For amusement...

[www.cornellsun.com]

Did anyone else think that Dov's "quote" was Zoolander-esque?

Granted he was ineligible for this list, but Harvard seems to pride itself on having hot coeds

[www.thecrimson.com]

Anybody else look through those pictures of the Harvard "hotties"? Not that hot. Out of the 15, maybe 3 are attractive! Ridiculous!

(just love that banana)

[Q]What? Wrote:Anybody else look through those pictures of the Harvard "hotties"? Not that hot. Out of the 15, maybe 3 are attractive! Ridiculous!

(just love that banana)[/q]I didn't want to be rude, but yes, I think 3 is about right. (Did anyone else think that they probably went way far out of their way to find "hotties" among what few non-white-male-fourth-generation-legacies there are at Harvard? )

Well, just like grade inflation, they have hotness inflation. They should be called BA+BES.

[OT] A decade back, Daniel Seligman in Fortune (I believe it was him) did a contrarian piece on who should have the best looking women. One school of thought holds out that it's UCLA because several generations of inbreeding among Hollywood stars and the just-as-good-looking people who moved there hoping to find work produced an island of beauty.

As I recall the article (this is one that should have been clipped and wasn't), Seligman argued for the women-follow-the-money-fame-fortune-anywhere route which means that good looking women are attracted to the economic prospects of Cantabridgeans and over several generations they can generate better looking Harvard sons and now daughters who, being better looking, can meet even better looking and possibly smarter men/somen whose gorgeous children are now in Cambridge.

Maybe President Summers can offer a few choice words on that theory.

The problem with that theory is that the children of the gorgeous women and Harvard sons now *have* the money, so instead of following fortune they hook up with gorgeous men -- i.e., they go back to California.

Even a cursory look at the demographics of Massachusetts demonstrates they sure aren't staying there.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

The problem with that theory is that the children of the gorgeous women and Harvard sons now *have* the money, so instead of following fortune they hook up with gorgeous men -- i.e., they go back to California.

Even a cursory look at the demographics of Massachusetts demonstrates they sure aren't staying there. [/q]

Ah, but at this point they've got New England prep ingrained in them and want to endure New England weather year-round. Besides which, if they're 4th generation legacy, they can't drop the ball and not send their children to Exeter/Andover/[insert New England boarding school here] and thence to Harvard. Imagine the displeasure of Daddy/Grandfather (who still have all the money, as they haven't yet died - our hypothetical friend may have the trust fund, but that's only a tiny portion of the inheritance) if they move away. And why would you ever want to leave the social circles of Winchester (Win) and Kiki, Chester and Kip, Crosby and Lottie, and Renyolds (Reny) and Happy?

Yes, I know people named all of the above, and more. Yes, I kind of agree with the theory, as it explains the much higher percentage of beautiful people in my (old money) high school and (very old, tons of money) summer residence than Cornell/any Navy ship I've ever been on.

Well, yeah, there is the risk of infection. Many of us still miss Ithaca winters. That must be due to some illness.

But there are far more hit and run hotties who scoop the money of Harvard's palsied sons and then return to the proximity of pulchritude than would-be adopted Brahminae who gamely hang on, generation after generation, hoping their hickdom will eventually rub off and the DAR will accept them at last.

Plastic surgery will render this moot, anyway.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:


Plastic surgery will render this moot, anyway.[/q]

Screw the scalpel...that's soooo 20th century.

The real money is in designer children. Your HMO ain't gonna cover it, but Kip and Kittie can certainly afford the $50k to ensure little Muffy is smarter and better looking than your random recombination love child.

Proper breeding indeed.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

A decade back, Daniel Seligman in Fortune (I believe it was him) did a contrarian piece on who should have the best looking women. One school of thought holds out that it's UCLA because several generations of inbreeding among Hollywood stars and the just-as-good-looking people who moved there hoping to find work produced an island of beauty. [/q]