Student beauty and grades under in-person and remote teaching
Research on a “beauty premium” in university grading — which finds that attractive students, especially men, tend to earn higher marks in in‑person, non-quantitative courses — has triggered debate over what’s really being measured: bias, social skills, or underlying traits like confidence and intelligence. Commenters question the reliability and methodology of such small social-science studies, but broadly agree that physical attractiveness, height, and body weight shape how people are treated in education, hiring, and daily life. The thread branches into arguments over meritocracy and standardized exams (e.g., China’s Gaokao vs. U.S. holistic admissions), and whether blind grading or AI-based evaluation could make assessment fairer.
Beauty premium in grades and gender differences
- Many focus on why the “beauty premium” in grades disappeared for women but persisted for men when teaching moved online.
- Several argue this undermines a simple “teachers reward pretty faces” story, since male attractiveness still correlates with grades remotely.
- Alternatives suggested:
- Male attractiveness may correlate with traits like persistence, social skill, creativity, or even intelligence, which still matter online.
- Female attractiveness might rely more on in‑person presence, grooming, and bodily cues that don’t transmit over Zoom.
- Differences could be noise from a small, biased sample rather than a robust gender effect.
Causality: IQ, personality, social skills, and bias
- Heated subthread on IQ heritability and its relation to attractiveness:
- One side claims IQ is highly heritable and possibly correlated with looks, implying prettier men might really be more capable.
- Others call this outdated, methodologically weak, or ideologically motivated, and stress fuzziness of IQ as a construct.
- Some emphasize the “halo effect”: physical attractiveness shapes perceptions of competence, effort, and creativity.
- Others argue social skills and confidence, often easier to develop when attractive, may be the true drivers of better outcomes.
Methodological skepticism
- Multiple commenters distrust small social‑science studies and highlight the replication crisis.
- The gender‑split result is seen by some as classic p‑hacking / “law of small numbers.”
- A Swedish subthread notes controversy around the study’s use of students’ Facebook photos without consent and low effect sizes.
Attractiveness privilege beyond school
- Many share anecdotes about life changing after weight loss, fitness gains, or improved dress; others report little change.
- Points raised:
- Attractive people receive more help, leniency, and positive attention.
- Height (especially for men) strongly shapes leadership selection.
- Being unattractive or fat often leads to being ignored or treated as less competent.
- Some warn that extreme beauty brings manipulation, mistrust in relationships, and its own stresses.
Standardized tests and meritocracy
- Long side discussion compares Gaokao‑style single exams to US holistic admissions:
- Supporters say standardized tests are more meritocratic, reduce corruption, and help poor but talented students.
- Critics highlight tutoring advantages for the wealthy, teaching‑to‑the‑test distortions, and high stress of one‑shot exams.
- Debate over whether “meritocracy” should mean pure test performance or incorporate broader social goals.
Proposed mitigations
- Some advocate anonymized or blind grading where feasible to reduce appearance and gender bias.
- Others doubt full anonymity is practical in courses with ongoing mentoring and distinctive writing styles.
- A few suggest AI‑based assessment or recruiting could, in principle, be more neutral, while others warn AI just mirrors training‑data biases.