I don't how much so but yes I believe they factor in.

After every playdate, every teacher raved "oh my she is just sooo cute! Oh she is just adorable! Oh look at that cute smile ... and dimples even!!" I mean that's really all they talked about was how "cute" they thought she was as if she was a baby or a puppy or something. I know they say nice things to all the parents who bring their kids but I am willing to bet the find other more substansive things to comment on.

She was admitted to several schools ...and I am pretty sure it was on being "cute" alone that got her in.

09:19 -- how old are you? I am disgusted that you would use those terms to describe children.

Anonymous wrote:God, I never thought about this. My child's entire class, save for 1, is conventionally attractive. OTOH, I have never seen the kids that didn't get admitted. They might well be attractive too.

I distinctly remember touring Beauvoir thinking to myself all the kids look like they've leapt off a J Crew catalog page.

"she's sharp as a tack, but aren't they all?"

No they all can't be-a statistical impossibility that the few out there are all in this area of the world.

I don't know, but my niece is gorgeous, and she got into 4 of the 5 top schools she applied to. On the other hand, she's sharp as a tack, but aren't they all?

I always thought the photos are in part to see if there is diversity. Maybe multiple reasons, including checking out looks and making sure it's the kid from the playdate, too.

Anonymous wrote:Most schools ask you to attach a photo on the application. Why?

I think it helps them with remembering children after playdates, etc. and i suppose it also helps ensure that the child that shows up for the playdate is the child that will show up on the first day of school!

You people are SICK!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:Research shows that people are more likely to think beautiful people are smart and talented. Why wouldn't we make those assumptions about children as well?

I wonder if that is true for both men and women. I think beautiful women are assumed to be less intelligent. But I digress....

My MIL is a child psychologist. She told us that studies have shown that attractive infants get more attention than unattractive infants. Adults (parents, caregivers, strangers) and other children are more likely to smile at them and try to engage them. And this attention helps the babies develop both mentally and emotionally. There are some fairly universal markers of a baby being attractive. Large wide-set eyes being the one that I remember (and true for most mammals, not just humans). It is heart-breaking to think that some kids are at a disadvantage from day one just because of how they look. It doesn't fit with our democratic ideals of being a meritocracy.

Extrapolating from this discrepancy in the treatment of infants, it is very possible that the people evaluating the play dates subconsciously focus more on the attractive kids than the less attractive kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is always said good looks make a big difference in hiring. So, I was really surprised that most of the girls at my daughter's school were not attactive. You could count the attractive ones on 2 hands.

First, isn't it in the eye of the beholder? Second, saying that physical attractiveness is a factor is not saying that it's the only or even the most important factor. I do believe the top schools are looking for good students.

DD's school is filled with grenades [heavy that think they're hot ] and landmines [skinny that think they're hot] that drink heavily and do random hook-ups. Just like Jersey Shore . Few truly attractive girls.

I do believe "attractiveness" matters, but it's not just looks. Some kids are just more "charming" at first impression than others (physically cute, but also outgoing, funny, sunny disposition). I think they try for a "mix" of personalities, but, as someone said, AD's are human and they're going to remember (in a good way) the kids that make a "fun" first impression.

I am sure it comes into play. Attractive kids simply catch more attention than unattractive kids. I realize that it is "in the eye of the beholder", but there are some kids considered beautiful by more people than other kids. And people gravitate to them.

Anonymous wrote:It is always said good looks make a big difference in hiring. So, I was really surprised that most of the girls at my daughter's school were not attactive. You could count the attractive ones on 2 hands.

First, isn't it in the eye of the beholder? Second, saying that physical attractiveness is a factor is not saying that it's the only or even the most important factor. I do believe the top schools are looking for good students.

It is always said good looks make a big difference in hiring. So, I was really surprised that most of the girls at my daughter's school were not attactive. You could count the attractive ones on 2 hands.

If there's an in-person interview or photo required, of course looks matter. Adcoms are human.