Scott Jaschik writes at Inside Higher Education that although most faculty members would deny that physical appearance is a legitimate criterion in grading, a study finds that among similarly qualified female students, those who are physically attractive earn better grades than less attractive female students. For male students, there is no significant relationship between attractiveness and grades. The results hold true whether the faculty member is a man or a woman.
The researchers obtained student identification photographs for students at Metropolitan State University of Denver and had the attractiveness rated, on a scale of 1-10, of all the students. Then they examined 168,092 course grades awarded to the students, using factors such as ACT scores to control for student academic ability. For female students, an increase of one standard deviation in attractiveness was associated with a 0.024 increase in grade (on a 4.0 scale).
The results mirror a similar study that found that those who are attractive in high school are more likely to go on to earn a four-year college degree. Hernández-Julián says that he found the results of the Metro State study “troubling” and says that there are two possible explanations: “Is it that professors invest more time and energy into the better-looking students, helping them learn more and earn the higher grades? Or do professors simply reward the appearance with higher grades given identical performance? The likely answer, given our growing understanding of the prevalence of implicit biases, is that professors make small adjustments on both of these margins."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @03:55PM
Before the meals ready to ate contingent piles in, no the women aren't trading sex for better grades.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:00PM
It's probably safe to presume that MOST ARE NOT trading sex for grades. But - it does happen. And, it doesn't even require consummation to count - if the pretty little thing just stays after class every day for three or five minutes to flirt, she is actively trading on her sexuality.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:52PM
Ah, the bigot simply could not resist the bait.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:29PM
I'm going to re-state an interesting tidbit from the article: "The attractiveness gap in grades appears to result more from lower grades for less attractive women than from higher grades for the most attractive women. When the researchers divided the women into three groups -- average, more attractive and less attractive -- they found a very small (and not statistically significant) gain for the above average attractiveness women. But for the least attractive third of women, the average course grade was 0.067 grade points below those earned by others, a statistically significant gap."
So it doesn't appear that the attractive ones are unfairly getting higher grades, it's that the unattractive ones are unfairly getting lower grades.
To the AC who has been trying to make this exact point: You might get more traction if you didn't run around calling everyone a bigot or stupid first. Present you case in a logical manner and maybe people will listen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jiro on Friday January 08 2016, @12:36AM
It could also mean that the standards for attractiveness needed to get higher grades are weak. That is, perhaps *most* women, except for a few ugly ones, unfairly get higher grades. If this was true, they would not be very far above the average, because they would be so numerous that they would raise the average. You'd just see the ugly ones scoring below the average.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Saturday January 09 2016, @01:40AM
A large part of what we consider female beauty is the direct result of cosmetics. It could be that women who don't wear makeup (etc) are also not eschewing social norms while in class. In which case, it would be less about physical beauty, and more about attitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @12:57AM
Not the same AC, but it is logical to call a bigot a bigot in the same way it is logical to call a duck a duck. Appealing to emotions by not doing so is practical which, as in this case, is not always logical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @02:38AM
Refraining from calling someone a bigot is not necessarily illogical, and certainly not so if it helps accomplish some larger goal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @04:54AM
Yes, but I soooo want to flirt with Runaway1956, and use my Runaway1957 wiles to bring him to completion. I am so sick and tired of women having their way with Runaway1956, getting him to wash dishes, raise beef, wear his goddamed seat-belt. If only he could meet one of his own kind, someone who appreciated him just as he is, and, well, see, I can't go on because ya'll called him a bigot, and now the buzz is gone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @09:02PM
Classifying a non-human animal as a duck does not depend upon your opinion; a duck is a duck regardless of the labels you apply to it (in fact, a duck is a duck when it identifies as such). Whether or not a remark is bigoted is a matter of interpretation, and the application of the the label "bigot" to an individual is subjectively predicated upon your own opinion.
When you compare bigots to ducks, you assume that everyone else agrees with you that something was a bigoted remark. This excludes those who disagree with you and erodes their safe space. Please check your privilege next time before you appropriate a community's opinion to serve your own narrow ends.
I'm not going to educate you any further because, frankly, it's not my job to do so (as I don't happen to identify as a teacher or educator this week). But you'd better toe the line, or else I shall see to it that you lose your job over this episode of hateful behavior!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:55PM
Also applies to the dreaded group work. Ideal scenario to demonstrate the effect is a group work project hottie surrounded by a cloud of beta orbiter types trying to show off by trying hard.
More than a decade ago when I was in school, group work meant you'd take a task that would take one person one week, assign it to a team of five, give them two weeks, and watch them fail as they play a bluffing game waiting to see who will do all the work and finally the loser of the game does all the work by themselves slapping some crap together the night before its due.
It was funny watching the teen kids whining about it being idiotic and nobody would ever do something that dumb, and I'm trying to explain thats how it works out in corporate america. I've been on plenty of teams that meet for 10, even 20 person-year total and only accomplish about 1 person-week of actual production.
Anyway "sit there and look pretty while the guys in the group flirt with you" is a thing for education and corporate groups.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by danmars on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:45PM
Came here to say "group work" - the summary doesn't say whether this is exclusively including classes with no group work or presentations. It's entirely plausible that attractive female students would have other group members try harder to try to attract attention, or other students who would rate them higher on peer evaluations. This would also explain why the professor's gender is unimportant - the people who matter are the fellow students, not the professors. Group work in online classes doesn't include the in-person interactions which may create that difference between the students, which would explain why they lack the difference.
Also, there's the possibility others have mentioned that the attractive female students are getting more tutoring help from people who are interested in them, but I don't think that explains the online-equality component as well as group work and presentations do.
So, while interesting, it doesn't tell us why the attractiveness may matter. The linked article and summary pin the problem on the teacher, but we don't know that. It could easily be peers influencing the grades.
I'd be curious to know whether the effect exists in classes without any group work or peer evaluations.
(Score: 1) by driverless on Friday January 08 2016, @05:34AM
It could also be something completely different. The OP says that "there are two possible explanations", when there are actually three, with the third one being that they screwed up the methodology, failed to correct for one or more confounding factors, etc etc (an example being the widely-reported "result" that Asian students are being discriminated against for entry into certain colleges because ones who were admitted had higher GPAs than non-Asian students, when they were being scored on a whole range of things, only one of which was the GPA).
I'll wait for a later analysis that shows what they did wrong in this study.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:24PM
I want the truth!
Moderation -1
Spam=1
You can't handle the truth!
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:31PM
The truth? Sometime or other, I read the rules on moderation. A spam mod is -5, I believe - it really hurts your karma badly. BUT - a spam mod is automatically sent to the staff, and they see it. The rules for posting are really relaxed here, you can post anything, EXCEPT SPAM! Staff get's notified of spam immediately. But - when they see that the spam mod was used improperly, they start thinking about punishing that moderator.
Whoever it is can expect to lose moderation privileges if it continues. This is the second time someone has used all five mods up in a single day to see my karma drop to nothing.
No biggie for me, the staff isn't going to punish me for improper moderation!!
If it's you who is doing this, it's about time for you to sit in the corner.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Friday January 08 2016, @06:16AM
It's easy to understand why those who doesn't "get" the {meta,} moderation systems would do that to you. Your posts regulary contain textbook examples of bigotry, misogyny, racism, and general all-around fuckery, but without any of the humour that EthanolFueled strives for. If they're an accurate reflection of your personality, your associates have done you a great disservice by not kicking you in the shins.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 08 2016, @02:53PM
Interesting idea. May I ask who wrote these textbooks, to which you refer? SJW's, I presume. I prefer to think for myself, than you very much.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @04:07PM
> I prefer to think for myself, than you very much.
I'd like to nominate this sentence for the "Best Context for Mis-typing 'Thank you very much'" category.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday January 07 2016, @08:00PM
Half the time when a man thinks a woman is flirting, she actually had no intention to flirt. Or maybe it's more like 90% of the time.
Imagine that you were a huge muscular guy with scars and tattoos, and a case of bitchy resting face. Whenever you approach somebody, they might feel like you're trying to intimidate them, even if you just wanted to ask what time it is. Your appearance affects people subconciously. It might be a tough problem to avoid.
Now imagine you are a cute woman with a cheerful disposition, and you just want to ask a question. But as soon as prof looks at you, there are bright red cartoon hearts coming out of his eyeballs...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday January 07 2016, @09:51PM
Somehow both the MRA (love your backronym) and SJW crowds will both claim this supports their ideals.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday January 07 2016, @03:57PM
Women with big breasts tend to do better than men with big breasts.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday January 07 2016, @03:58PM
Yes, but this injustice is balanced by the discrepancy between men with big dicks / women with big dicks.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:03PM
I thought that most women did find a big dick at some point in their lives? A lot of them actually marry those big dicks, don't they?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:04PM
Only the immature ones or the ones who are into pain. Those big dicks can hurt like hell.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:07PM
Can't believe that went over your head like that. A guy can have less than an inch long penis, and still BE a big dick. In fact, I suspect that some guys become dicks as a method of compensation.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:13PM
If that 1" penis goes over his head he's got a hell of a urinary sphincter.
/ for a good time google "penis muscles shoot semen"
// the internet, is there anything it can't do?
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:20PM
A big dick, maybe, but not a big SWINGING dick.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:57PM
A guy can have less than an inch long penis, and still BE a big dick. In fact, I suspect that some guys become dicks as a method of compensation.
So that explains your personality. Thanks for the clarification.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 07 2016, @09:43PM
In fact, I suspect that some guys become dicks as a method of compensation.
See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV_q-mVAAA [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 07 2016, @09:46PM
A guy can have less than an inch long penis
Citation needed.
Actually, no, no citation, please.
Is that really possible? Are american inches a different size to the standard 25.4mm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:39PM
However women can show the size of their breasts while fully clothed. That is relevant in an environment where nudity is generally not accepted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:56PM
And so can men with Speed-Os (aka the banana hammock) or tight pants/shorts. This would, though, require not having a micropeen such as you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @01:05PM
Speed-Os, the breakfast cereal for those on the gogogogottagetmovingcantstaystillsomuchenergyfuckyeah
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:35PM
My experience is that, actually, no, that factor isn't as likely to attract a woman as my stable job, decent physique, and passable social skills.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday January 07 2016, @09:12PM
Damn. Lack of social skills ruining thing for me again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @03:56AM
Paging Harry Potter, paging Harry Potter. Emergency obliviation required in cubicle 13.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @03:58PM
For female students, an increase of one standard deviation in attractiveness was associated with a 0.024 increase in grade (on a 4.0 scale).
So a whopping 6/10ths of a percent? That seems to beggar belief that it's statistically significant.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:34PM
0.024 is not 0.024%
0.024 = 2.4%
Per cent = per 100
n% = n/100
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:37PM
misread your comment, ignore that
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:37PM
What. The. Fuck?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:44PM
measured note deviation / note range = 0.024 / 4 = 0.006 = 0.6% = 6/10 of a percent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:15PM
3/5 of a percent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @09:38AM
Err … you know that 6/10 and 3/5 are exactly the same number? And you did notice that the OP did use 6/10, not 3/5?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:36PM
They examined 168,092 course grades. 1/sqrt(168,092) is approximately 0.00244. I'm pretty sure the standard deviation of the grades is at least 1, probably larger, making their measured deviation at most one standard deviation, probably less. So I agree, that's most probably not statistically significant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:42PM
Err … I just notice that their number was 0.024, not 0.0024 — so I take that conclusion back and state the opposite: At a factor 10 it almost certainly is significant!
(Score: 1) by CHK6 on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:59PM
I was wondering, so what value would have been acceptable by those conducting the study to find there was no difference? If significant digits were used, then a 0.0 would mean there was no difference.
Sigh....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @09:50AM
Usually a threshold of p=0.05 is used. Without knowing the distribution, I cannot tell for sure, but given that the standard deviation cannot be larger than sqrt(8)~2.8 (because of the scale size of 4.0; the worst case is if half the students got the best mark, the other half the worst — the real standard deviation is almost certainly much smaller; I'd guess something in the order of 1), and the sample size of 168092, I figure that everything larger than 0.014 should be definitely significant. The deviation they found, 0.024, is clearly larger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:23PM
You do realize that this is not referring to % at all, but to GPA... right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:32PM
.024 / 4.0 = .006 or .6%. So, yes, I do know how to read.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @03:58PM
I am pretty sure that the original title said that attractive females "earn" higher grades. Unless we go down the really nasty route, then those attractive females only "earn" those grades if they are lying on their backs. Taking the higher road, we have to conclude that they are GIVEN those higher grades.
I'm slightly surprised that female teachers and professors also give higher grades to more attractive females. But - I guess I sholdn't be surprised. In my own world, all other things being equal, I prefer to be around males who are more attractive. I don't seek out the homeliest guys to associate with. I don't give preferential treatment to an uncoordinated spaz. I don't choose the dumbest guys to be around. So - yeah - I guess women might prefer the company of attractive women over that of the ugly, or the plain Jane.
Doesnt' make it right, no matter what gender the teachers are. If I were butt ugly, I would want to be rewarded based on my performance, not my appearance.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:29PM
What if this is becuase some attractive females get help from smart males? The study shows discrepancies between the grades of attractive women in terms of ACT vs actual grades. But it doesn't show that any bias exists on the teachers part. During a test the attractive female would be unablw to recruit intelligent males to assist her, so naturally her grades would be somewhat lower. If only 1 in 5 attractive females did this, it might bump up her average score quite a bit.. We need a study that compares neutrally rated assignments to professor graded ones to see if there is a bias at the teacher level. ACT scores are not a valid control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:29PM
I think you nailed it. Hot chicks have free horny nerd tutors in every course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:51PM
No need to rely on your memory; you can just follow the link to the original submission. And yes, the original submission did use "earn".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:57PM
Unless we go down the really nasty route, then those attractive females only "earn" those grades if they are lying on their backs. Taking the higher road, we have to conclude that they are GIVEN those higher grades.
This submission is a Rorschach test for bigots like you and man there are a lot of bigots here among the soybeaners.
How do I know this? Because y'all are going on and on and on about sex and manipulating men but its clear you haven't read the article because they make it explicit that attractiveness is NOT HELPING women. It is un-attractiveness that is hurting them while un-attractiveness is not hurting men.
The attractiveness gap in grades appears to result more from lower grades for less attractive women than from higher grades for the most attractive women. When the researchers divided the women into three groups -- average, more attractive and less attractive -- they found a very small (and not statistically significant) gain for the above average attractiveness women. But for the least attractive third of women, the average course grade was 0.067 grade points below those earned by others, a statistically significant gap.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:10PM
There appear to be two presumptions at play here - the most attractive are "given" points, versus, the least attractive "lose" points. Which is right? I don't know, and you probably don't either.
Far easier to believe that attractive women are "given" points. Only a real dirtball is going to take points away from someone who is trying, just because she isn't hot. I suspect that the less attractive women are getting the grades they deserve, and the most attractive women are given extra points. Can I prove that? Hell no - but the other view isn't going to be proven easily.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:13PM
> Which is right? I don't know, and you probably don't either.
Yes I do know. Because the article makes it pretty damn clear.
> Far easier to believe that attractive women are "given" points.
For bigots who feel threatened by women it sure is easier to believe that.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:28PM
All that you have said her is, you agree with the conclusions drawn by the author. Fine - agree with the author. That doesn't mean that you are right.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @08:44PM
Keep pulling the line, that narrative isn't going to sell itself!
I have to ask though, isn't uncomfortable to have someone else's hand up your ass pulling your strings all the time?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 07 2016, @08:12PM
Lot of factors at play in this study. Is this even causation, rather than just correlation? Attractiveness is not a fixed constant. Perhaps women who try harder to make themselves attractive also try harder in their studies? Maybe feeling unattractive makes a woman feel less confident, and that affects her academic performance? Or that a woman who feels less confident will believe she is less attractive and less talented, and make that self-fulfilling.
Maybe objective tests could sort those questions out. No essay tests, keep it multiple choice. For instance, do more attractive people do better on the SAT or GRE? The answer just might be yes.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:46PM
I don't remember changing it, so the credit actually goes to martyb for this one as the second editor.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Chillgamesh on Thursday January 07 2016, @03:59PM
Attractive women have their confidence constantly reinforced socially. The correlation here is more likely to be enhanced confidence leads to better grades.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Aichon on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:33PM
Indeed, this was my first thought as well. Theoretically, confidence would already be factored in when controlling for academic skill at the time that the students entered college. Of course, as students go through college, most of them develop greater confidence as they become more sure of their capabilities. If attractive students develop their confidence at a different rate than less attractive students, it's entirely possible that that difference would be reflected in their grades, even if there was no bias at play.
When I was in grad school, my TAing duties meant that I was responsible for everything from writing exams to grading essays to managing labs full of dozens of students to lecturing 125 undergraduates when the professor was out unexpectedly. Most of the professors I worked with would intentionally cover the names of students on the front of exam packets or essays until after they were done grading, just so that they wouldn't let any unintentional biases enter the equation. Really, the only way I would have been able to have given special attention to a more attractive student would have been during lab sessions and the like, where I could have given them extra attention that may have helped them excel. I do recall a particularly attractive student in one of my labs one semester, but, if anything, her attractiveness worked against her, since I made a conscious effort to not spend even a minute longer with her than I did with anyone else, simply out of concern that there might be the appearance of impropriety. I wanted everything I did to be on the up-and-up, so if there was ever a possibility that anything could reflect poorly on me or my department, I avoided it (e.g. I once foolishly scheduled 14 help sessions in a row (the students were just learning about pointers in C++, so they needed extra help), each one an hour long, with no break for food; by midday, a few kindly students were offering to grab lunch for me since I had been a big help to them, which would have been permitted according to the university's code of ethics, but I passed on it simply because I wanted to avoid even a hint of impropriety).
(Score: 1) by andersjm on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:08PM
I think you overlooked this part. Increased confidence would affect the controls as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if attractive students also, as you suggest, are performing objectively better, but that's a separate issue.
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:21PM
I didn't miss that. My second sentence addressed it explicitly. My suggestion was that the researchers are assuming external factors must be at play, when the reality of the situation is that it could be due to objective differences in the performance of students that result from internal factors changing at different rates for more attractive students as opposed to less attractive students. Without controlling for such factors over time (or administering some sort of objective test at the end of their time in school), rather than merely taking them implicitly into account at the time that the students entered college, it's difficult to say how much of the observed difference in grades is due to external bias on the part of others as opposed to objective differences in the ability of more attractive vs. less attractive students. As a result, the fact that the researchers are jumping to conclusions is a bit disheartening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:44PM
Or maybe they are better at hygene than the other students. Makeup, hair, clothes, other things. It takes a little brains to do all that stuff.
;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:16PM
> The correlation here is more likely to be enhanced confidence leads to better grades.
That is only true if you assume that all women start off academically weaker than men because attractive and unattractive men had equal grades to attractive women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @03:10AM
This. Also, taller men receive higher grades. The beautiful of either sex do better than the ugly. This is how it has always been, ever since the Greeks began calling the rich "the good and the beautiful" (kaloi k'agathoi). Pretty people are and always have been more confident and therefore more willing to take the risks needed for advancement. Pretty people have better self-esteem and waste less time in depression.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:01PM
Isn't school supposed to prepare children for the real world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:08PM
Unless you are an idiot, you should know Attractive X receives better Y .
That is human nature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:28PM
YOU SUCK MCBAIN [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by YeaWhatevs on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:01PM
No kidding. I've told my wife numerous times, the reason why the gap in men and women in the tech industry is because in life, as a guy, your options for getting some slack are very limited. As much as it sucks, humans (men and women alike) are adaptable when put into adverse conditions. Like Conan the barbarian stuck behind that damn machine for years and then thrown into battle, we get stronger to meet the challenge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:11PM
How about: People who can afford to look attractive might come from socioeconomic strata where they are afforded the economies to do better in school? (The prime fallacy being "looking attractive" is something purely intrinsic and not, say, the result of being able to afford makeup / dermatologists / fashion magazines / gym membership and/or time and place to exercise / etc.) Or that the ones who are interested in doing well at school may have a greater impetus to put on make-up before having their student photo taken. Or that attractiveness is a survival factor as is doing well in school.
Sounds to me like people have fallen into correlation-causation fallacy, as usually happens when studies are published and attract media attention.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:26PM
TFS says they controlled for attractive people actually being better at stuff by comparing attractive / unattractive.
It's an interesting (if controversial) road to go down though - could pretty people actually be smarter? Maybe natural selection has paired successful but unattractive people with attractive people over generations, and so created a genetic correlation between attractiveness and success. Or maybe what we perceive as "attractive" (and I believe recognition of attractiveness has been proven to be instinctive rather than learned) is actually an instinctive recognition of success and ability, produced by evolution. Or maybe that's all bullshit and the better grades are down to flirting and/or preferential treatment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @04:51AM
Over the last several months I have been working out and getting in better physical shape. I haven't ever needed any gym membership to do it. The only money I have spent on this was to buy a cheap stopwatch; even that was not strictly necessary. The time I put into this is typically a few minutes in the morning and evening to do push ups and sit ups. I have also been doing some running which takes less than half an hour. It really doesn't take much time or money to get in shape. In fact, I would guess you probably spend substantially more time watching TV then I spend exercising. Really!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by xpda on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:15PM
Maybe smarter and/or more ambitious women work to make themselves more presentable.
(Score: 1) by arcz on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:20PM
This too. ACT and etc are test that combine intelligence and knowledge elements, not effort. Assignments require more effort. Looking pretty requires effort, not intelligence. The correlation is noteworthy.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:25PM
(Score: 2) by xpda on Thursday January 07 2016, @07:25PM
Exactly. You can demonstrate this by traveling dressed as a slob (my normal attire) or wearing nice clothes. You are treated, on average, with significantly more courtesy and at least an appearance of respect when dressed well, in airports, on planes, at hotels, etc. (While I don't value courtesy and respect enough to dress well habitually, I will exhibit a modicum of personal hygiene for the sake of society in general.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:18PM
The attractive females are more likely to get help from the smart males. During a test that help would be unavailable, explaining the discrepancy between attractiveness and ACT scores.
Not every discrepancy is correctable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:45PM
2.4% of one letter grade, not of the entire scale, which would be 1/4 of that.
So, 0.06% increase grade per Z-score attractiveness. That is tiny. Indeed, why not talk about the the Z-score change in grades per Z-score of attractiveness? Because it would be apparent that this effect is so small it wouldn't be detected without 15,000 samples!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:48PM
So in stead of a 95% on a test they get a 97.4?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:38PM
no , 95% to 95.24%
math much?
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:47PM
No, a typical 4-point grading scale might look like:
percent -> grade
[90-100] -> 4.0 / A
[80-90) -> 3.0 / B
[70-80) -> 2.0 / C
[60-70) -> 1.0 / D
[0-60) -> 0.0 / F
In this case, one point represents 10%, so 0.024 of a point is 0.24%.
(At my university, each professor chose their own mapping of scores to grades, but the structure shown was near-universal -- different professors might choose a difference between grades of 8%, 12%, or 15%, rather than 10%, but always equal steps starting from 100%.)
So instead of a 95%, they might get 95.24% -- or if the test is not graded with such granularity, maybe they'll go from 95% to 96%, one out of 4 times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:50PM
I'm pretty sure that the only way this is significant is thru excessive statistical power.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:01PM
> The attractive females are more likely to get help from the smart males.
Wow, you sure are projecting. The study itself suggests that attractive women are not receiving any benefit from being attractive. Only that ugly women are being discriminated against in a way that ugly men are not.
So many posts here, all revealing the inherent sexism that all the MRA types deny exists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:21PM
Or maybe attractive people have more self-confidence and better outlook on life and that carries over to their work. It doesn't jibe with the sleazy image of the innocent co-ed victim being preyed on by the old lecherous tenured prof, so it shouldn't get consideration.
It is bad enough that it happens at all [nature.com], but the exception-fits-the-rule reinforces the self-selection to those only two possibilities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:27PM
Hey guys, Every article that refers to statistics should have a reference to https://xkcd.com/552/ [xkcd.com]
Maybe there's another factor here. I don't know what.
Two guesses (I'm sure they are both wrong):
* Maybe people find bright girls more attractive.
* Maybe their normalisation was faulty - they say they corrected with things like ACT scores, so maybe girls that study more for their ACT spend less time on their makeup, and so perform better in ACT.
(Score: 1) by arcz on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:31PM
I'm particularly interested in why ACT scores were used as a control. Smells like a femi-nazi trying to stir up controversey rather than a legitimate scientific inquiry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @07:22PM
Smells like a femi-nazi trying to stir up controversey rather than a legitimate scientific inquiry.
Your opinion stinks! Once you start using Limberger language, we all know that you are not one of the attractive ones, since you are incapable of independent thought. Secondly, your spelling sucks big time! Maybe it is not that you are ugly, maybe it is just that you are stupid. No wonder your strongest sense is olfactory. Sad, stupid, ugly puppy! D- grade for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @01:03AM
A link to a webcomic is not necessary to remind a well-educated audience on the limitations and scope of statistical analysis. Then again, that leaves the obvious question open: is the general readership here well-educated?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:36PM
From the comments so far it seems a blind control would have been a big help here:
1 - Have the subjects sit the test.
2 - Have the answers independently marked by different sets of judges:
- Judge group A has access to the pictures / have met the subjects, and so can assess their attractiveness.
- Judge group B are working blind. They don't even see the names on the papers.
- Just for kicks, I'd be interested to see the results of the study broken down by the sexual orientation of the judges: Does a gay man give preference to an attractive woman? Does a straight man show bias towards (or against?) an attractive man? Maybe even rate the judges attractiveness could be a factor. Do attractive people give other attractive people preferential treatment? Do unattractive people give less lenience to attractive people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @04:55PM
Better make three judge groups:
Groups A and B as you said.
Group C also gets the images, but mixed up (so they get the test of person A with the name/image of person B).
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:16PM
But what if those results do not push an agenda! What then?!
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Thursday January 07 2016, @05:57PM
One Calculus teacher I had once admitted adding one extra point to the score of a couple of students just because their were beautiful.
In the end, they pass who they want to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @07:39PM
And I had a Chemistry Prof who gave passing grades to everyone who had three testicles. What is your point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @10:52PM
So, you passed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 08 2016, @12:10AM
Twice!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:02PM
Many years ago in a galaxy far away, while in college, I got my hands on some data that included medical and salary and run some statistics. Salary level strongly correlates to person height. Adjusted for height, woman make more money than men.
I am pretty sure attractiveness, however defined, has a serious influence. In China a picture has to be attached to the resume. We, it seems, switched to even stronger system thanks to linkedin and such.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ese002 on Thursday January 07 2016, @07:24PM
Many years ago in a galaxy far away, while in college, I got my hands on some data that included medical and salary and run some statistics. Salary level strongly correlates to person height. Adjusted for height, woman make more money than men.
Did you use absolute height or gender normalised height? As a group, women are shorter than men. Socially, a woman is considered "tall" if she is tall relative to women not to men. Thus, I would expect that 5' 10" woman to have similar height advantage as man who is 6' 2". Both are at the upper 5% mark in the US. Likewise, a woman who is 5'6" is slightly tall and would probably do better than man who is 5'6" and generally considered short.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:03PM
People treat others the way they think they expect to be treated. This also explains why rich defendants are treated more leniently in the courtroom, etc.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:03PM
For all we know the attractive women just save money on drinks and meals and have an easier time in their personal lives in general. What they need is to control for actual results. How hard would it have been to just slip a few identicle papers into the stack, and see if they were graded differently based on the attractiveness.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:17PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @06:21PM
> For all we know the attractive women just save money on drinks and meals and have an easier time in their personal lives in general.
If the men are paying for those drinks and meals then they must be transferring the burden from those attractive women to themselves. Yet both ugly and handsome men scored equally to the attractive women.
> How hard would it have been to just slip a few identicle papers into the stack, and see if they were graded differently based on the attractiveness.
If you had RTFS instead of pontificating from ignorance you'd would have seen that they looked course grades, not papers and they had a sample size of ~160K students.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @09:19PM
Yeah, well if you know how to crunch numbers, you see that they all basically scored equally statistically. This article is crap.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday January 07 2016, @08:19PM
There's another technique that was successfully pulled off at my alma mater. Students suspected a particular prof was favoring male students over female students, so they worked out a plan (with the help of the dept chair, I think) where some of the male and female students swapped papers to see what happened. And when they did that, the male students continued to get A's (despite turning in the C students' work) while the female students were getting C's (despite turning in the A students' work). Unfortunately, the prof in question had tenure, so rather than fire him they created a system where he can't know which student submitted which paper.
I suspect a women's studies prof did the same thing to me (I'm a straight man, which I suspect was relevant). My tipoff was the strangest response on an academic paper I have ever received: "This was really well thought out and well-written. B-" And my female classmates weren't seeing anything similar. But since I wasn't intending to major in women's studies, just interested in getting some distribution credits, I didn't really pursue the matter.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2016, @07:20PM
hey! this is cool!
now we just need to find out how "attractive" is imprinted onto the brain -or- how the "attractiveness scale" is generated
by the brain from external stimuli.
obviously, looking back in history, "attractiveness" has changed over time. the question thus: why? and how?
this whole aesthetics business actually is fascinating stuff: volatile, fickle and ever-changing.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday January 07 2016, @08:01PM
Hot college girls had hot moms.
Hot moms used to be hot college girls.
Hot college girls married successful men.
Successful men had successful children.
(Score: 4, Funny) by number6 on Thursday January 07 2016, @08:12PM
showing how attractiveness influences behaviour....
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f76_1323277426 [liveleak.com]
(P.S.- It used to be posted on YouTube, but the fucking cunt hollywood copyright mafia just could not let it sprout wings and become a freely shared internet phenomenon.)
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Friday January 08 2016, @03:32PM
I think the people doing the study need to consider the social importance of physical attractiveness in these populations. Students with more self-confidence in social situations tend to be happier, healthier, more open to asking others for help, and more likely to just all around perform better at any nontrivial task. Students with more self-doubt are more likely to become depressed and withdrawn.
Meanwhile, there are multiple industries built on making girls and women of middle school age through their thirties feel inadequate and put them on a treadmill of competition to be beautiful and more beautiful than the women around them. Magazines, TV, cosmetics, hair care, fashion... all of these are harsher environments for women than for men. We build a society that tears women down unless they are extremely attractive and believe it themselves, then tries to tell them all they aren't attractive enough without all of these extra products. Then we blame the professors, instructors, and TAs when the most vulnerable portion of those women -- adolescents to young adults -- don't do as well in a maelstrom of challenging work and hormones like a residential college campus?