I am frequenter of the College Humor website. I like watching all the videos they have. Some of them have the potentials to be virals. I always like to know what’s happening in the world in my own distorted way. One day I happened to notice that they listed a “Coed of the Week.” Actually that’s not the name. It’s actually “Cute College Girl of the Day” to which I take exception. “Coed of the Week” is much classier[sarcasm]. They list college women whom they interview because showing only pictures of college age ladies without any back ground is just too pervy and voyeuristic. They list basic background information such as age, school currently attending, hometown, year (freshman, sophomore, etc) and major.
There were quite a few of them. They dated all the way back to October of ’06. I looked at every one of the profiles primarily as a male member of my species. The analytical part of me being what it is began to see patterns and trends in the interviews. Whether the patterns and trends are indicative of anything is an entirely different matter I leave to you.
In my opinion the ladies are representative of this current generation. All of them are in a broad sense physically attractive. They’re typically unencumbered by experience and enthusiastic concerning life based on their answers to the scripted questions. From what I can see of their pictures they also like to pose and pout a lot. Some of them are downright immature. Just the pouting thing alone makes me chuckle, because there’s one girl whose picture count included 3 non-pouting pictures out of 14. If one were forced to take this information, extrapolate, and make a conclusion, it would be that she’s done a LOT of pouting in her relatively short life up to this point.
Science if nothing else is about consistency. Consistency requires as much accumulated information as one can get one’s hands on. These profiles provide that in abundance. I began to noticed something after going through half of the profiles. The background information and the provided pictures led me to one conclusion, empirically speaking. The best looking of the bunch are also the ones to academically lean towards less rigorous course work. The ones on the lower scale of attractiveness (still attractive) tended towards more rigorous course work.
Ultimately, what does this mean? Absolutely nothing. I’ve just woven an elaborate excuse in the guise of research to divert you from the fact that I’m basically looking at pictures of really hot young women. With hope you won’t think ill of me. Mea culpa.
Addendum:
I borrowed the heading from the movie Knocked Up. One of the characters in a bar cups both hands a few inches from his chest and states, “She’s [momentary pause] . . . smart!” in regards to another character. She was “smart” indeed.