I will begin by stating that a rating system’s main purpose is to provide the ability to convey the level of beauty of one person to another person that has not seen the “subject” person. For example, if I see a girl that I find very beautiful, the system should provide me with an accurate way to tell my friend just how beautiful she was later. The rating I give her should give my friend an instant idea of how “hot” she was. Also, the system must be based completely on physical beauty. Yes, I know that most of us will agree that a person’s personality can, and will, greatly affect how attracted we are to them. But this is not a scale of attraction; it is a scale of beauty. It’s the difference of a girl saying, “I think he’s hot” to “I can see how people would think he’s hot.” One shows attraction and one does not, however both show beauty.

There are two major problems with the current system, both of which create even more faults. First, a rating of 7 has become average, leading to an unbalanced, inaccurate system. Secondly, the scale has been forced to provide ratings for too wide a variety of women, which also hampers the scales ability to provide an accurate measure of beauty. The scale is in need of a serious recalibration; a responsibility that I have placed on my own shoulders to bear.

Many conversations and situations of rating girls has lead me to conclude that the scale of 0-10 has been warped over time; maybe do to the grading system in our schools where a 70-C is considered average. Another cause may be due to people feeling bad giving out 5’s. If you got a 5 out of 10 on anything you’d probably be upset. But in this case, with so much being held in the balance, 5 must be accepted as the average. This distortion of an average score is the cause of the major problem of the system. If an average looking girl is given a 7 it leaves only 3 points with which to classify above-average looking girls, and conversely, provides a needlessly high number of points to classify below-average looking girls. To illustrate my point, with these ratings, a completely average looking girl you see on the street is only 3 points lower than a stunningly attractive Victoria’s Secret model. Now, since a 7 is average and 10 is supermodel material, then that leaves only 8 and 9 to cover everything in between, which is ludicrous. Each standard deviation would contain such a wide variety of attractiveness that the point of the scale (to provide a measure of how attractive a girl is) is lost. For example, if I told you that a girl a saw was an 8, that means she could be anywhere between slightly more attractive than average to half way to model material. It is easy to see how accuracy has been lost.

Secondly, the scale has been hampered by the amount of women it must cover. As stated above, the scale allows a model only 3 points of attractive superiority over an average girl. And since an overwhelming majority of even the attractive women out there are not models, a score of 10 is barely used and reserved for models and celebrities. This also leads to another problem in that all models and celebrities are rated as 10’s. As hot as the girl in the gap commercial may be, she’s no Jennifer Connelly, but the scale is unable to show any difference. Again, inaccuracy is shown.

Before I get into my solution, there is another scale which I think warrants mentioning- The 0/1 System. According to this school of thought, only two scores are necessary: 1- attractive enough to know, in the biblical sense, or 0- not attractive enough to know, once again, biblically speaking. While it seems to provide enough information on the surface, the fact is there are too many other variables that could swing you from rating a girl as 0 to 1. I’m sure you’ve heard the terms such as: “I’d give her a Monday” or “Not even on a Sunday night.” Rather than giving an accurate measure of beauty, this system can only separate women, or men, into two groups where the dividing line is your loneliest, drunkest, and saddest moment. Not only that, but it changes the perfectly acceptable idea of talking about the beauty of people, to a conversation about what you would do in your weakest moment. To me, and I hope to you as well, this is unacceptable.

Recalibrated Rating System:

Firstly, celebrities are taken off the scale. They, along with models and such, are given their own 1-5 scale. Five points are enough of a spread to cover this section of hot people. However, there is a slight overlap between the two scales in that a 10 on the “normal” scale (ns) is equivalent to a 1 on the model scale (ms).

Secondly, ratings of 1-3 (ns) are not very important, since the meaning of the scale is to admire and qualify beauty. If you find yourself giving a lot of them out, you aren’t using the scale with its intended purpose, and also you’re kinda mean. The scale is to rate people you find hot and discuss, not point and laugh at those you find to be less than that…dick/bitch. 4’s and 5’s would normally only be used in response to another’s rating of someone. I would not go and point out a 5 (an average looking girl), however a friend of mine might say a girl is a 6 or 7 while I only find her to be a 5. 8’s and 9’s are obviously those who are blessed with extremely good looks and 10’s are only for the exceptionally hot. These people could be models if they wanted to be. I want to be clear how few 10’s should be given out.

There you have it: the scale for the new generation. No longer will you be handcuffed by a warped rating system. Go and see how beautiful the world can be… you know.. sometimes.. there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it… like my heart's going to cave in…(tear)