How are the ladies?

Colleges & Universities University of California - Berkeley
81

<p>

</p>

<p>Have you been reading my posts in this thread? I’ve been saying precisely the opposite: that you can’t generalize the quality of girls at any particular college because at any particular college there will be some attractive girls, some unattractive girls, and all those in between.</p>

<p>And are you trying to say that looks don’t matter? They play a role in so many facets of life. Like to watch television? Go to the movies? All the actors/actresses are picked mainly based on looks. Want to get a job? Looks matter. There was a report shown on 20/20 a few years back that showed two people, one attractive and the other plain, with very similar qualifications, both applied for the same job with very different outcomes. Grow up, looks matter in the real world, and it’s silly to try to censor people from talking about it. It’s only superficial if looks are valued too much, because I think we all realize there are other things that matter too, like personality. If half the threads in this forum were about how hot the girls are then yeah, I’d start to think all the posters here are pretty superficial. But this is the first thread I’ve seen on the topic in this forum in months. If you don’t like talking about it, no one’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post. Just stop reading this thread and let those who want to talk about it to talk about it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What’s wrong with that? Given that two colleges are exactly the same, I think most people would want to attend the one with the more attractive student body population. I think it’s superficial if it this plays too big of a role in college decisions, such as if one were to attend a worse college just for the girls. But seeing as how 97% of all the students who got into MIT and UCLA chose MIT, despite the fact that UCLA almost undeniably has a more attractive student body, I don’t think attractive girls are playing too big of a role in college decisions.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/weekinreview/17leonhardt.html?ex=1316145600&en=94d34ff57060717f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/weekinreview/17leonhardt.html?ex=1316145600&en=94d34ff57060717f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

82

<p>If we all agreed with Kant and Hume’s aesthetic theories, then all this bullsh it about superficiality would be moot. Beauty is all about preferences and is subjective, but if judging a specific aspect of the aesthetic–in this case, human beauty–leads to universal agreeance (that Berkeley girls are ugly), then despite how societies culturally change in taste, society deems it to be true. It’s a fact of human nature, we desire and are attracted to what is beautiful, and saying otherwise is cop-out bullsh it.</p>

83

<p>Blondeonblonde you wouldn’t have this issue at SDSU.</p>

84

<p>I love it when people say that it’s superficial to talk about girls looks. It’s like if I said it’s superficial to talk about academic quality, for academic quality doesn’t lead to success! Everyone is on here talking about SAT scores, grades, and nobody is calling that superficial?? The fact is it’s only superficial when you place too much weight on it, and that is something that we are NOT doing in this thread when talking about the looks of Berkeley girls. Other then that, Vicissitudes summed it up best</p>

85

<p>this thread is silly. as a guy who’s heading to cal next year, I can honestly say that I did not consider the female hotness factor when I submitted my intent to register</p>

<p>i’m sure that I will meet plenty of chicks at Berkeley, as I would at any school and surely some of them will be attractive and hopefully interested in me =p</p>

86

<p>LaxAttack09: your sense of logic is painfully bad.</p>

<p>vicissitudes: don’t bother pulling the “you don’t have to read the thread” card. I’ve made my point that it’s superficial and stupid to label most, or even many, people at a given place “UGLY.”</p>

87

<p>I believe I called Berkeley below average when concerning the looks of women. Though my logical may be painfully bad, your reading comprehension is worse :)</p>

88

<p>hey now… Dr. Catherine Tramell, although crazy, is a hot berkeley girl as well as Dr. Beth Garner (:</p>

89

<p>I’m referring to your analogy of academic quality and superficiality.</p>

90

<p>no actualy they’re the two lead characters in Basic instint (sharon stone) who went to Berkeley…lol I should have made reference to the film cus now that I read it I realize no one is going to get it.</p>

91

<p>If all you care about is academic quality…is that superficial?</p>

92

<p>Not really, cuz the primary purpose of college is to learn…well for most people. Of course, it would be foolish to only consider academics of a school, but I wouldn’t call it superficial.</p>

93

<p>well since this thread is already so shallow… how are the guys?? haha</p>

94

<p>just as it would be foolish to only consider looks when picking a school, but it is by no means superficial. Just another “factor” along with hundreds of others that go into picking which school is right for you :)</p>

95

<p>tinaaaw,</p>

<p>berkeley has the best collection of guys ever… it’s full of twin brothers of brad pitt and tom cruise…</p>

96

<p>Don’t forget to consider that some of them are of the male persuasion. (I would think that many of the boys who take care of themselves are gay.) Why does God do this to women?!</p>

97

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, and I disagree with that point. I don’t see how that act, in and of itself, is superficial. Although for some “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, for the most part there are people whom most can agree on are attractive, or unattractive. Take Jessica Alba, for example. Almost every single guy would agree that she is attractive, and I don’t see anything superficial with someone commenting that “Jessica Alba is attractive.” By the same token, I’m sure there’s some girl that most guys would agree is unattractive. It’s not superficial just to give your opinion that she’s unattractive. Now, judging her or deprecating her solely based on her appearance would be superficial, but none of us on this thread are doing that. Have we called all the unattrative girls at Berkeley stupid as well? No.</p>

<p>Same applies when we expand the conversation to a group of girls. I think it’s fine to make a statement about a population as long as it does not overgeneralize, is not all-encompassing, and is unfair. For example, saying that all the girls at Berkeley are unattractive is clearly a ridiculous statement, but to my memory no one has said this in this thread. All people have said is that on a whole, the girls at Berkeley are below-average. Now, I don’t necessarily agree with this statement, but you have to realize that it is an opinion, and for some people, perhaps with fairly high standards, this hold true for them. So all we can say is that there is a difference of opinions. I happen to think on a whole, Berkeley’s girls are pretty average compared to other college campuses. Someone like LaxAttack09 might say that there are below average. But I can’t say LaxAttack09 is superficial just for disagreeing with me.</p>

<p>Thus, it is not superficial to say that many girls of one group is unattractive. If that is so, then it would also be superficial to say that many girls of one group is attractive. For example, I would say that all those females that were in attendance of the Oscars are, on a whole, above average. But that’s not such a superficial statement is it? That’s something most people would agree with and it’s a perfectly legit statement. Same idea extends beyond looks. Would it be superficial to say that most girls at Berkeley are very intelligent? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>By the way, I’ll stop pulling the “you don’t have to read the thread card” when you stop telling the posters of this thread what topics they can and cannot discuss. This is an open, free discussion forum and it’s not up to you to censor anyone.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t use the term superficial since that term connotates appearance, but I would say it is also very foolish. For example, consider Deep Springs College. It is a two-year college in California, all-male, and extremely selective. Each class is only about 20 people, and the graduates seem to only transfer to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and other top schools. Half the graduating class every year end up going to Harvard or Yale. However, on top of being in the desert and being all-male, you are required to work on a ranch/farm during your stay. No doubt it’s somewhere most people would not be happy at. So you attend Deep Springs solely on the basis of academic quality, and end up being miserable for two whole years of your life, whereas you could have had the time of your life at another top school. Was that wise?</p>

<p>Heck, I’ll give you a simpler example. Let’s say you got into UCSD and UC Berkeley for engineering. You pick UC Berkeley soley based on academic quality, only to find that you hate the environment, the competition is too tough for you, it’s too far away from home, and all of it builds up and leads you to flunk out of college. Not a very smart decision.</p>

<p>The point is, when deciding on a college, there are many factors and it’s not only justifiable but to your advantage to consider as many as possible.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the guys at Berkeley are pretty decent.</p>

98

<p>vicissitudes:</p>

<p>“Thus, it is not superficial to say that many girls of one group is unattractive. If that is so, then it would also be superficial to say that many girls of one group is attractive.”</p>

<p>It would be.</p>

<p>“But that’s not such a superficial statement is it?”</p>

<p>Yes, it is.</p>

<p>“Would it be superficial to say that most girls at Berkeley are very intelligent?”</p>

<p>Er, no, it wouldn’t, because intelligence is not something on the surface.</p>

<p>Here’s where the disagreement arises:</p>

<p><a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superficial[/url]”>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superficial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m using definition #4; you’re using definition #5. This discrepancy is obviously a matter of semantics, but I stand by what I said. </p>

<p>“By the way, I’ll stop pulling the ‘you don’t have to read the thread card’ when you stop telling the posters of this thread what topics they can and cannot discuss. This is an open, free discussion forum and it’s not up to you to censor anyone.”</p>

<p>Can you point out where I said you aren’t allowed discuss this? No, you can’t, because I never said it. I simply said there are more important [less superficial] topics to discuss. Don’t censure me for things you’ve made up.</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>So you’re using definition #4? Let’s see what definition #4 says:</p>

<ol>
<li>concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious: a superficial observer.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>That’s exactly the definition I am using. You are superficial if you are ONLY concerned with appearances, which I don’t think anyone on this thread is. There’s a difference between caring about something and only caring about something.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure. On page 4 you wrote:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why are you questioning the OP on what topics he make? Essentially you were suggesting that the OP should not be concerned with appearances and should not make topics about it. From what I can tell a thread on girls is perfectly allowable by the collegeconfidential forum guidelines, so don’t tell the OP what threads he should or should not feel compelled to make.</p>

100

<p>“Essentially you were suggesting that the OP should not be concerned with appearances and should not make topics about it.”</p>

<p>If you want to read that much into it, go ahead.</p>

<p>“so don’t tell the OP what threads he should or should not feel compelled to make.”</p>

<p>I so far haven’t, nor can you say I have. It was a question, not a command.</p>

<p>“That’s exactly the definition I am using. You are superficial if you are ONLY concerned with appearances, which I don’t think anyone on this thread is. There’s a difference between caring about something and only caring about something.”</p>

<p>Yes, you seem only concerned with appearances; you’re focusing a bit too much on the word “only.” At any rate, you’re saying that #4 is okay (minus the “only”), but #5 isn’t?</p>