SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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!