Does looks affect jobs and will your face land you a dream job? Some measure expected standard face as a potential employer to decide whose face best fits the job. This new trend selects mostly females based on their looks or shape of their faces. Some companies go as far as asking for pictures in advance and then measuring faces with tape during their interviews for their required face. This matter is becoming an issue of concern as some do not hear from the employer again after their receiving photos. This way of employing staff members was again in the news. So is this another stereotypical selection method of the beauty considered fit for a workplace? This method is based on facial profiling by face reader’s opinions who claim to predict suitable jobs for specific faces. They are consulted to analyse faces to determine the best face for each job. Is this another underhand tactics and an excuse to discriminate against certain faces? It is possible to send own air brushed picture to look impressive often people send a younger photo than their current looks. Are companies being influenced by the modern concepts of what constitutes good looks online in the media as true standard beauty? What about ‘Ugly Betty’ chosen to help her boss from getting distracted by his beautiful secretaries to focus on managing his company. What happens if a company is catfished as happens often in many cases including Sarah who got a job from a university based on her photo of previous youthful years. The university appointed her and on arrival for work turned out to be confronted by an old lady three times her age. Sarah did not indicate her current age to them so it was assumed she looked like the photo sent. At first, the university thought it was a mix up until she confirmed her identity and she enough she was the same person. She was allowed to do the job based on her excellent and genuine track record on her CV qualifications and work history. Sarah although het looks did not affect her job turned out to be a nightmare. Sarah told university zoology director, she must live literary with all the animals in her home. Therefore Sarah turned posh university accommodation into animal husbandry for her practical research. Her teaching produced great students so made up for lack of her youthful look Was tolerated to live among her beloved animals till she died unexpectedly. Sarah carried on dutifully for many years but became a victim of her own success. One of the animals bit her while taking him to a vet in her vehicle became infected by rhesus as he carried that disease. Sarah dedicated her phenomenal long life collaborating with the university for many years. The university afterwards took the animals to the appropriate zoo set aside for all other animals. Then the house was refurbished and restored for new person employed to fill her place. Sarah was a great character and loyal to her beloved animals and carried on with her zoologist passion to a whole new level. Her presence at university was well-known so she was popular and well loved, one of a kind in that gated community. Her research papers, work was immaculate in both classroom and outside winning many awards. Sarah’s looks and age did not hinder or affect her work in at all. So if the university had based the choice on only superficial or aesthetic looks to reject application, they would have missed out on her skills, talents and practical abilities for many years, as an impressive scientist. So do looks really help in choosing the most competent staff members? Sarah’s job technically did not have age limits in those days so she was able to do her work perfectly well. Sarah did what she loved most so died doing her job carried on faithfully to the end. So is it fair and ethically moral to demand specific looks to determine certain jobs?