Rant about lookism in medicine

Started by Kanzi
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Kanzi

Full Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Saw this thread the other day


Most ppl are laughing this off in an archetypal Reddit fashion, but ime it's a serious problem. this is very much in line with people who pretend like women complaining about lookism is valid and justifies body acceptance movements, but men complaining about lookism is "incel-tier" and deserves ridicule. A well-known study from UT Austin in 2013 demonstrated that the financial penalty against ugly men is actually much harsher than the penalty against ugly women. Grading bias follows the same trend.

Kind of ironic too considering that we have to learn about this for the MCAT

Plastic surgery & dermatology are so obviously "looks dependent" fields... Orthopedics is dominated by jocks with good genetics who often fail to understand the subtleties of physical therapy, contributing to the stereotype that orthopedists over recommend surgery (although I will admit that this is a Yin and Yang where physical therapists under recommend surgery). Regardless, the orthobro stereotype is real and insane considering that football Chads who have perfect posture until they're 75 are generally poorly suited to understanding how much chronically upper crossed posture can improve, as well as how much chronically upper crossed posture can be a contributing factor to borderline cases where healing from an acute injury is in the "good but not good enough" range.

Yes there are plenty of ugly physicians, both male and female. Lookism is worse in law and way worse in business. That doesn't invalidate it. There are actually several clear things people can do about this. The first one is using complaint systems (Title IX etc). Generally the lookism has to be in the explicit category rather than just garden variety appearance-based exclusion, but a lot of bullies will go into the explicit category pretty early on if they think you're not gonna fight back (FYI: in some states you can record people without their consent). I've actually gotten a bully fired for this before. Complaining about lookism as a man will definitely cause you to lose face and will generally cause people to label you as an incel, but in the aforementioned instance with the bully it could not have been more worth it. If you can get explicit evidence of lookism, you're still not going to have a moral high ground in the minds of HR/Title IX etc but what you will have is leverage to make it a problem under the Civil Rights Act; explicit lookism falls under the category of sexual harassment and implicit lookism can still fall under the category of gender discrimination if there is a provably gendered component of it. I've had luck using complaint systems in several other instances that would be dox-tier to share, but the overarching point is that most men are too collectivist minded + too "man up" mindset to use them, especially if from a highly patriarchal culture.

inb4 I sound like I have a bad personality... In some ways I definitely do but that's beside the point and more due to being treated like an insect rather than the other way around. I've had too many instances of bias to be gaslit about personality anymore, and I am more than capable of being polite and submissive if the situation calls for it.

Imo, CBT is poorly suited for dealing with lookism, especially if you're a man. As a form of systemic discrimination, trying to reframe or systematically modify your response will just make you spineless at best. EMDR is probably a better approach.
 
Hmmm.... In all my years in admissions (25+) I can recall only one situation where we looked at a photo of an applicant before making a decision and that was someone who the interviewers called humorless and robotic. His photo confirmed that he had a resting frown face.

Other than that, the only use for the photos was to jog one's memory of a specific interviewee which was helpful when each interviewer was interviewing as many as 9 per day.
 
Is it possible that those who are matching into derm, plastics, and ortho are both scoring extremely well AND "look good"? I promise you these PDs aren't making large or small decisions for their residency candidates based on how they look. Plus (from my understanding), a lot of the applicants are blinded to the programs to prevent bias (ie, hiding STEP scores, their photo, etc). Maybe the social aspect of medicine cares about looks, but if someone treats you poorly because they think you're not attractive, that's on them, not you.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There's always this scene in Good Will Hunting.

Real Estate Auction GIF by RealEstateAuction.com
 
It's an issue. Of course, you will never convince admissions committees because there is no possible way that the appearance of a candidate could exert undue influence over their decision making. This in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it will.

Orthopedics is dominated by jocks with good genetics

That isn't the issue though. Orthopedics is dominated by jocks because jocks are more likely to experience injuries arising from sportsball misadventures requiring orthopedic treatment. Applicants to psychiatry are more likely to have a LOA for "unknown reasons". Applicants to dermatology are more likely to have an elaborate and expensive skin treatment routine. People are going to gravitate towards certain specialties due to their life experiences.

The issue is allowing appearance to be factored into the decision-making process when it needn't be. I didn't choose to be born with this stunning physique. I shouldn't be given an advantage for it by having a photo attached to my application.
 
The headshot is one thing, but we really need to address this at the interview stage. A filter should be applied that converts all applicants into a uniform gray-brown humanoid shape without hair or discernible facial features. The voices should be disguised and made uniform so everyone sounds like a kidnapper explaining where to leave the ransom.

Names, genders, locations, and experiences should likewise be emulsified and homogenized into a thin slurry to mitigate bias. Ashleigh from Clemson who was treasurer of her sorority? Gone. Meet XN557-3 from Region 12 who was financial officer for unspecified social organization.
 
Last edited:
The headshot is one thing, but we really need to address this at the interview stage. A filter should be applied that converts all applicants into a uniform gray-brown humanoid shape without hair or discernible facial features. The voice should be disguised and made uniform so everyone sounds like a kidnapper explaining where to leave the ransom.

Hey ChatGPT-in-my-application-manager-program... 😉
 
The headshot is one thing, but we really need to address this at the interview stage. A filter should be applied that converts all applicants into a uniform gray-brown humanoid shape without hair or discernible facial features. The voice should be disguised and made uniform so everyone sounds like a kidnapper explaining where to leave the ransom.

Names, genders, locations, and experiences should likewise be emulsified and homogenized into a thin slurry to mitigate bias. Ashleigh from Clemson who was treasurer of her sorority? Gone. Meet XN557-3 from Region 12 who was financial officer for unspecified social organization.

Hey, someone should write a story about this. So it goes.
 
Is it possible that those who are matching into derm, plastics, and ortho are both scoring extremely well AND "look good"? I promise you these PDs aren't making large or small decisions for their residency candidates based on how they look. Plus (from my understanding), a lot of the applicants are blinded to the programs to prevent bias (ie, hiding STEP scores, their photo, etc). Maybe the social aspect of medicine cares about looks, but if someone treats you poorly because they think you're not attractive, that's on them, not you.
I promise I'm not going at the angle of saying "orthopedics is dominated by dumb chads who don't deserve to be in the field"; ofc looks are not the main deciding factor, and people who match the top orthopedic residencies are obviously going to have top qualifications as well. Another user said that jocks are more likely to be an orthopedics because of being personally interested in it due to dealing with injuries from sports, and I second that. I think it's more of a subliminal issue that is problematic here insofar as people who are otherwise talented intellectually and may even have genuine interest in the field are dissuaded from it because of the orthobro stereotype.
 
It's an issue. Of course, you will never convince admissions committees because there is no possible way that the appearance of a candidate could exert undue influence over their decision making. This in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it will.



That isn't the issue though. Orthopedics is dominated by jocks because jocks are more likely to experience injuries arising from sportsball misadventures requiring orthopedic treatment. Applicants to psychiatry are more likely to have a LOA for "unknown reasons". Applicants to dermatology are more likely to have an elaborate and expensive skin treatment routine. People are going to gravitate towards certain specialties due to their life experiences.

The issue is allowing appearance to be factored into the decision-making process when it needn't be. I didn't choose to be born with this stunning physique. I shouldn't be given an advantage for it by having a photo attached to my application.
Laughed out loud at the part about psychiatry but when it comes to dermatology it's not just people with good skin; good skin is of course a near prerequisite, but once people start to judge on facial structure as well, it starts to become appealing to authority. Same with physical therapists; technically you could have a physical therapist with bottom tier genetics who is intellectually a miracle worker, but people would be less likely to take their advice because of the appealing to authority fallacy. Although when it comes to dermatology it becomes a bit comical, a lot of offices especially the highly branded advertised ones look like eugenics labs where they only hire highly attractive young women or the occasional gay Chad as nurses/techs, and of course the doctor is a Chad/Stacy who shamelessly justifies lookism as being "good for business".

When it comes to orthobros I think it's even a little deeper than personal interest insofar as highly athletic people tend to have better motor skills on average and lower "nerves" when it comes to performance, although this both unintentionally and intentionally fuels lookism insofar as life course theory goes (eg how ronaldinho was denied membership on Real Madrid for being too ugly)
 
I promise I'm not going at the angle of saying "orthopedics is dominated by dumb chads who don't deserve to be in the field"; ofc looks are not the main deciding factor, and people who match the top orthopedic residencies are obviously going to have top qualifications as well. Another user said that jocks are more likely to be an orthopedics because of being personally interested in it due to dealing with injuries from sports, and I second that. I think it's more of a subliminal issue that is problematic here insofar as people who are otherwise talented intellectually and may even have genuine interest in the field are dissuaded from it because of the orthobro stereotype.

Have you ever heard the saying "you're not ugly, you're just poor?"

Medical school is a very classed experience. Most matriculants come from the top quintile of household incomes in the US, and that is not a guess, it is an actual statistic.

When you can afford conveniences that enable a healthy lifestyle; travel; sports and hobbies; plastic surgery; intellectual interests and so on and so forth ad nauseam... you get what the average matriculant looks like at any medical school: beautiful, smart, cultured, poised... everything we associate with being upper class and indirectly, everything we associate with professional formation.

I think, because people don't have their checking account balance tattooed to their foreheads (or their parents' for that matter), you might believe everyone is on the same playing field with you. Not so. Part of your frustration, I think, is that social reproduction happens whether or not you agree with it.

But it's probably not because you are ugly. Being ugly is just the symptom. I think the deeper pain is realizing that you are unable to unravel your true potential (appearance and otherwise) as a result of who you were born to.

Tough pill to swallow. We call ourselves the land of opportunity, but really it is the same feudal system it has always been elsewhere. We're just more quiet about it.
 
Have you ever heard the saying "you're not ugly, you're just poor?"

Medical school is a very classed experience. Most matriculants come from the top quintile of household incomes in the US, and that is not a guess, it is an actual statistic.

When you can afford conveniences that enable a healthy lifestyle; travel; sports and hobbies; plastic surgery; intellectual interests and so on and so forth ad nauseam... you get what the average matriculant looks like at any medical school: beautiful, smart, cultured, poised... everything we associate with being upper class and indirectly, everything we associate with professional formation.
studies on lookism control for stuff like grooming, and they largely confirm the life course perspective where genetic differences stratify into epigenetic differences (eg frustration at lack of self actualization et cetera that turns into downward drift).

The (particulary Korean) stereotype of some rich incel turning into a chad from surgery is occasionally true but overstated. When it comes to stuff like body attractiveness and obesity, lifestyle can make or break you, but when it comes to having unfortunate facial structure the surgeries are pretty invasive and not commonplace even in wealthy households, aside from things like rhinoplasties and to a much lesser extent, osteotomies like maxillomandibular advancements. I won't go into too much detail around it but there are also limitations around what these osteotomies can provide in terms of an increase in attractiveness before the result becomes uncanny.

I have personally seen results where some ugly rich kid becomes attractive practically overnight (perfect case for this is someone who has a recessed maxilla that is well behind their forehead line on the Frankfort profile, so when it gets moved forward they don't develop a maxillary prognathic look), but these cases are in the minority and ime genetic determinism has a much larger sociological weight. statistics around height and salary more or less prove it, especially for men (personally I believe that studies on facial attractiveness are nearly as objective but people will always try to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder or that these studies don't control enough for racial/grooming/cultural factors). technically leg lengthening exists but practically nobody gets it, it's reserved for cases of 2cm+ leg length discrepancy or if someone is so insecure about being short that they are willing to risk being a cripple. And of course the cycle continues when tall people reproduce, despite regression to the mean.
 
Last edited:
studies on lookism control for stuff like grooming, and they largely confirm the life course perspective where genetic differences stratify into epigenetic differences (eg frustration at lack of self actualization et cetera that turns into downward drift).

The (particulary Korean) stereotype of some rich incel turning into a chad from surgery is occasionally true but overstated. When it comes to stuff like body attractiveness and obesity, lifestyle can make or break you, but when it comes to having unfortunate facial structure the surgeries are pretty invasive and not commonplace even in wealthy households, aside from things like rhinoplasties and to a much lesser extent, osteotomies like maxillomandibular advancements. I won't go into too much detail around it but there are also limitations around what these osteotomies can provide in terms of an increase in attractiveness before the result becomes uncanny.

I have personally seen results where some ugly rich kid becomes attractive practically overnight (perfect case for this is someone who has a recessed maxilla that is well behind their forehead line on the Frankfort profile, so when it gets moved forward they don't develop a maxillary prognathic look), but these cases are in the minority and ime genetic determinism has a much larger sociological weight. statistics around height and salary more or less prove it, especially for men (personally I believe that studies on facial attractiveness are nearly as objective but people will always try to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder or that these studies don't control enough for racial/grooming/cultural factors). technically leg lengthening exists but practically nobody gets it, it's reserved for cases of 2cm+ leg length discrepancy or if someone is so insecure about being short that they are willing to risk being a cripple. And of course the cycle continues when tall people reproduce, despite regression to the mean.

I am not particularly interested in arguing with you about what you personally find attractive. If you are looking for an answer that basically reinforces your desire to be maximally attractive and validation that the fantasy of being so must necessarily result in maximal life chances, there are probably better places to find more willing interlocutors. Sometimes I wonder whether the obsession with millimeters of bone actually results in the kind of attention you claim to want. Personally I think Dr. Mehlman would have been more likely to have found more communion amongst others if he had never gone down this path. You might find some wisdom in The Substance.

I can concede some generalities... I can agree that appearance isn't completely irrelevant to social interaction, and may in fact play a leading role in the texture of relational experience... but you make it so unbelievably large in the grand scheme that you leave yourself no room for personal progression beyond the most vapid and superficial aspects of existence.

Instead of aimlessly worrying about how others are perceiving you, focus on actually getting where you want to go. There's a class argument here, too: money creates a different frame of interpretation. What might be the poor man's "creepy and ugly" is the rich man's "eccentric and particular." There are plenty of "ugly" rich people whose lack of conventional attractiveness makes them paradoxically more desirable. See Benny Blanco and Selena Gomez.

In other words, it might actually be an even more perverse incentive, but I think the benefits of becoming materially successful far outweigh the benefits of chasing a potentially impossible and rapidly escalating beauty standard that you are, at least in part, creating yourself.
 
I am not particularly interested in arguing with you about what you personally find attractive. If you are looking for an answer that basically reinforces your desire to be maximally attractive and validation that the fantasy of being so must necessarily result in maximal life chances, there are probably better places to find more willing interlocutors. Sometimes I wonder whether the obsession with millimeters of bone actually results in the kind of attention you claim to want. Personally I think Dr. Mehlman would have been more likely to have found more communion amongst others if he had never gone down this path. You might find some wisdom in The Substance.

I can concede some generalities... I can agree that appearance isn't completely irrelevant to social interaction, and may in fact play a leading role in the texture of relational experience... but you make it so unbelievably large in the grand scheme that you leave yourself no room for personal progression beyond the most vapid and superficial aspects of existence.

Instead of aimlessly worrying about how others are perceiving you, focus on actually getting where you want to go. There's a class argument here, too: money creates a different frame of interpretation. What might be the poor man's "creepy and ugly" is the rich man's "eccentric and particular." There are plenty of "ugly" rich people whose lack of conventional attractiveness makes them paradoxically more desirable. See Benny Blanco and Selena Gomez.

In other words, it might actually be an even more perverse incentive, but I think the benefits of becoming materially successful far outweigh the benefits of chasing a potentially impossible and rapidly escalating beauty standard that you are, at least in part, creating yourself.
lol i literally acknowledged that ppl often take cosmetic surgery too far to the point of being uncanny

anyway looks are strongly correlated with salary, esp for men, and like i already said, studies on lookism control for grooming and whatever other factors ppl try to use to gaslight about "ur not ugly just poor!" the bezos/gates/zuckerberg strawman (benny blanco, same thing) is a tired argument and further suggests you didn't read my post properly
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
lol i literally acknowledged that ppl often take cosmetic surgery too far to the point of being uncanny

anyway looks are strongly correlated with salary, esp for men, and like i already said, studies on lookism control for grooming and whatever other factors ppl try to use to gaslight about "ur not ugly just poor!" the bezos/gates/zuckerberg strawman (benny blanco, same thing) is a tired argument and further suggests you didn't read my post properly

I notice you're very emotionally invested in making this argument and it does not seem like you are amenable to changing your mind. Genuinely, I've seen this line of thinking obliterate lives, and I'm very sorry that you feel this way. I hope you can recognize your trajectory and get some help. I believe, strongly, that there are people out there who would be willing to connect with you if you gave them a chance.
 
In brief, for those of us trying to keep up with the contemporary lingo, is the subject of this thread about "looksmaxxing in medicine"? Thx.

Yes. I was sort of hoping they were thinking more along the lines of appearance discrimination/bias just arguing it... poorly. Just don't attach headshots to applications at any point: zero legitimate reason to. Not that deep.

But OP has clearly been mentally cooked by the incel looksmaxxing rabbit hole. There's a law:

Once bigotry and self-loathing permeate a given community: it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls.

It applies here.
 
Just don't attach headshots to applications at any point: zero legitimate reason to. Not that deep.
Except the US doesn't have legal protections against lookism, and studies demonstrate that lookism against men is much harsher than lookism against women (despite the Reddit stereotype that it's the other way around)
 
Last edited:
In brief, for those of us trying to keep up with the contemporary lingo, is the subject of this thread about "looksmaxxing in medicine"? Thx.

No lol the other users are trying to gaslight me but I'm not a huge fan of the looksmaxing community

More talking about garden variety lookism where ugly nerds get shoved into lockers and the teachers turn a blind eye
 
Last edited:
Just don't attach headshots to applications at any point: zero legitimate reason to. Not that deep.
At the level of the admissions office, the main utility of headshots is to match the face on the application with the face of the person who shows up at the interview.

If memory serves, AMCAS does not release an applicant’s headshot until an interview offer is extended. Someone can correct me if I am mistaken.
 
I don't remember AMCAS or any other CAS asking for headshots. Schools will require it as a condition for an interview. Again, refer back to "Retainer!" 🙂
TMDSAS app does.
It is used to help jog the memory of your interviewers later when they are discussing admissions offers, and in my opinion probably prevents people from sending a "ringer" or imposter to do their Zoom interviews for them.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad