noted as friendlier, smarter, and more successful. so in conclusion, looks do matter, because generally that person will come off better in the interview.

as ron burgundy says, "its science"

 

[Zymogen]

I feel looks don't matter at all!

A person should be judged solely on their qualifications.

NOT.

 

[gary5]

Everything matters. If the "only" difference is appearance, then yes, the better looking person may win. Although you may get an interviewer who resents good-looking people, and so the opposite.

This doesn't matter much, though. Adcoms have lots of info to differentiate candidates. Here's a more realistic comparison: If two candidates are nearly identical, the friendlier one will win every time.

 

[zook]

On my last interview, everyone was really good looking! The way we were sitting around the table felt like we were on the Apprentice.

Angel

Wow, which interview was this? I must be going to the wrong interviews. Usually, there's only been one or two hotties at my interviews.

 

[abcxyz0123]

On my last interview, everyone was really good looking! The way we were sitting around the table felt like we were on the Apprentice.

Angel

the only explanation for this is that you must be really ugly

 

[madonna]

i am sure looks are important but how come there are so few good looking doctors, esp female?
i really dont want to be interviewed by aging unattractive female, they are bitter.

 

[dr.kicia]

I've heard that NYU ranks high on sexiness.

i have to dissagree....
i know a girl who got in and most of us would rathen not define her as ok looking...i think that for some people it matters how you present yourself. Afterall you should represent the phylosophy behind medicine and look like a healthy individual who is taking care of him/her self....but having said that how does it relate to your abbility of being a good doc
I never could understand american process of admissions to the med school....wierd

 

[Its_MurDAH]

"good looking" is a very relative term...

while some may find kate moss' anorexic frame and her pasty look to be drop dead gorgeous, others would find her to be disgusting and say that a better looking woman would be Mimi from the drew carey show.

Just a different perspective...what is "hot" after all?

 

[Wake2Wake7]

Looks can only help you if the interview is extremely important to your application.

If you have awesome stats, then the interview is usually a formality anyways (obvious exception - MCW). The guy with an awful genetic endowment gets in based on his stats alone.

If you have average stats, your interview is that much more important and your Brad Pitt-esque (or Angelina Jolie-esque, for that matter) figure will undoubtedly work to your favor in establishing a good impression during your interview.

Sad, but true.

Case in point, my friend is about 5'8" 210, but he's also got a 40 mcat, 3.9 gpa from a top 15 school. He's gotten acceptances and scholarship offers from schools more "average" (academically, at least) people can only dream about.

 

[rouge et noir]

Of course looks matter. I mean honestly, if you have two people with similar stats, you have to have a tie breaker don't you? And plus, who doesn't want extra good looking people around campus?

If I was an adcom and I had two women with identical stats, I'd pick the hotter one. If the less attractive woman scored higher on MCAt and had a better GPA, then I'd pick her. Is there really anything wrong with that?

 

[rouge et noir]

"good looking" is a very relative term...

while some may find kate moss' anorexic frame and her pasty look to be drop dead gorgeous, others would find her to be disgusting and say that a better looking woman would be Mimi from the drew carey show.

Just a different perspective...what is "hot" after all?

uhm...well, while I'm not quite a fan of anorexic people, I'm certainly not going to pick obese-too-much-makeup-on-Mimi.

 

[Its_MurDAH]

she.

is.

hot!