Ugly and stupid

Good-looking people do better in exams than ugly ones. That's the message of this paper (pdf):

We examine the effects of students' physical appearance upon examination results. We fund evidence that beauty has a significant impact on academic performance, a result which is consistent with and comparable to the impact found in labour market literature.

The effect is big. Students with looks that are one standard deviation above average perform 38% better than those with looks one standard deviation below average.
The effect differs between men and women. Among men, the beauty premium exists because ugly men do really badly. Among women, there's no penalty for munters, but a small premium for lookers, which suggests Carol's an outlier.
Fascinatingly, the beauty premium is greater in written exams than oral ones. This suggests the pay-off to good looks (or a lack of ugliness) comes from higher ability rather than discrimination.
This might be because of the Kathy syndrome: beauty and intelligence are correlated (pdf). Or it might be that beauty leads to greater self-confidence, which encourages people to study more in the belief that hard work will pay. Or it might be that mingers are more likely to be bullied at school, which retards their intellectual development.
There is a puzzle here. Because the study is confined to economics students, it suggests that being an ugly man is a drawback to becoming a good economist. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

Comments

[Bob B]

I recall a conversation many decades ago with a fellow (and more experienced) internal examiner about examiner bias. It happened that at the time he also served as an external examiner for an optional subject in final exams at another - and larger - university which, to minimise the possibility of bias, routinely allowed exam candidates to enter only centrally allotted numerical identifiers on their exam scripts and barred personal names. However, for all that, he said it was not unusual at examiners' meetings for the internal examiners to recognise the handwriting and writing styles of candidates and comment on their progress in the course.

[Alex]

Because the study is confined to economics students, it suggests that being an ugly man is a drawback to becoming a good economist. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

Well, although this is intuitively sound, I think the answer is to be found further back in the post. Among the men, you point out, the beauty premium exists because the small group of really ugly individuals do much worse.

This argues that, although male economists skew uglier than the general population, there are enough really astonishingly ugly ones who are also stupid to reflect credit on the others.

[The Pedant-General]

"... it suggests that being an ugly man is a drawback to becoming a good economist. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary."

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself Chris.

;-)

On a more substantive note, does this conclusively disprove that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

[Unity]

I wonder how this fits in with the aphorism that politics is showbusiness for ugly people?

[dsquared]

surely this is pretty obvious; pretty people do better in exams because they get more education, because teachers pay more attention to them? That's certainly a large part of why black children do worse.

[dearieme]

Study people whose beauty changed suddenly -e.g. youngsters who lost their "puppy fat", people who got cosmetic surgery, etc.

[Shuggy]

Fascinating. Been trying to remember (senior, I stress) pupils who have really stood out academically and I can't actually remember any of them being ugly and those who won class prizes, in my subjects anyway, were pretty presentable, to say the least. One sixth year boy in particular could make you forget you're heterosexual.

On the other hand, one presumes the study didn't take account of some drop-dead gorgeous people who get themselves pregnant at the age of sixteen and never get around to sitting ANY exams. Seen a few of these over the years.

Another problem with the theory: you once described Ruth Kelly as one of the most intelligent people you've met. I assume this translated into good academic performance. While I wouldn't describe her as ugly, I wouldn't say she was exactly a honey either. (Apologies for the sexist observations.)

[Steve]

This makes my academic results look even better than I thought.

I managed to gain good qualifications even though the odds were stacked against me!

[Luis Enrique]

I, on the other hand, have been confronted with the awful possibility that my superlative academic performance might reflect no more than my teachers having been captivated by my good looks.

[Jim]

"Because the study is confined to economics students, it suggests that being an ugly man is a drawback to becoming a good economist. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary."

Do we know how closely "being a good economist" and "doing well in ecnomics exams" ar related?

[dsquared]

[While I wouldn't describe her as ugly, I wouldn't say she was exactly a honey either]

Ungallant though it is to say, I remember her being a lot better looking when she was at the Bank of England in the 1990s.

[phil jones]

dsquared is undoubtedly right (in his post about getting the attention of teachers)

To take it further : what sort of ugly are we talking about? The kind that comes from being poor or neglected, badly dressed or not having learned to look after yourself?