<p>What wrong idea?</p>
<p>lol. splintercell, i wanna meet you next semester during summer. Can i see you wearing ice packs under your pants? or…i guess i can spot u by finding someone with bumpy spots around his pants.</p>
<p>“i am as serious as cancer”</p>
<p>hahaha…wow. thats intense.</p>
<p>i can’t tell if Splintercell 50
is just an act or if he’s actually “serious as cancer”</p>
<p>So this thread should become “Splintercell50 and ice packs”??? Hahaha…
Jk splintercell50… :D</p>
<p>Guys, sorry to throw more ice on your . . . whatevers. But think about this: There are three main ways in which we tend to find other people attractive - the physical features with which they were born, the physical condition in which they keep their bodies, and the upkeep and adornment with which they enhance what they inherited. In a population of thousands, the inborn physical features will pretty much mirror the general population’s - no better, no worse. Highly intelligent and self-disciplined people are perhaps more likely than the general population to understand how to manage diet and exercise, and perhaps more likely to follow through on disciplined behavior, so I’d guess that both Ivy girls and guys might be in better shape than their counterparts at State U. On the other hand, they probably have higher priorities for their time than preening on high-maintenance fashion or grooming, so they may be less done-up than their counterparts at State U. But I would venture a guess that guys place a higher value on women’s attire, hair, make-up, etc. than the other way around, so the lesser tendency to adorn at Ivies may impact males’ assessment of females more negatively than vice-versa. So taking all that into account, the general assessment of Cornell women by men should be around the State U. average, while the general assessment of Cornell men by women might be just slightly higher. Lots of people on CC will tell you that Vanderbilt or Ole Miss coeds are the hottest. Not true. They preen more and wear less, so guys are attracted, but on the whole they really look about the same as the coeds at Cornell.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about Vanderbilt but I agree that simply wearing less clothes and wearing more makeup can make girls seem more attractive. The problem is that the weather at Cornell, in contrast to the weather at UCLA or Vanderbilt, is usually not conducive to miniskirts. Girls at Cornell are usually bundled up which influences the guys’ perception of them. I mean, if I wanted to kiss a bundle of Northface jackets, uggs, and scarfs, I can just go to Dick’s Sporting Goods.</p>
<p>definitely not as hot as girls in the south or the west coast…</p>
<p>but what you sacrifice in looks you’ll get in smarts…</p>
<p>To be honest, I think girls here are rather good-looking. But my idea of good-looking probably differs a bit from others’.</p>
<p>So fd36, you would suggest that the mechanism by which female embryos whose mothers reside south of the Mason-Dixon line or west of the Pacific coastal range are altered in the womb and genetically enhanced to produce more attractive features is . . . what?</p>
<p>I’d be pretty uncomfortable if my dad were posting on a college message board about how hot college girls are.</p>
<p>Lol…</p>
<p>This is going to be a weird question but um…are there girl ibankers? </p>
<p>I have never seen or heard about them.</p>
<p>Yes.
Perhaps you have noticed all the female faces in the Goldman Sachs website’s ‘careers’ section.</p>
<p>gadad, have you visited some of the southern or western schools? I have visited Vanderbilt, UTexas, UCLA, USC, and UArizona. The women at these schools were just fantastic. In every single block within the main campus, I was able to spot at least one or two women who looked like supermodels. This is simply no comparison.</p>
<p>Splintercell, yes there are girl ibankers. I personally know several of them thru my brother. But, if you are curious, u can check out the facebook and u will find that there are several women workers at Goldman, etc.</p>
<p>My best friend’s sister is an ibanker…and her Christmas bonus was more than her husband’s salary for the year (I kid you not!)</p>
<p>what if you’re at cornell and FROM the south? does that get me any points? </p>
<p>jk. I mean, I am from the south, but I’m joking about the question.</p>
<p>anyway, I agree with a previous poster-I think that we look less attractive for most of the year because its freaking cold and we’re generally bundled up and unhappy-looking when its 10 degrees outside. Has anyone taken a tour lately? I think we women, as a gender, are looking really quite good (especially because its warm, so we can wear more attractive clothes, and we feel like actually putting in effort when its nice out).</p>
<p>For the most part: the women are as attractive here, they just don’t put as much effort in. It gets better when it warms up. </p>
<p>Ladies: not that I want the guys to read this because they don’t need the ego boost-but they are, for the most part, pretty attractive here.</p>
<p>The girls are better-looking at Cornell than I thought they would be. Out of all the colleges I’ve visited, only Lehigh, Georgetown, and UVA were better. Very few supernerds at Cornell, too…everybody was pretty…normal ('cept for two guys who were mock swordfighting and wearing all black in the A&S quad)</p>
<p>Wow. I actually have never met a female ibanker nor an ibanker at all.</p>
<p>Spanks, I’m not posting about hot girls - I’m trying to teach you guys something about about human characteristics and the normal curve (that’s the statistical concept of the normal curve; not those other curves). 
So Patlees, your premise is that there’s something inherent in the water or air of the South and West that produces good looks? Or is there a secret convention of southern and western schools at which their admissions officers draft hotties the same way the NBA drafts power forwards? Under the normal curve, 68% of the population falls within one standard deviation of any characteristic that appears randomly. If looks really vary by institution, then there needs to be some phenomenon (like an admissions bias) that keeps the population from being random on that characteristic. I can’t think of any reasonable scenario under which the looks of students at any university are truly better or worse than at another.</p>