<p>Ramacito - I suggest Brown. We have lots of attractive, very bright, incredibly smart and talented women (and men). I think Brown might be a better experience for you.</p>
<p>In true U of C tradition, posters have turned a straightforward question into an intellectual discussion. The simple truth is that the chicks (and maybe the guys) will be hotter at almost any other school in America. And if it really matters, U of C is probably not the right place for the OP.</p>
<p>What is your type? Personally, I find the people in the US more attractive than the Brits. I think the mixing helps. But U of C is probably a lot more demanding and competitive than U of Edinburgh. So if you want to have a lot of time to screw around without failing, maybe you should look somewhere else.</p>
<p>Honestly I think you would enjoy Brown more. Its intellectual, has a “chill” vibe, super smart students, but fun is definitely on the agenda.</p>
<p>Yah, OP, sorry for all the back and forth on this. The basic answer is NO - the U of C does not have lots of hot chicks (or good looking guys). Brown’s definitely a good choice, and maybe Columbia? Basically, look for a school with more glamour or maybe a more sporty school (i.e. I’ve heard good things about Dartmouth and Williams).</p>
<p>^^ Not to mention Emma Watson</p>
<p>For some reason I don’t think the beautiful women at Chicago (or elsewhere) are going to flock to the OP if he presents that attitude towards women…</p>
<p>But to answer the question more seriously, yes, there are you’re-so-beautiful-I-can’t-stop-staring-at-you-and-thinking-certain-thoughts beautiful people and beautiful I-think-you’re-the-most-excellent-person-I-want-to-spend-all-day-with-you beautiful people. Stylewise, most U of C kids don’t look like they just walked out of a J. Crew photo shoot (or whatever), but many guys and gals do maintain a sense of style and stuff like that.</p>
<p>I feel a little silly for defending Chicago on this front. People-- it’s college. There are a couple of thousand people milling about, and many of them are spectacularly close to your age and hold spectacularly similar values to yours. Do you think you’re NOT going to find your classmates attractive???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice on Brown University and I appreciate it, unfortunately it is not an exchange partner of Edinburgh or Glasgow University. Also I am going to be studying Mathematics and Brown University is not renowned in that particular department. One of the main aims of going on exchange to the USA is that I may be able to build some sort of connection with the institution so I could perhaps come back for postgraduate research. The University of Chicago is a top institution for my area of specialization in Mathematics, Number Theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it may be more ‘fun’ within the community, but Brown University is located in Rhode Island which doesn’t seem as ‘fun’ a place as Chicago which is a huge city bustling with life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also find people in the US more attractive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m really not a fan of Emma Watson and unlike most people I know, I do not find her attractive at all. I don’t know, I just don’t see what people find so appealing about her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I end up going to Glasgow instead of Edinburgh, then Columbia might be an institution where I can apply for exchange through direct enrollment. But I’m not too sure about this. Columbia is quite strong in mathematics and it’s in New York which is a bonus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well obviously I do have common sense and I won’t walk around with a billboard attached to my chest saying, “Looking for attractive female company, if interested please phone *****”. </p>
<p>I’m just a guy, and like most guys I like gals. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I enjoy the mathematics a lot, but I also like to do other things and I have other hobbies. That doesn’t mean I like ‘screwing around’. I like to think of myself as being like David Hilbert. Likes his mathematics, but also likes his women.</p>
<p>Unalove (as usual) is a font of common sense. On what possible basis would you think that colleges with similar demographics would have a meaningful differences in the distribution of attractive people? Local standards of dressing and grooming will vary, of course, and winter weather in Chicago guarantees that people there will spend a good part of the year significantly more sheathed than their counterparts west and south. </p>
<p>Those East Coast girls (like unalove) are hip, I really dig those styles they wear, and there may be somewhat fewer of them in Chicago compared to New York. If you dig a French bikini on Hawaiian Island dolls by a palm tree in the sand . . . well, there’s a real dearth of that at the University of Chicago most of the time. (I hear it’s an issue at Columbia, too.) On the other hand, it’s well-known that Midwest farmer’s daughters and Northern girls, with the way they kiss, are both capable of making you feel alright, and they are well-represented in Chicago. I wish they all could be California – California is terrific; I wish everything could be California, and I’m a total East Coast snob – but, sorry to say, no dice. Chicago is pretty great.</p>
<p>And, if you are weighing all the factors carefully, you may want to consider that the University of Chicago is one of a very few places in the world where beautiful women may consider your interest in number theory sexy rather than an indication that you are not fit to reproduce.</p>
<p>OP: I understand the rationale behind your question (who doesn’t?) and the anonymity cloak does encourage one to be blunt about one’s opinions. All I’m saying is that the attitude you’re showing isn’t appealing, as any girl who’s ever been to a frat party can attest that gaping, groping guys are just… blehhhhhhhhh</p>
<p>Ehhh while there are some comments arguing to the contrary, I just think the plain and simple end of the day conclusion is this: the U of C does not have a particularly attractive student body - male or female. Maybe things have changed a ton since I was at U of C, but at least when I was there, Chicago was just a really nerdy place. Generally, it was a happily nerdy place, but the nerd look isn’t necessarily the hottest. </p>
<p>Case in point, I knew at least 3 guys who looked exactly like Al Franken. They were really cool guys and really entertaining, and I’m sure girls found them attractive, but hot? Ehhhh… Honestly, out of my graduating class of 900 or so, I would say we had 5 legitimately hot (classic just HOT) girls and maybe 4-5 legitimately hot guys. (Graduation day really drove home how not-hot we were as a school.) I like the nerdy look and I thought there were lots of attractive people, but that was my specific taste. Friends who would visit would always remark “wow there are NO hot girl [or guys] here” because, well, Chicago is VERY unconventional. There are some schools that at least have a healthy proportion of glamorous, classically hot girls and guys. Princeton, Williams etc. seem to have this. Chicago? Not so much.</p>
<p>I just think kids should know what they’re getting into when they consider Chicago. Just know that it’s generally a very nerdy place - much more so than its peer schools. If the sorta nerd look (or grungy hip nerd - there were a lot of those) is your thing, then great. Just be clear about what Chicago is though - you don’t have a bunch of models walking around, while you may find that at a certain eating club at Princeton or a certain sorority house at UGa.</p>
<p>There are plenty of attractive people here. They’re not going to be “hot”, as Cue7 has stated, but attractive? - yes. There are some people here I genuinely think are nice to look at. Then again, my opinion is probably skewed. I like intellectual, slightly-geeky people, and that usually affects how I view their physical attractiveness. So.</p>
<p>Though, as an aside, I do find Emma Watson quite pretty. :)</p>
<p>The most beautiful person to have ever attended my high school went to Chicago. And when I say beautiful, I mean that the school yearbook was peppered with not-so-inside jokes about how beautiful he was. Case closed. :-D</p>
<p>Yah unalove, in my class at Chicago, there were maybe 4-5 flat-out beautiful guys in the class, and 4-5 flat out undeniably hot girls. They were the kids all over their high school yearbooks, and one was actually a model for maxim. So in total we had about 10 flat-out photogenic people out of a class of 900. They were often lost amidst a sea of pimply faced, pasty, unkempt nerdy types. </p>
<p>10 out of 900. That’s not a good ratio. </p>
<p>I’m guessing that Chicago students put themselves together better now, but I still think we have much more of the pasty, pimply variety than the future pinup poster girls at our school. Moreover, I found the schools with more athletic student bodies have more generically good looking people. Chicago kids study a lot and are not particularly athletic, so this isn’t a good combination for creating a good looking campus. </p>
<p>As a quick contrast - while the other school I know well, Penn, wasn’t amazing by any measure - it was definitely NOTICEABLY more generically good looking than Chicago. You just had more jocks walking around, more sorority girls who killed themselves at the gym every day to stay in shape, more tall handsome male rowers, more wharton kids who were committed to staying in shape, etc.</p>
<p>I’ve also met a bunch of kids from Williams and Princeton, and honestly, they could come right out of a J. Crew catalog.</p>
<p>Again, if you’re into generic hotness, Chicago is NOT the way to go. At least my year, you have a 10 in a 1000 chance of finding someone who fits the bill. Maybe now you have a 30 in 1300 chance. I guarantee you the ratio is better at Princeton or Dartmouth or even Penn.</p>