Who has time to put this much effort into their appearance before going to class?

…Or is it? In every aspect of our daily lives, we are infatuated with our looks. In 2008, Americans spent around $400B on appearance related expenditures, ranging from clothing to to haircuts to plastic surgery procedures. A staggering $7B alone was spent on cosmetics. Often, when walking to class, I am struck by how put together some people look. Am I on a college campus or a runway show? Of course, there are also those in pajamas who seem to be unaware of the fact that they are at an institution for learning,  not sleeping. No matter how hard we attempt to stop judging based on looks, shallowness is an inherent feature of our society. It is so widespread that a special field, called pulchronomics, is attributed to the study of the economics of physical attractiveness.

DNA determines the production of amino acids which comprise proteins. DNA is thus the fundamental basis for what contributes to each unique human being. Despite every look being determined by genetics, beauty cannot be defined on a biological level.

Beauty is a scarce resource in it of itself. What we consider beautiful is determined by what we perceive as symmetrical and, subconsciously, evolutionarily advantageous. It can be traced back to four factors: guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine. These are the bases of the DNA structure, which, when replicated, (multiple DNA strands) transcribed, (DNA–>RNA), and translated (RNA–>protein), determine how we look. With an infinite number of possible combinations from thousands of genes, the probability of a single outcome is virtually zero. And yet, each of us represent the unlikely product of such a small statistic. Of the looks that result, only a select few are deemed beautiful. As much as we complain about society’s obsession with looks,  it is our  own aesthetic predilections, from physical features to wardrobe choices, that ultimately perpetuate the notion that beauty is paramount.

Even the slightest hint of a 5 o’clock shadow would have totally ruined the sharp business look Don Draper dons in Mad Men. People would definitely have taken notice.

This is particularly evident in the corporate business sector. There are certain looks that have become so customary, they are now the norm. Even the slightest aberration is conspicuous. Men, for example, must wear a suit that follows the current trend and, unless in extraordinary circumstances, a tie. A clean shave is a given; a beard is considered disheveled and unprofessional.

Google “female CEO” and this is what comes up. It is scary how they all bear similar features: slicked back, straight, short/medium length hair. I saw no redhead, to my dismay.

For women, things are more complicated. A suit, or a formal blouse with slacks or a skirt, or a dress, are acceptable. That they ostensibly have a larger range of choices actually makes the decision process more difficult. Hair, a feature lauded by our society as a sign of youth and beauty, is actually shunned in the female sphere. Look no further than at any newspaper photo of a female CEO at a board meeting or press conference, and you will notice a pattern. They all have either straight, slicked back coiffures or don crew cuts. When someone first pointed this out to me, and subsequently looked at my mane, I was horrified by the implication: for me to succeed in my occupational endeavors, I would need to subdue a feature that has become an integral part of my identity. Would I really need to alter my appearance to do better professionally?

With an extra $200,000, more attractive people could afford to buy my dream car, the Lamborghini Murcielago. It is unsurprising that in the movies or music videos, only an attractive person drives such a car.

Statistics have shown that yes, I do. Beauty has proven to be a key factor in improving how successful people are. Despite the major regulations against gender, racial, age, and national origin discrimination, the concept of lookism-positive or negative prejudice based on appearance-is rampant in the job sector. For example, good looking individuals earn 3-4% more than their counterparts, a figure that translates into $230,000 more over the course of their career. Attractive women are more likely to get promoted than their female colleagues, and handsome men are the most likely to be called in for an interview. Clearly, even in the job market, there are tangible benefits to being attractive.

Back in 2007, a Miss Teen USA contestant was the laughing stock for her incoherent answer. Clearly, it makes no sense to judge workplace competency on appearance. Actions speak louder than looks.

Why does this happen? A cynical explanation would be that, despite our best efforts, high school never ends. But this only explains things to a certain extent. After all, a firm’s primary goal is to generate a profit, not the next Miss America winner. The economic rationale behind this inclination is known as signaling, in which one party (an agent) conveys information about itself to another (principal). Whether we realize it or not, beauty signals, or indicates, certain positive attributes about the candidate that would make them an ideal fit. They look confident, efficient, and knowledgable. Even if they know nothing or would be poorly suited for the role, they give off the impression that they would do well. Moreover, their good looks might attract more business and elevate the reputation of the firm. After all, like attracts like, right? Thus, there will always be the extenuating factor of looks that plays an additional role in whether you succeed or not, no matter how well you do at work.

If I could get a dollar for every time someone passed comment on the color of my hair, or treated me differently because of it, I would be a millionaire.

Time and time again we are reminded of cliches such as that what matters is not what’s on the outside, but what’s on the inside. But from a sociological and economic perspective, we see that this is clearly not the case. Aware of the human condition, firms take advantage of our obsession with having a youthful, beautiful appearance by marketing accordingly, even as parts of society try to  promote the importance of inner beauty. We are definitely making strides, but we have a long way to go. I volunteer to be a case study: when I count less than 5 stares at my red hair in any given scenario, then I will recognize that we have made progress.