An Analysis: Can't We Be Smart and Look Good, Too? By Rachel Toor

In my last post, I posted an article that I had come across. In this post, I want to share with all of you my opinion about this article. I have also included a more theoretical aspect in terms of Bloomberg's taxonomy and Gardner's multiple intelligence theory to emphasize the literary value of this article.

The article, “Can't We Be Smart and Look Good, Too?” by Rachel Toor is an analysis of peoples’ opinions about the importance of appearance in academia. Toor talks about her friend Lynn, who is a dean by profession yet is very particular when it comes to her outfits, makeup, shoes and hair. She carries herself with elegance and poise. Lynn is up to date with the latest fashion products and can differentiate amidst hundreds of lipsticks of the exact same shade. She works out regularly at the gym but never messes up her appearance and is very proud of how she carries herself. However, her attention to such detail is often mistaken for frivolity and people in her profession do not appreciate the importance she gives to maintaining good outward appearances.  Even Lynn’s husband judged her the first time they met, for being so punctilious in terms of her looks. However, when she pursued him and they conversed a little, he realized that Lynn was perhaps “the smartest person he'd ever met.” (Toor, 2008).

The prevalent image of a person in the academic world is perhaps a person who has no relation whatsoever to the glamor of fashion. The ideal academic individual is one who understands that looking too chic is a misinterpretation of his/her wisdom and can often pass by to be superficial and shallow. Lynn’s accentuation to detail interferes with such narrow-minded norms of society and therefore she, as a person, is greatly judged. Lynn’s emphasis on her looks may have been thoroughly appreciated in the corporate world. However, in the academic arena, lookism is a rampant prejudice and makes Lynn appear ostentatious.

Toor suggests that perhaps the problem does not lie in people like Lynn but rather with the academic world and society as a whole. Having seen professors as old as history and deans as bald as a desert, the whole image of being chic or dressing to impress has been evacuated from academia. A person who cares too much for their appearance is a person not intelligent enough to fit in this arena. You can be either fashion-wise but education-foolish or education-wise but fashion-foolish. There is no in-between. Society’s ideas of academic personas have left no room for a person to extend his expertise in both aspects. An intelligent person cannot be a proponent of style and fashion and that is where the boundary has been made.

The dominance of such a notion is perhaps because there are not many occasions demanding professors or teachers to be dressed their best. The few annual conferences that these people attend have pre-decided outfits and not much time is devoted to looking one’s best – “Men (wear) badly fitting suits, or ancient corduroy, sport coats and food-stained ties. Professional jewelry (tends) towards "interesting," which usually (means) big, clunky, and inexpensive; there's rarely anything shiny on an academic woman.” (Toor, 2008). People in the academic world seem to have given up the idea that they can look good too because they feel that if they have the power to impress others with their intelligence why pay any attention to how they look.

The idea of unattractiveness in academics is questionable yet has never been questioned. The reality is that a person in the academic world is subjected to so many eyes, which makes it all the more important to dedicate some attention to what all those eyes are looking at. In fact, if looking good makes you feel better and helps enhance your confidence when you stand in front of a class of 200 students, why then does it seem like “a betrayal of academic values?” (Toor, 2008).

Toor questions the mentality of people in the academic arena that have decided that there is more intelligence is critiquing the frivolity of body-building than investing the time to get those abs or muscles. The author explores the possibilities of why such an ideology might have been instilled in the minds of people. She states that individuals who entered this world “were the smart kids, not the popular ones; the chess-club presidents, not prom queens.” Basically, the people who chose teaching as a profession were the geeky nerds who couldn’t leave their comfort zones or stand out by any means other than their intelligence. Since these individuals couldn’t handle maintaining style or walking the fashion ramp, they probably created the idea that the academic world was meant to be judged on the intelligence of their brains not the external realities of their physical appearance. However, the creation of such a notion didn’t mean that it was supposed to undermine individuals who could handle both these aspects equally and exceptionally well.

In every other realm of profession, appearance matters so much more and presenting a persona that knows, what it means to wear the right kind of clothes and tidy up one’s hair, is given so much significance. Why then is the academic world left behind? Why do people in this profession pride themselves in not knowing popular fashion trademarks or never having heard of expensive car brands? Simply because they do not have clients to win over or people to impress, doesn’t mean that their appearance carries no value. Moreover, it also does not mean that people who are able to maintain their looks and outward appeal should be judged as not fit for the profession. Thus, throughout the article, Toor repeatedly emphasizes that academics doesn’t demand any kind of appearance but that that doesn’t mean it doesn’t value appearance; because if people can be smart, then why can’t they also look good?

Write an objective using Bloom’s Taxonomy, referring to the highest level of thinking skills.

The article talks about prevalent norms in academia regarding the appearance and external expectations of people in this profession. (Level 1 - Knowledge)

It compares and explains how a difference in physical realities or attention to external attributes is not a parameter to measure the presence or absence of intelligence.  (Level 2 – Comprehension)

The article also applies this comparison in its description of Lynn, who as a person pays a lot of attention to her looks but holds the position of a Dean due to her intelligence and experience. (Level 3 – Application)

Toor also analyses the possible reasons for academic norms to exist and what may have led to the evolution of triviality of appearances in academia. (Level 4 – Analysis)

The article examines and synthesizes the ideologies observed in the academic arena and the details that may have led to the creation of such a notion to understand and explain why breaking such a notion is so important in today’s world. (Level 5 – Synthesis)

Toor makes a final evaluation trying to conclude that although attention to appearance is often mistaken to be a frivolity, it can actually be a worthwhile asset in the profession, if mastered appropriately. (Level 6- Evaluation)

Which frame of mind, according to Gardner’s theory, do you think applies most to this article?

Gardner has described 8 forms of intelligence and the article portrays two of these frames of mind.

Throughout the article the author, Rachel Toor, exhibits strong “Interpersonal Intelligence”. She displays an exceptional understanding of why certain people in the academia may react to outward appearances and label them as triviality while others may feel that outward appearances matter just as much in the academic profession as any other. Toor also analyses the notion through multiple perspectives. She analyses the possible explanations for the emergence of such ignorance towards looks while also maintaining an equally justified approach towards her friend Lynn, who lays greater emphasis on attention to external traits despite being in the profession of education. Toor assesses the motivation behind why Lynn may want to devote her time to working out in the gym and making sure her outfit, makeup and hair are always on point versus why another teacher or professor may give no importance to their style of dressing or weight or other physical attributes. The author is also very skilled in resolving the conflict created by this prevalent norm. She alludes that while appearance is not a demand of academic world and is often considered a fake façade to make up for lack of intelligence, it can actually be a valuable advantage in the profession, if applied fittingly.

The author also displays a hint of “Linguistic Verbal Intelligence” in the way she makes her points. She not only uses an anecdote of her friend Lynn to explain the perspectives of people who emphasize appearance in the profession but also makes convincing arguments to underline her perspective. Toor is witty in her use of words and in the flow of her sentences. She makes use of multiple rhetorical questions to drive the reader’s mind towards answering the logical fallacies created by such a narrow-minded ideology. Toor’s persuasive logic combined with the humor of her anecdotal stories and incidents creates an interesting read that leaves her readers thinking and pondering about why a person who is smart would not want to look good.

References:
"Can't We Be Smart and Look Good, Too?" By Rachel Toor

Rachel Toor is an assistant professor of creative writing at Eastern Washington University. Her latest book is Personal Record: A Love Affair With Running (University of Nebraska Press, 2008).

What did you think about this article? Let me Know in the comments below. 

Don't forget to like, share and subscribe

Until then....signing off!

S...