Good looking children perform better than average looking children academically by .04 stdev per stdev in looks.

fruitrollup69 · 2019-11-03T20:06:12+00:00

Here is a related paper from 1993:

https://www.drjoebio.com/uploads/1/8/1/3/1813500/30_seconds_teacher_quality.pdf

consensual judgments of college teachers' molar nonverbal behavior based on very brief (under 30 s) silent video clips significantly predicted global end-of-semester student evaluations of teachers.

Direction of causality can go both ways, though physical attractiveness is only slightly correlated with IQ, if at all. In this meta study around r = .07:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415372/

In this study, they noted that in previous studies that found a stronger correlation (Denny (2008) and Kanazawa (2011)), the rated individuals were acquaintances which likely suffers from halo effect.

The slight correlation (if existent) is best explained by general fitness factor, i.e. people with otherwise desirable genes copulated with good looking people and so forth.

Halo effects are strong on the other hand, e.g.

there was no relationship between attractiveness and actual academic performance (r = 0.03), but a strong positive correlation between attractiveness and perceived intelligence (r = 0.81), attractiveness and perceived academic performance (r = 0.74) and attractiveness and perceived conscientiousness (r = 0.81).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4757567/

One can assume that the halo effect direction is stronger than the general fitness factor one.

statusincorporated · 2019-11-05T21:45:00+00:00

Um.....a .04 = r isn't shit.

MayflyEng · 2019-11-03T04:05:16+00:00

Causation is unclear, according to the paper:

The unanswered economic question here (and in research on beauty more generally) is: What are the welfare implications of the demonstrated impact of looks on cognitive development? On the side of teachers, do they spend more time teaching better-looking children without subtracting from time spent with less good-looking children? Or is their time merely switched from the bad- to the good-looking? The same questions apply to parents: Do parents tilt their time toward better-looking children without decreasing time spent with their less good-looking offspring; or do they spend more time with them while reducing time allocated toward less good-looking offspring? To the extent that interactions with children’s peers affect their cognitive development, the same questions might be asked about the behavior of a child’s fellow students.

In all cases, if teachers merely add to time spent with good-looking children, one might argue that this apparent discrimination is detrimental only to the extent that teachers’ and parents’ extra time might have been more productively allocated to children who would most benefit from it at the margin. If they switch time from bad- to good looking children, and assuming teachers and parents would allocate their time efficiently absent looks-based discrimination, resources are shifted inefficiently to a use that is less productive at the margin of their allocations of time.

We have explored three plausible mechanisms by which better looks might produce higher achievement—teachers’ closeness to and conflict with the student, the child’s behavior and how s/he is treated by other children, as reported by their mothers, and the child’s self-confidence. Although each was associated in expected ways with looks and gains in achievement, none greatly affected the estimated impacts of looks on cognitive development. Inferring the indirect pathways will require studies designed specifically to consider how lookism might operate from early childhood through adolescence.

MayflyEng · 2019-11-03T04:03:02+00:00

Abstract:

We use data from the 11 waves of the U.S. Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development 1991-2005, following children from ages 6 months through 15 years. Observers rated videos of them, obtaining measures of looks at each age. Given their family income, parents’ education, race/ethnicity and gender, being better-looking raised subsequent changes in measurements of objective learning outcomes. The gains imply a long-run impact on cognitive achievement of about 0.04 standard deviations per standard deviation of differences in looks. Similar estimates on changes in reading and arithmetic scores at ages 7, 11 and 16 in the U.K. National Child Development Survey 1958 cohort show larger effects. The extra gains persist when instrumenting children’s looks by their mother’s, and do not work through teachers’ differential treatment of better-looking children, any relation between looks and a child’s behavior, his/her victimization by bullies or self-confidence. Results from both data sets show that a substantial part of the economic returns to beauty result indirectly from its effects on educational attainment. A person whose looks are one standard deviation above average attains 0.4 years more schooling than an otherwise identical average-looking individual.

randomers0 · 2019-12-15T23:25:50+00:00

Explain asians then, most asians are fucking ugly but they are over populating Harvard and other ivy leagues.

I go to school where the neighboring school where mainly most of the people there are good looking and trashy, thug like but the school is getting shut down because the children are performing bad.

So how is ur info true?

JohnyO42 · 2019-11-03T22:39:47+00:00

Without reading, this isnt exectly surprising considering physical attractiveness in men is correlated with IQ and general cognitive abilities