Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever

In the article “Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever"? Returns to Physical

Attractiveness over the Life Course Jaeger analyzes the influences of physical attractiveness (facial attractiveness, Body Mass Index and height) on socio-economic and marital success over a lifetime. Jaeger uses previous research, and he built up his argument base on their results, but he adds up more information. The Jaeger’s argument is basically that men and women that have better physical attractiveness have higher earnings and socio-economic statue than short and not attractive men. Also, men and women with more attractive faces are more likely to get married when they are younger, and physical attractiveness is unrelated to the income and socio-economic statues of their partners.

            Jaeger indicates that there have been lots of researches on this hypothesis, but none of them had accurate results because it wasn’t done as efficiently and in the way that could get valid results as Jaeger did. Jaeger claims that the previous research was not accurate as his because the data collected in the previous research are from two periods of time or data collected at one point in time or in a short time. However, Jaeger used more longitudinal data over time in his research, and he used longer period of time that most research had been done on, and he combined all type of different kind of research to show the effects of attractiveness on success.

Jaeger found out that a person gets advantage from being attractive in whole life. Despite other research that was focus on one situation, socio-economic or marital or spousal socio-economic, he analyzed all the situations and the effects of attractiveness on each of them. At the previous research physical attractiveness is divided in different component like facial, BMI, and height, and each of this components are studied separately. However, Jaeger incorporated all the component of physical attractiveness and analyzed them.

                       The Bell Curve

            The bell curve was invented in the eighteen century as way to show binomial probability. But the mathematical notion of bell curve and normal distribution got involved with human sciences in the nineteenth century. Since then the bell curve idea is used in so many different areas, like business, sports and politics and education. The argument in this article is not about whether the bell curve is good or bad, is about if the bell curve idea exists or not, or the argument is about how bell-curve thinking gains its historical function. Lynn Fendler and Irfan Muzaffar argue that, “The acceptance of bell-curve thinking in education is a part of recursive project of governance and normalization”. There are so many arguments that are made in the article about the usage of bell curve idea in education by Muzaffar and Fendler, but their main goal is to show the contradiction that exists in the history of the bell curve.

The statistician Karl Pearson noted that Statistic was nothing than knowledge of the art or skill of conducting government affairs without any trace of mathematics in the time of Gauss, the founder of the idea of normal distribution. Statistics had nothing to do anything with numbers. They accept that this emerging relation between mathematics and the human sciences was historically accidental and not rationally certain. This article is not for the scholars or educators that are not aware of the bad effect of the bell curve idea is for the educators that are aware of the negative influence of the bell curve idea who resignedly accept what appear to be a natural law. It is for the open-minded educators who regret the injustices of sorting, but feel force to accept it or apply it.

I agree with the most of the arguments that Muzaffar and Fendler make as a person that have seen or experienced the negative influences of the bell curve in education. However, this question is coming to my mind that if they do not use the bell curve or some kind of standards what they can use? How about tests and grades? How the system of education will work? Who get the degree who does not?