influence of physical attractiveness

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

ivyleague22ny

Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Thought I just start an interesting discussion:

Do you think attractive pre-med applicants have any advantages? Are they treated better? Is it important to look good on an application photo?

Media projects the notion that beautiful people have an enormous advantage. Especially in situations where a good first impression is decisive (such as medical school interviews), do beautiful people benefit from their attractivity?

If you were part of the admissions committee and you are reviewing two people of the same gender, ethnicity, credentials and qualifications and one is clearly "more attractive" than the other who would you pick?

Just thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss. 🙂
 
Actually, this topic has been discussed to death, already. Just do a search.

And looking at the responses of ppl, I guess physical attractiveness does make a difference, although it is not fair.
 
There was an interesting episode of "20/20" a while back where they took pairs of people (attractive vs. "not-so-attractive") in similar situations and compared the outcomes. There were two job interviews (male/female), a jury-tried court case, and.... I forget what the last one was. 😕

Anyway, the better looking people were more successful in every case. In the job interviews, all the candidates were equally qualified, but the good looking people got the job every time, *even though* they were instructed to have the same demeanor and they all wore the same outfits.

--edit---

But the underlying point is that people do make assumptions about you based on how you look. There have even been scientific studies that very young babies tend to give more attention to people considered "attractive." This tends to imply that people are hard-wired to prefer attractive human beings. And there are other studies that have implied that "attractiveness" may denote genetic fitness, studied the influence of facial symmetry, etc... but I digress.

The bottom line: ALWAYS MAKE SURE TO LOOK YOUR BEST. If you're diligent enough to be well groomed and well dressed, people will assume that you pay that same attention to detail in every other aspect of your life. And diligence / attention to detail is one characteristic I would think adcoms would want to see in future doctors... 😉

EDIT: Oh yeah, the other scenario in the show was when they took two women and had them assume the role of substitute teachers in a first or second grade class. The two women were similar in personality, but at different ends of the attractiveness spectrum. They then interviewed the kids afterward to gauge their impressions, and the result was the kids thought the beautiful woman was nicer, smarter, a better teacher, etc... weird, eh?
 
I found a link that that show on 20/20 about, in their words, "Lookism."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_lookism_020823.html

The Ugly Truth
About Beauty
Like It or Not, Looks Do Matter

Commentary
By John Stossel

Aug. 23 ? We like to think of America as a meritocracy. A lot of us think we value people because of what they accomplish, or their character, or generosity, or intelligence ? that's what we thought mattered, but are we just putting blinders on?


More often than not it seems qualities other than skill, intelligence or character pay off. Here's an example. Anna Kournikova is ranked 37th in women's tennis, and has never won a major singles championship. So, why is it that Kournikova makes millions more dollars from endorsements than players ranked higher?
Looks don't only make a difference for women. Does New York Giants' cornerback Jason Sehorn get so much attention just because he's a top athlete? Is that why he was featured in Sports Illustrated for Women?

You probably know about the famous Kennedy-Nixon debates ? people listening on the radio thought Richard Nixon had won. Those watching TV thought the handsome John F. Kennedy won.

When Texas Sen. Phil Gramm sought the Republican nomination for president in 1996, he said: "The real question is whether someone as ugly as I am can be elected." Within months, Gramm dropped out of the race.

Did the press cover JFK Jr. so relentlessly solely because he was the son of a president? Would we have cared so much about Princess Di if she had looked like, say, Princess Margaret?


Beauty and the Brain

It may seem obvious to most of us that people would prefer to look at beautiful faces. While beauty itself may be only skin deep, studies show our perception of beauty may be hard-wired in our brains.

In studies conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers Itzhak Aharon, Nancy Etcoff, Dan Ariely, Christopher F. Chabris, Ethan O'Connor, and Hans C. Breiter have used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology to look at the activity in men's brains when they were shown pictures of beautiful women's faces. Breiter and his colleagues found that the same part of the brain lights up as when a hungry person sees food, or a gambler eyes cash, or a drug addict sees a fix. Essentially, beauty and addiction trigger the same areas in the brain.

Some researchers link this addictive pursuit of good looks to evolution. Anthropologist Helen Fisher, suggests that primitive man might have unconsciously thought that a pretty woman had a better chance of bearing healthy children.

The Long and the Short of It

Women will tolerate a lot of shortcomings in men, but it seems shortness isn't one of them. (ABCNEWS.com)

Likewise, evolution may have led women to prefer taller men.

Women will take just about any shortcoming in a man, except in the height department, according to Andrea McGinty, who founded the San Diego-based dating service It's Just Lunch.

McGinty helped ABCNEWS put together an experiment to test just how willing women are to date shorter men. We brought together several short men and asked them to stand next to taller men. We invited groups of women to look at the men and choose a date.

To see if the women would go for short guys who were successful, ABCNEWS' Lynn Sherr created extraordinary r?sum?s for the shorter men. She told the women that the shorter men included a doctor, a best-selling author, a champion skier, a venture capitalist who'd made millions by the age of 25.

Nothing worked. The women always chose the tall men. Sherr asked whether there'd be anything she could say that would make the shortest of the men, who was 5 feet, irresistible. One of the women replied, "Maybe the only thing you could say is that the other four are murderers." Another backed her up, saying that had the taller men had a criminal record she might have been swayed to choose a shorter man. Another said she'd have considered the shorter men, if the taller men had been described as "child molesters."

The desire for tall men begins very young, apparently. ABCNEWS gave elementary school students a test, asking them to match a small, medium or large figure of a man with a series of words. The kids overwhelmingly linked the tall figure to the words strong, handsome and smart. The linked the short figure to the words sad, scared and weak. More than half of the kids also chose to link the short figure to the words, dumb, yucky and no friends.

Add 'Lookism' to the List

To conduct an experiment, 20/20 hired actors ? some great looking, some not ? and put them in situations to gauge how often the "lookers" would get preferential treatment.

In the first test, we put two women next to cars without gas in Atlanta. The women wore the same outfit.

Both Michelle and Tracey stood helplessly by cars with their hoods up. For the average-looking Michelle, a few pedestrians stopped but only made suggestions as where she could walk to get gasoline. But for the beautiful Tracey, cars came screeching to a halt. More than a dozen cars stopped and six people went to get Tracey gas.

The two actresses helped with our second test, at an Atlanta shopping mall where both women set up a table and sold calendars and teddy bears to raise money for charity. Overall, it looked as if both women were doing well with their sales. Then we counted the money and found Tracey collected 50 percent more.

What if we tested something requiring qualifications, like getting a job? Looks shouldn't matter then but would they?

20/20 hired two men and two women to apply for jobs. The clearest difference between them was looks while they shared similar education and work experience backgrounds. To match them up more closely, we rewrote their r?sum?s to match.

Mark, who was our more attractive applicant, and Mike, the more ordinary-looking one, both had corporate experience and had run their own companies. Donia, our more attractive female applicant, and her counterpart, Amy, both had been secretaries and saleswomen. A consultant trained them so their behavior matched.

Hidden cameras captured interviewers being warmer and friendlier to the better looking applicants and being less friendly to the other applicants. With Amy and Donia, for example, one job interviewer told Amy employees got a 45-minute lunch break but with Donia the interviewer said there was a flexible policy about lunch. Who got the job offer? Donia. Amy never even got a call back.

We ran similar tests using Mike and the especially good looking Mark. Would looks make less of a difference when the interviewers were judging men? Apparently not. On the first interview, for a sales job, the interviewer told Mike he'd call him later but he never called. With Mark, the interviewer was eager to have him return for a tryout day.

"It's a non-conscious process," said Tom Cash, a psychologist at Old Dominion University. "They assume that more attractive people have an array of valued characteristics."

We should add the bias of "lookism" to sexism and racism. It's just as bad but we don't need a federal program.
 
Imagine being the person hired to play the ugly counterpart. Ouch! :laugh:
 
In addition to attractiveness, studies have shown that taller people do better too.
 
Originally posted by ramonmcguire
In addition to attractiveness, studies have shown that taller people do better too.

I guess I should look into investing in shoes with really big heels. 🙂
 
Originally posted by Thundrstorm
Imagine being the person hired to play the ugly counterpart. Ouch! :laugh:

Yeah! I was thinking the SAME thing when I saw the show on TV... :laugh: I mean, you've got to have some pretty solid self esteem if you're going on national television as the representative of the "nonattractive" group.... 😀

Also, personally, I didn't think any of the "nonattractive" people were ugly at all, just average. Their pictures are on the ABC website... 😎
 
Thanks for a great discussion...esp. from you JJNY!

Another scientific study was done on whether symmetry affects beauty.

http://pcptpp030.psychologie.uni-regensburg.de/beautycheck/english/index.htm

They found out that very asymmetric faces are judged rather unattractive, but very unattractive faces are not necessarily asymmetric.

And vice versa : very symmetrical faces need not necessarily be judged attractive and very attractive faces often show deviations from perfect symmetry.

Based on their results, symmetry only seems to be a rather weak indicator for attractiveness. Often it is even difficult to distinguish between the original and the perfectly symmetrical version, because irregularities in shape are rather insignificant. Therefore, the strong influence of symmetry that has been reported in the scientific literature over and over again is questionable.


Great discussion everyone!
 
Ivy,

Check out this link:

http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/humanface/humanface.html

It was another show I saw on the Learning Channel. FASCINATING!

Particularly note the discussion of the golden ratio, 1:1.618

RF_-_Gina_-_w_Mask_BIG.jpg
 
This discussion reminded me of one of my favorite Seinfeld observations. Specifically, Jerry and Elaine are discussing attractive people and the advantages they possess when he mentions that "you never see handsome homeless."

Personally, however, I have caught myself on occassion assuming that more attractive people are less skilled. I think it stems from the stereotypes of the attractive "frat boy" persona where the guy floats through life on good looks. I'm sure part of his mentality comes from the media. I can name a half dozen shows were there's some good looking person that has no brain (ex: Keith on Andy Richter Controls the Universe). Even the recent movie Legally Blonde uses this stereotype to teach us that the main character is more than just a body.

Fortunately for me, however, I'm aware of the problem, so it has little effect on my conscious decisions. For those who are unaware of their biases, it may be a different story.
 
If physical attractiveness is a factor in medical school admissions, how ugly is the applicant pool each year!?
 
I think weight is a huge part of the attractiveness factor in many situations. People tend to associate overweight with laziness, lack of discipline, etc. Personally I saw this A LOT after doubling my high school weight as an undergrad after developing an endocrine disorder. It made me much more aware of my own prejudices as well.
In fact, I was really paranoid about it when I was applying last year. Who knows how much of an impact it had, but I didn't get in! This year, after improving my ECs and LORs dramatically and losing 60 lbs, I'm finally in 😛 :clap: Intellectually I doubt the weight loss had anything to do with it, but sometimes I wonder.
Btw, I was never anywhere near the "ugly end" when I was skinny, but I always thought any preferential treatment was because I was smart... 😀
 
Originally posted by nichols195
If physical attractiveness is a factor in medical school admissions, how ugly is the applicant pool each year!?


so very true, not many med students are gonna be winning beauty contests that's for sure.
 
The photo I attached to my applications look like crap. When I took it I was very sleep deprived. Pretty bad planning on my part... 🙁

And I think it's affected my application because most of the school's that required a photo with the secondaries have NOT invited me for interview. In fact, 3 have rejected me...

So seems like there is definitely a correlation....
 
As Med school admissions isn't anything close to a beauty pageant, most of us should be fine...
 
hey JJNY,

Thanks for the link! I printed out the mask from
Dr. Stephen Marquardt and I skimmed over the
directions, but was wondering if you tried the
test, too!

feel free to AOL IM me at <ny22ivylge> if you
see me online.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just got accepted to UMN Med this fall 2003! who hoo!
 
I wonder how much 'attractiveness' would have the opposite effect. Do you think attractive people might be judged more harshly, just b/c? Med students are defined pretty much by competition, so why would you want people coming in that are better looking than you (esp with girls!!!)

And people may assume that you've had it easier, b/c you are attractive? I've noticed through my 'pre-med' years that med seems to breed a lot of bitterness, so maybe this may play some factor???

Who knows, or horney med students who have spent all their time in the library may not even think this hard about it, the answer to them is simple!!!

just some thoughts . . .
 
Hey everyone,

That link that Ivy posted was REALLY interesting. I found this page to be particularly thought-provoking. On this page are 12 computer-generated facial pictures of people who do not really exist. They range from extremely "attractive" faces (male/female) to unnattractive faces. I found myself looking at the pictures and imagining what the people's personalities and other personal attributes were like.... just based on the facial picture. Now mind you, THESE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST! I thought that was spooky.... 😱 Try it!

http://pcptpp030.psychologie.uni-re...ish/sozialewahrnehmung/sozialewahrnehmung.htm
 
Originally posted by JJNY
Hey everyone,

That link that Ivy posted was REALLY interesting. I found this page to be particularly thought-provoking. On this page are 12 computer-generated facial pictures of people who do not really exist. They range from extremely "attractive" faces (male/female) to unnattractive faces. I found myself looking at the pictures and imagining what the people's personalities and other personal attributes were like.... just based on the facial picture. Now mind you, THESE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST! I thought that was spooky.... 😱 Try it!

http://pcptpp030.psychologie.uni-re...ish/sozialewahrnehmung/sozialewahrnehmung.htm


Great link, but where are the blondes?!?
 
I was thinking that more attractive people might be at a disadvantage when applying to med schools because of the "all beauty and no brains" stereotype... Especially with women, there is a tendency to think that really pretty girls are flakes. If someone looks more like a nerd and maybe less fashionable maybe they are thought of as being more intelligent and being less superficial?

And I wonder how important it is to wear makeup? I know with jobs, there was a study that showed women who wear make up to work get the promotions.

I only wear makeup for very formal occasions.. and never paint my nails..but I've been advised to wear makeup for my interviews - mostly just to make me look a little older.

Nails are another issue for men and women. I've heard that interviewers will check out nails to see if you bite them and also your shoes to see if they are polished. This is probably a rumor, but it can't hurt to keep this in mind.

As for photos to send in.. I didn't think to have a recent photo taken ahead of time and didn't want to wait 2 or 3 weeks to get prints back so I ended up sending a photo that was from my senior year in high school. I tested it out on people who didn't know me well and it passed as one that I could have taken recently (hence the reason why makeup is a good idea for me.. I still get carded at the movie theater!)
 
I recently decided to get braces because, although my teeth are very straight, I have no overbite at all (I was afraid of eventual wear). After consulting with my orthodontist, he decided that the best way to remedy my bite would be to remove a lower incisor and pull my lower teeth in under the uppers. Having just gotten my first invitation to interview in the mail, I wasn't about to have him start pulling my front teeth out. He told me it would take about 2 months to close the gap. In the meanwhile, I'd be obviously missing a front tooth. I opted to wait until the end of March because I feel that attractiveness does play a role and I want everything going for me during the application process. My dad completely disagrees with me however and thinks that I'm just being vain. Any opinions? What would you do?
 
Originally posted by wolferman
I recently decided to get braces <snip> He told me it would take about 2 months to close the gap. In the meanwhile, I'd be obviously missing a front tooth. I opted to wait until the end of March because I feel that attractiveness does play a role and I want everything going for me during the application process. My dad completely disagrees with me however and thinks that I'm just being vain. Any opinions? What would you do?

Absolutely wait. No doubt about it. You will look much more professional with all your teeth in place!

As for make up: I'm a little older, so I wear very little make up to make myself look fresher, younger. I don't think the "all looks no brains" thing holds true, personally. Maybe if someone came off as sexy as opposed to simply good looking, yes. But I would still argue that subconsciously, less good looking people are often judged less positively in almost every way. Even more so if the flaws are ones that can be easily fixed- unkempt clothes or hair, raggedy nails.

Regarding nails: I would say not too long, well-manicured but not painted. That looks a lot more professional than very long or painted nails- how often have you seen doctors with those? Now how often have you seen check-out clerks with them?

One last thing for the women: if you want to look older, don't wear your hair in a simple ponytail, but do wear it up (if it's long). If you must wear a ponytail, do not wear it too high, and cover the base with something more polished than a simple rubber band or scrunchie. Even better, wear it in a twist, a bun, or a french braid. I've seen a number of women wearing the co-ed ponytail at interviews, and it simply looks unprofessional.
The end of my $.02 (why ever did they get rid of the cent sign??) for now.
 
I'm glad somone started this thread. Two months ago my two friends and I were sitting in my living room. We were all anxiosly waiting for interviews and things like that since all three of us are premed. The funny thing with us is that we have the similar GPA and MCAT scores (plus or minus one point). One of my friends is beautiful! I warn you guys that if she ends up that the same medical school as you, you'll be very pleased. However, she's very egotistic and self-centered. Well anyway, she turns to both of us and says....you know prettier people have a much better chance of getting into med school. I don't know what she meant to accomplish with that sentence so I asked her what she meant. You know prettier people naturally do well...like people look at them and are more likely to like them.

Seriously we ended up in a huge argument that ended up in me and my other friend getting so irritated that we had to leave the room. Well, a month later, we all apply to the same school and us two get in and she got a plain rejection. I know it's really mean to be happy for someone's rejection but I was hoping somewhere along this application process we would be able to prove her wrong.
 
Originally posted by shake well
One of my friends is beautiful! <snip> However, she's very egotistic and self-centered. Well anyway, she turns to both of us and says....you know prettier people have a much better chance of getting into med school. <snip>
Well, a month later, we all apply to the same school and us two get in and she got a plain rejection. I know it's really mean to be happy for someone's rejection but I was hoping somewhere along this application process we would be able to prove her wrong.

Maybe her rejection had more to do with her ego than her looks! Coming off as humble is pretty important too, imnsho. :laugh:
 
I don't think there are any relationships between admissions and how hot u are
I am drop-dead gorgeous but I got into only one school so far
:laugh:
 
Well, a month later, we all apply to the same school and us two get in and she got a plain rejection.
Some *really* beautiful people also have *really* bad attitudes. If she hadn't been so self-centered, she probably would have stood a better chance.

Originally posted by nichols195
If physical attractiveness is a factor in medical school admissions, how ugly is the applicant pool each year!?
Those are the students who had "connections" or family legacies. 😉

Seriously, I think a lot of biasness or prejudice or "looksism" as it's called stems from human nature and we can try to control it, but it's "built in" through evolution.

Someone with a horribly devastating disease usually doesn't look too "pretty". That was mentioned in the 20/20 episode...it could be "nature's way" of weeding out sick people/sick genes.

I think that could explain why racism is prevalent in all human cultures (and probably in some non-human species as well)....it's a matter of taking care of your "own" or having preferences of your "own kind", that I think is a built-in human response. When you think about it, it would've been an advantage to your tribe (and to carrying on your own gene line) if you favored someone from a "next door" tribe than someone from the other side of the world. Animals have already demonstrated that they inherently know not to get too close to their own family (i.e., males roam to find a female that isn't too close to their immediate family so as not to narrow the gene pool....in human culture, incest is taboo, and a "20/20 study" showed the human females find the smell of male sweat more "attractive" if the males are not from someone in their own family.

Not that any of this excuses favoring the physically attractive or biasness, but I think there's definitely an evolutionary reason to it....As there is to violence...if humans weren't inherently violent, we never would've survived to evolve at all....

There was a study on one of those Nightline type shows that showed that this kind of study was done to animals and it was the FEMALES who were inherently "prejudice" against animals that weren't her "own kind".

I don't know if I can remember the exact details, so if someone could post a link, that would be great. I think it involved sheep and goats?? 😕 Male and female babies were separated from their "own kind" and raised by the other type of animal. After the babies grew up and when it came time to mate, the male adopted animals tried to 'hook up' with the species that was the same as the mother who raised them (the opposite species). But all of the females looked for a mate that was the same species as her (even though she had no previous contact with that species before).
 
After the babies grew up and when it came time to mate, the male adopted animals tried to 'hook up' with the species that was the same as the mother who raised them (the opposite species). But all of the females looked for a mate that was the same species as her (even though she had no previous contact with that species before).
I saw that. It was very interesting.
 
Attractiveness matters in med school admissions? I dunno, I've seen a lot of ugly doctos.
 
Interesting post, guys! I'm in a different position, as I am in my 4th year of medschool, applying for a residency spot in a competitive surgical subspecialty. I consider myself attractive, modelled my way through college, and have been in some pretty well known magazines (not bragging, just giving you an idea).

I have to say that I felt like I had an advantage. On numerous occasions, I spent over an hour talking to docs intervewing me, while others were out of there in 5-10 minutes. One older guy even said something like..."what's a pretty girl like you gonna do in Cleveland?" There were several average looking female applicants that had tough interviews (pimping, being confrontational), while I had the most pleasant experiences with the same interviewers.

Is it fair? Probably not. Am I gonna use my looks to my advantage? You bet! We'll see if I match this year... 🙄
 
i_bite,

Interesting. What's the competitive subspecialty??

On Match Day, you'll have to search for this thread and update us as to how you did and how the other females of your class did in comparison.




Originally posted by i_bite
Interesting post, guys! I'm in a different position, as I am in my 4th year of medschool, applying for a residency spot in a competitive surgical subspecialty. I consider myself attractive, modelled my way through college, and have been in some pretty well known magazines (not bragging, just giving you an idea).

I have to say that I felt like I had an advantage. On numerous occasions, I spent over an hour talking to docs intervewing me, while others were out of there in 5-10 minutes. One older guy even said something like..."what's a pretty girl like you gonna do in Cleveland?" There were several average looking female applicants that had tough interviews (pimping, being confrontational), while I had the most pleasant experiences with the same interviewers.

Is it fair? Probably not. Am I gonna use my looks to my advantage? You bet! We'll see if I match this year... 🙄
 
Hoping to become a urologist. It's an early match (January 27). I'll keep you all posted.
 
Originally posted by INeedAdvice
a "20/20 study" showed the human females find the smell of male sweat more "attractive" if the males are not from someone in their own family.




I actually read something a while back in Time that said the opposite.

Women were given a variety of sweat samples to pick from, and for the most part, they preferred the sample from the male who was most genetically similar to their fathers.

Freaky huh?
 
Top