Attractive female students get better grades
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
We take submission privileges away from accounts that do this. It's against the site guidelines, which ask you to "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
I don't want to take submission privileges away from your account, because you've also been posting some good submissions. But we need you to fix this!
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
If you need to paraphrase an article title because it's too long to fit HN's 80 char limit, please do so in a neutral and undistorted way, not in a cherry-picking way as you did here.
>> Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
It considers the effect of attractiveness on male and female students. In fact, it finds the beauty premium persists in online learning for male students but not for female students. I won't speculate as to why the title has been so heavily editorialized, but it seems to have significantly lowered the quality of discussion.
Edit: This'll teach me to read the whole study. The conclusion has this to say:
>This finding implies that the female beauty premium observed when education is in-person is likely to be chiefly a consequence of discrimination. On the contrary, for male students, there was still a significant beauty premium even after the introduction of online teaching. The latter finding suggests that for males in particular, beauty can be a productivity-enhancing attribute.
This isn't what people aren't usually interested in. Saving time by providing interesting conclusions at-a-glance is sensible.
I do see how the conclusions have been editorialized away from the actual findings, for no apparent reason.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
Most people think this is obvious. I'm still wondering why it hasn't been corrected. Instead, it got yanked.
"The effect is only present in courses with significant teacher–student interaction."
I mention this because I initially wondered if looks drove general confidence, and that somehow made them better students. But the subtitle implies that instructors have a bias in favor of looks.
That said, now I wonder how the gender and/or gender-preference of the teacher influences the bias.
Facial bone structure is probably the most difficult thing to fix apart from height.
Society is so sensitive though that any message of improving yourself is interpreted as “shaming”, which hurts the individual.
I think the second chin made me look quite unattractive - it's damn hard to get rid of it along with the beer belly heh
It's hard to argue that looking good isn't any advantage, but this could be an interesting nuance.
>Grades of attractive females declined when teaching was conducted remotely.
It looks like this study has done well to isolate the effect one's attractiveness has on a teacher's marking.
The effect is only present in courses with significant teacher–student interaction.
When education is in-person, attractive students receive higher grades in non-quantitative subjects, in which teachers tend to interact more with students compared to quantitative courses.
If it was about getting study help, the effect would be mirrored in quantitative courses.
Presumably popularity and ability to garner help with studying would be the same for qualitative and quantitative courses.
Height in management is not one of the fitting requirements.
A manager is someone who never does any work, therefore makes no mistakes, therefore gets promoted :)
I can't remember the exact words, but she noted that Hollywood was a lot harder for actresses that producers etc. didn't want to fuck. While the casting couch was a hard, demeaning career path, it was a career path, and one that a crafty, resourceful actress that powerful people wanted to fuck might even be able to work around and take advantage of without having to do anything. But if you're just a good actress and not seen as a bedding opportunity, there was just a wall.
90% of the time, you can just go to their Wikipedia page and see that their parents or aunt/uncle is a well connected Hollywood type. The other times, you'll see paparazzi shots of them partying with 65 year old dudes, who end up being big Hollywood players. Because there's nothing attractive 20-somethings like to do more than party with people who are their grandfather's age.
Certainly, sophisticated academics and other deep thinkers consider – or at least mention when being comprehensive – the many possible dimensions of privilege. They're not secrets, nor unstudied.
But the people most often flagging things like "white privilege" or "male privilege" often don't mention things like "height privilege" or "beauty privilege" or "personality privilege". They don't want the distraction.
Google result counts:
9,760,000 [white privilege]
1,590,000 [male privilege]
432,000 [beauty privilege]
3,130 [height privilege]
No mention of this or any confounds in the paper. Which leads me to believe this paper is clickbait "science".
Occurs with other... social traits. All my bosses were children of a businessman, or a friend, a son of a friend of a businessman, family or higher social class. (Hence my theory about generalized mismanagement: it is because the manager is not prepared to manage, they are chosen based on some social characteristics)
These traits have more "social capital". It's basically impossible to beat one if he has more social capital than you, you may be a brilliant professional, but in the end, social capital is more important.
And rightly so. Beauty says health, wisdom... probably lots of other important stuff too. Beauty is magic.
It's only natural that beautiful people get our attention and admiration and maybe make us a little crazy.
Beauty is big. Reason, for all its philosophy, science and technology, is actually only very small.
There is no hard and fast rule, but on average the pretty ones tend to be more intelligent.
> When the children were 7 and again when they were 11, their teachers were asked to describe them physically. For the purpose of the analysis below, the children are defined to be attractive if they were described as attractive at both age 7 and age 11.
> Sixty-two percent of the NCDS respondents are coded as attractive.
It is possible that teacher involuntary describe rich students as attractive and poor students as not attractive, or at least there is a bias. Or perhaps it's a bias for some race that is correlated with wealth that is correlated with intelligence. Malnutrition cause learning problems. Poor students get bad schools and not out of school tuition when necessary. It's not a 100% correlation, but perhaps enough to cause a difference in the study.
There's literally a term "law school hot" which means definitely not hot, but hot for a lawyer.
> used to describe women who, in any other scenario would be considered hunchbacked, slovenly, heinous wildebeasts. But, because of their captive audience (law school men) and their alternatives (other trolls, buffalos, and wildebeasts) they somehow garner attraction.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=law%20school...
> And being smart is attractive trait on its own!
Being competent would probably be more accurate. I assume you mean intelligence when you use the word smart here, in which case I would say that most people consider intelligence to be boring. But no one likes an idiot. One can be competent, or perhaps smart (which is really more about decision making than processing capability), without being abundant in intelligence.