K I C K H A M wrote:
I personally know of 4 5'5 and under models who work, and work well, in LA. They are agency-signed models, and while some may do talent, they are signed with modeling agencies and do quite well. One is 5'4 and has beat me (and tons of other girls) out for 2 big jobs in the past year.

Now, that isn't a lot considering how many models there are in LA. But it's not nothing.

4 is next to nothing. Statistically it's nothing.
These are outliers.
They're great to talk about, they're not great to base career decisions or pipe dreams on.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I personally know of 4 5'5 and under models who work, and work well, in LA. They are agency-signed models, and while some may do talent, they are signed with modeling agencies and do quite well. One is 5'4 and has beat me (and tons of other girls) out for 2 big jobs in the past year.

Now, that isn't a lot considering how many models there are in LA. But it's not nothing.

I guess I will chime in.  I have avoided this thread.   In the mainstream, as an agent, or a legitimate manager, you look at models (and actors) to see what their characteristics are.  For a fashion model, the ideal would be a young girl, 15-20, 5'9" or taller, size 0-2 with a good, eclectic, NYC fashion style look.  For a commercial model, we'd look to girls who were 5'7" or taller, size 2-4, 18-26 with a prettier, more business like appearance.   In both cases, "appearance" is subjective, but in all cases, they had to be photogenic.

Any time a model fell outside those boundaries, we would look to the reasons and label each as a "disability."  For example, if a model was too short, that was a disability.  If a model were too old, that was a disability.  Size could be a disability, etc, etc, etc.

A single disability was never a deal killer in itself.  It made each model more difficult to sign though.  You have to remember, agencies make their money by getting models bookings.  They look for the models who are most likely to get gigs.

In management, if you found a girl that was otherwise perfect, your job would be to help them find ways to overcome the disability.  The normal way was to help them look to bookings they could get despite their height.  Sometimes they could overcome it with personality.  You'd get them to castings where height wasn't critical and they could win the casting director over.   Other times they would be so stunning that alone would cause them to look the other way.  In most cases it took both to get booked with the disability.

The point though is that, if you go to an agency, even with a disability, with enough tears, they are going to sign you.  They want commissions and you have demonstrated that you will make them money.   Sometimes a model will walk in and she will win over the agent herself.  She might walk in on her own, with a strong book and then melt the objections with a bit of spunk and glow.

There will always be a few models that will get past the disability, including, height and be successful.  The point though, both of the people here and the OP, is that it is difficult and not impossible.  If you are a 5'4" model, and you want to get signed, you have to understand that it is a long shot.  On the other hand, it isn't impossible.

My advice to all short models who want to take a shot at it is to overcome the disability by not trying to be what you are not.   Don't try to compete, head to head with the tall models.  Seek out those gigs where you have a legitimate shot at getting past the height issue.  Focus closely on that and don't waste energy on things that won't happen.

Your sole mission is to get bookings, to prove to an agency that you can make them money.   The OP picked a bad example because hair shows are lousy jobs.  Agencies stay away from them.  Kickham has shown how difficult it is when you are short in a major market.  Four models out of many hundreds is small.

Both show that it is possible, but the odds are long.  On the other hand, I have known shorter models who have had decent careers modeling freelance.  Few have the success of an agency model.  In truth though, I define success in modeling as paying the bills without waiting tables.

OK, those are my thoughts.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
They only hire tall, young, and gorgeous models.

If you want to believe the MYTH, go on and continue not doing what you're doing.

This is Isaiah Thomas...



He currently plays for the Sacramento Kings NBA team. He is 5'9" tall in a sport where the average height is about 6'8". He is the exception to the rule just like Devon Aoki and Dean Johnson. Two EXTREMELY rare exceptions to the height rule for agency models. We can all go out and dig up exceptions to the rule but that doesn't make the rule a myth, a fraud, or any way not the standard. People are always trying to chisel away at the norm in agencies to make themself feel better but the reality is, the norm isn't changing any time soon and if it did, it doesn't necessarily make it for the better.

Years ago I was in a live-in relationship with a showgirl here in Vegas. You live here too so maybe this will resonate a bit. The show she was in was Jubilee at Bally's, the last of the big old Vegas shows. The cast has over 100 dancers in it (about 80 of which are women) and it's a topless show. Some of the costumes the dancers have to wear weigh in at over 75 pounds with the headdress, backpack, waist pack, and shoes. I remember when she came home one night in tears because she got a notice for being overweight...she was 5'9" and weighed in one night at 129 pounds and was told she had 30 days to drop 4 pounds. This isn't an easy gig, and if you say you were a showgirl in Jubilee, you pretty much can get a gig dancing anywhere for any show here in Vegas. Now, there are a LOT of shows in Vegas, and most of the dancers in most of those shows are way shorter than 5'8" (the minimum height requirement to be a showgirl in Jubilee). Your average dancer in Vegas is between 5'2 and 5'6".

Part of my girlfriend's frustration with being the show for almost 10 years was she was seeing a transition of talent occur. The show manager was seen that a lot of the girls auditioning for the show either were too short or met the height requirements but couldn't dance for shit. They refused to sway from the height requirement so the show suffered for a while as they were bringing in new dancers who looked the part but had two left feet. In time, they started recruiting more dancers from outside the area but to this day, if you aren't 5'8 or taller, you aren't even considered past the first round of auditions. They post this everywhere too...in the casting calls, on signs outside the audition registration tables, everywhere. "YOU MUST BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 5 FOOT 8 INCHES TALL TO AUDITION FOR THIS SHOW" and yet still there would be some short girls who would try thinking they "would be that one exception that would turn the show upside down!" and it would never happen.

The rules and standards are there for a reason. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but for 99.999% of the other occasions, the rule stands. Documenting one example of an exception does not reinforce the reality that the rules aren't changing based on that one exception.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
My advice to all short models who want to take a shot at it is to overcome the disability by not trying to be what you are not.   Don't try to compete, head to head with the tall models.  Seek out those gigs where you have a legitimate shot at getting past the height issue.  Focus closely on that and don't waste energy on things that won't happen.

Your sole mission is to get bookings, to prove to an agency that you can make them money.   The OP picked a bad example because hair shows are lousy jobs.  Agencies stay away from them.  Kickham has shown how difficult it is when you are short in a major market.  Four models out of many hundreds is small.

Both show that it is possible, but the odds are long.  On the other hand, I have known shorter models who have had decent careers modeling freelance.  Few have the success of an agency model.  In truth though, I define success in modeling as paying the bills without waiting tables.

OK, those are my thoughts.

Excellent advice. A few months ago I was on a flight sitting next to a photographer who shot for the NFL. It was a great conversation and he divulged for me that a lot of the sports photographers have a lot of talent but no moreso than a lot of every-day photographers who have talent. Much of getting those jobs just came by lucking into it, having the right gear, and getting juiced into the job by someone. That's a bout it. The point being is that while I may have a dream of shooting from the 50 yard line at a 49ers Superbowl, chances are that's not going to happen. It doesn't mean it can't, and weirder things have happened, and I should never not chase my dreams, but from a business perspective, it's better off to work with your limitations and be exceptional within them. In the big picture (no pun intended) it's a much better strategy.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
When I first read this, I thought I was misreading it, or there was a point there I was missing.  It took me a while to realise that the OP was serious and actually believes that stuff.

Not good for a gatekeeper.  No wonder so many scammers are getting onto the site.

I don't think that MM sets the bar that high for being a gatekeeper -- it's an uppaid position and OP has been tooting the same song for years now.

Second verse same as the verse.

Maybe MM should post disclaimers on their gatekeepers portfolios that their views don't necessarily reflect the views of MM.

NYB wrote:
What "agency" is the original poster referring to?  I wonder what type of models the top agencies in NY and LA are going to hire like Elite, Ford and IMG.

They aren't

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

4 is next to nothing. Statistically it's nothing.
These are outliers.
They're great to talk about, they're not great to base career decisions or pipe dreams on.

Let me put some emphasis on the fact that they are agency models, and that I don't know half of the agency models in LA.

It's not common, that's not what I'm saying-- my point is that it's not only the "one-in-a-million" it's made out to be.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

I guess I will chime in.  I have avoided this thread.   In the mainstream, as an agent, or a legitimate manager, you look at models (and actors) to see what their characteristics are.  For a fashion model, the ideal would be a young girl, 15-20, 5'9" or taller, size 0-2 with a good, eclectic, NYC fashion style look.  For a commercial model, we'd look to girls who were 5'7" or taller, size 2-4, 18-26 with a prettier, more business like appearance.   In both cases, "appearance" is subjective, but in all cases, they had to be photogenic.

Any time a model fell outside those boundaries, we would look to the reasons and label each as a "disability."  For example, if a model was too short, that was a disability.  If a model were too old, that was a disability.  Size could be a disability, etc, etc, etc.

A single disability was never a deal killer in itself.  It made each model more difficult to sign though.  You have to remember, agencies make their money by getting models bookings.  They look for the models who are most likely to get gigs.

In management, if you found a girl that was otherwise perfect, your job would be to help them find ways to overcome the disability.  The normal way was to help them look to bookings they could get despite their height.  Sometimes they could overcome it with personality.  You'd get them to castings where height wasn't critical and they could win the casting director over.   Other times they would be so stunning that alone would cause them to look the other way.  In most cases it took both to get booked with the disability.

The point though is that, if you go to an agency, even with a disability, with enough tears, they are going to sign you.  They want commissions and you have demonstrated that you will make them money.   Sometimes a model will walk in and she will win over the agent herself.  She might walk in on her own, with a strong book and then melt the objections with a bit of spunk and glow.

There will always be a few models that will get past the disability, including, height and be successful.  The point though, both of the people here and the OP, is that it is difficult and not impossible.  If you are a 5'4" model, and you want to get signed, you have to understand that it is a long shot.  On the other hand, it isn't impossible.

My advice to all short models who want to take a shot at it is to overcome the disability by not trying to be what you are not.   Don't try to compete, head to head with the tall models.  Seek out those gigs where you have a legitimate shot at getting past the height issue.  Focus closely on that and don't waste energy on things that won't happen.

Your sole mission is to get bookings, to prove to an agency that you can make them money.   The OP picked a bad example because hair shows are lousy jobs.  Agencies stay away from them.  Kickham has shown how difficult it is when you are short in a major market.  Four models out of many hundreds is small.

Both show that it is possible, but the odds are long.  On the other hand, I have known shorter models who have had decent careers modeling freelance.  Few have the success of an agency model.  In truth though, I define success in modeling as paying the bills without waiting tables.

OK, those are my thoughts.

Exactly. Thank you for understanding my point.

K I C K H A M wrote:
Let me put some emphasis on the fact that they are agency models, and that I don't know half of the agency models in LA.

It's not common, that's not what I'm saying-- my point is that it's not only the "one-in-a-million" it's made out to be.

Yep - and it varies by agency. But there's at least one major LA agency just off the top of my head, that has a smattering of 5'5, 5'6, 5'7 girls on their board. So yep, it's not quite one in a million.

But also it's all about the specific girl - so even though they exist it's mostly illogical for a girl to think she's going to be picked up at those heights.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Paul Mitchell Hair Show

Key words: Paul Mitchell HAIR SHOW

End. Of. Story.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Let me put some emphasis on the fact that they are agency models, and that I don't know half of the agency models in LA.

It's not common, that's not what I'm saying-- my point is that it's not only the "one-in-a-million" it's made out to be.

Considering how many girls want to actually make it as a model, the fact that 4 short girls did might as well be one in a million.
Yes, it's not a complete 100% certain impossibility, but blowing smoke up people's backsides isn't helpful. The whole "You can be anything you want to be" just really doesn't work in the real world as you are not the sole pilot of your destiny. The things you do and interactions you have all involve other people that have their own stuff going on. Yes, if lightning strikes a short girl, she might want to go to a casting call, but posts like the OP made really are nothing more than a misleading perspective. It came across like this was a common certainty.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:
The whole "You can be anything you want to be" just really doesn't work in the real world as you are not the sole pilot of your destiny.

True, but as a father I would never discourage my daughter from pursuing her dreams, as long as a Plan B or C were taken into consideration. Dreams can add that special sparkle in the fabric of life and the act of seeing a passion through until it either resolves, or dissolves, is not a bad thing.

I didn't make it as a musician, but I'm all the richer for having tried...

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

Considering how many girls want to actually make it as a model, the fact that 4 short girls did might as well be one in a million.
Yes, it's not a complete 100% certain impossibility, but blowing smoke up people's backsides isn't helpful. The whole "You can be anything you want to be" just really doesn't work in the real world as you are not the sole pilot of your destiny. The things you do and interactions you have all involve other people that have their own stuff going on. Yes, if lightning strikes a short girl, she might want to go to a casting call, but posts like the OP made really are nothing more than a misleading perspective. It came across like this was a common certainty.

Please show me where I stated that.


I'm not blowing smoke up anyone's backside. I'm stating facts.


You not only have to be gorgeous. You have to have proper model dimensions, and that doesn't mean wearing the same size as a 5'10 model when you're 5'4. You have to be lucky to get in. You have to have the charisma to make people put your height aside.

But, when girls ask if they might have a chance with an agency, a common response is, "You're this tall, so no." I've seen two girls get told this-- not that they have slim chances, but NO chances, and then go forward and be signed.

Tell me, who is full of it? Me, saying "Your chances are very low. There is a good chance an agency will never look at you, but it DOES happen. Go for it and you'll find out." Or people who say, "You have no chance and no agency will ever look at you," when some of those girls move forward, get signed, and do quite well.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
How boring life would be if people never tried to reach for the stars.   I'm certain people told some of our best known actors and singers it was too hard or not to try.   The problem for models especially fashion models is that the  market is over saturated with talent and many of those agencies use models for fashion are used for commercial work as well.   That doesn't mean not to try but it does mean to be realistic and practical.   Modeling in Kansas or SC is different then NY or Paris or Miami.   Location matters.   Being a sought out model in AL. may mean zero in Chicago.   Dreaming of walking the runway in Milan is fine when you are 5'4"   is a tad silly as is thinking that you can make enough to live on as a fashion model.   There are thousands of actors who want to work.   Some head to LA or Canada and other places to try their luck.   Most fail.   That's okay.

What saddens me is are those who take advantage of those dreams.   I know of one model I shot who while pretty was too short for fashion and not going to be a commercial model either.   Yet this sweet girl invested some serious cash with a photographer I know.    A occasional hair show won't support you.   A few promo jobs won't either.   Car and bike shows tend to be seasonal.   Portfolio mill agencies know this.   They get just enough work for non agency standard models that no one can really call them rip offs.   However they know when models are largely wasting their time.   They'll send them off to 'agency recommended' photographers where they will have to spend a lot of cash.   Members here are correct in that some short models have gotten jobs.   Angel Tara who I mentioned.   I know a 5'5" model from MM who did a billboard and a soap ad.   Others have done some nice things as well.   Nothing is impossible.   Some things are just not probable.   Approach your dreams with common sense and logic and a understanding of the field you want to work in.

*applause*

K I C K H A M wrote:
Please show me where I stated that.


I'm not blowing smoke up anyone's backside. I'm stating facts.


You not only have to be gorgeous. You have to have proper model dimensions, and that doesn't mean wearing the same size as a 5'10 model when you're 5'4. You have to be lucky to get in. You have to have the charisma to make people put your height aside.

But, when girls ask if they might have a chance with an agency, a common response is, "You're this tall, so no." I've seen two girls get told this-- not that they have slim chances, but NO chances, and then go forward and be signed.

Tell me, who is full of it? Me, saying "Your chances are very low. There is a good chance an agency will never look at you, but it DOES happen. Go for it and you'll find out." Or people who say, "You have no chance and no agency will ever look at you," when some of those girls move forward, get signed, and do quite well.

I was referring to the OP. you're not the OP are you? Facts are one thing, but it's how you present them. There is a big difference between "low" and the chances of a short girl making it in modelling. When someone hears "low" they might think something like a 5 or 10 or even 20% chance, when the reality is, it's much more like a 0.001% chance that a girl who is 5'2 makes it as a model for anything beyond art nudes.

There is always a chance anything could happen. Aliens could land here tomorrow, or all the tall girls could bang their heads and that 5'3 firecracker from Mississippi might be called up to fill in in Paris because there is no one left who doesn't have a concussion. If we want to talk facts and being realistic, for every person who posts a success story about a short model who made it, there should be 100 posts which are negative or stories about short models who didn't make it. Because that would create a realistic environment that a short model will face trying to make an actual career out of it.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

I was referring to the OP. you're not the OP are you? Facts are one thing, but it's how you present them. There is a big difference between "low" and the chances of a short girl making it in modelling. When someone hears "low" they might think something like a 5 or 10 or even 20% chance, when the reality is, it's much more like a 0.001% chance that a girl who is 5'2 makes it as a model for anything beyond art nudes.

There is always a chance anything could happen. Aliens could land here tomorrow, or all the tall girls could bang their heads and that 5'3 firecracker from Mississippi might be called up to fill in in Paris because there is no one left who doesn't have a concussion. If we want to talk facts and being realistic, for every person who posts a success story about a short model who made it, there should be 100 posts which are negative or stories about short models who didn't make it. Because that would create a realistic environment that a short model will face trying to make an actual career out of it.

You responded to me, so I assumed you were talking about my post.

My post very clearly states what I think. There are tons of agency models I know. Probably about 200. Four of them are 5'5 and shorter (of girls I know actually working).

For some people, this may be a lower number than they predict. For others, it's a higher one.

That's why I stated numbers. I'm not necessarily defending the OP, I'm just putting in a different word against all the harsh opposition.

Chicchowmein wrote:

I don't think that MM sets the bar that high for being a gatekeeper -- it's an uppaid position and OP has been tooting the same song for years now.

Second verse same as the verse.

Maybe MM should post disclaimers on their gatekeepers portfolios that their views don't necessarily reflect the views of MM.

A fine suggestion, but it doesn't change the fact that the gatekeepers are responsible for approving new members.

K I C K H A M wrote:

You responded to me, so I assumed you were talking about my post.

My post very clearly states what I think. There are tons of agency models I know. Probably about 200. Four of them are 5'5 and shorter (of girls I know actually working).

For some people, this may be a lower number than they predict. For others, it's a higher one.

That's why I stated numbers. I'm not necessarily defending the OP, I'm just putting in a different word against all the harsh opposition.

but posts like the OP made really are nothing more than a misleading perspective.

I thought I was pretty clear exactly which post I was referring to, and 4 out of 200 isn't the actual percentage, it's 4 out of all the short girls who ever dreamed about being a model. The other 196 is 196 out of all the tall girls who ever dreamed about being a model.

Statistically they're an outlier and not even worth considering in the modelling world at all when it comes to types of models who have made a career out of it. The opinion isn't harsh, it's realistic. Yes, once in a blue moon some short girl might be able to sell herself, or someone might take an interest in a short girl who has something else really special and she might actually make it. But you're already dealing with an industry that has a very low success rate, now add being short on top of that? The fact that someone knows one, or one once made it is pretty irrelevant. It's almost astronomic.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

K I C K H A M wrote:
You responded to me, so I assumed you were talking about my post.

My post very clearly states what I think. There are tons of agency models I know. Probably about 200. Four of them are 5'5 and shorter (of girls I know actually working).

For some people, this may be a lower number than they predict. For others, it's a higher one.

That's why I stated numbers. I'm not necessarily defending the OP, I'm just putting in a different word against all the harsh opposition.

I thought I was pretty clear exactly which post I was referring to, and 4 out of 200 isn't the actual percentage, it's 4 out of all the short girls who ever dreamed about being a model. The other 196 is 196 out of all the tall girls who ever dreamed about being a model.

Statistically they're an outlier and not even worth considering in the modelling world at all when it comes to types of models who have made a career out of it. The opinion isn't harsh, it's realistic. Yes, once in a blue moon some short girl might be able to sell herself, or someone might take an interest in a short girl who has something else really special and she might actually make it. But you're already dealing with an industry that has a very low success rate, now add being short on top of that? The fact that someone knows one, or one once made it is pretty irrelevant. It's almost astronomic.

It isn't "worth considering" until you're one of them.

Then it becomes very "worth considering."

If people can't take the information I give, which is truthful information, and use their own brains to make out what's realistic and what's not, I can't help them. I come here and post to help the people I CAN help.

The girls who only aim to hear what they want to hear won't be helped by realistic optimism, realistic pessimism, or unrealistic posts on either side. They'll take what they like and avoid the rest.

K I C K H A M wrote:

It isn't "worth considering" until you're one of them.

Then it becomes very "worth considering."

If people can't take the information I give, which is truthful information, and use their own brains to make out what's realistic and what's not, I can't help them. I come here and post to help the people I CAN help.

The girls who only aim to hear what they want to hear won't be helped by realistic optimism, realistic pessimism, or unrealistic posts on either side. They'll take what they like and avoid the rest.

Your efforts are appreciated, by many, I'm sure. If you look at what the OP actually wrote, what you offer is way different in terms of advice. You draw on your industry experience well. He wrote about a hair show and then made the sweeping statement. What you write makes great sense.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

K I C K H A M wrote:
You responded to me, so I assumed you were talking about my post.

My post very clearly states what I think. There are tons of agency models I know. Probably about 200. Four of them are 5'5 and shorter (of girls I know actually working).

For some people, this may be a lower number than they predict. For others, it's a higher one.

That's why I stated numbers. I'm not necessarily defending the OP, I'm just putting in a different word against all the harsh opposition.

I thought I was pretty clear exactly which post I was referring to, and 4 out of 200 isn't the actual percentage, it's 4 out of all the short girls who ever dreamed about being a model. The other 196 is 196 out of all the tall girls who ever dreamed about being a model.

.

lol. have you even considered that it's not just "4 out of all the short girls who ever dreamed about being a model"...

there are so many young, thin girls out there who want to be a model. they don't get signed. or they get signed, but never work. To then have models, even if it's just a handful, who "beat" all those girls, get signed, and book work and work often, that's great. It's not "1 in a million". It happens. Not a lot, but not as uncommon as some people on here think.

A girl, no matter her height or look or size or age, who asks on the forum if an agency will sign her, will always the same reply from me: we're not an agency. So take some decent pola's and apply to agencies, they'll be able to tell you more. While it is not likely non-agency standard models will sign with an agency, it's also not completely unheard of, and to tell them there is ZERO chance it will EVER happen for them just by looking at their height is just very misinformed.

K I C K H A M wrote:
It isn't "worth considering" until you're one of them.

yes!

Anna Adrielle wrote:

lol. have you even considered that it's not just "4 out of all the short girls who ever dreamed about being a model"...

there are so many young, thin girls out there who want to be a model. they don't get signed. or they get signed, but never work. To then have models, even if it's just a handful, who "beat" all those girls, get signed, and book work and work often, that's great. It's not "1 in a million". It happens. Not a lot, but not as uncommon as some people on here think.

A girl, no matter her height or look or size or age, who asks on the forum if an agency will sign her, will always the same reply from me: we're not an agency. So take some decent pola's and apply to agencies, they'll be able to tell you more. While it is not likely non-agency standard models will sign with an agency, it's also not completely unheard of, and to tell them there is ZERO chance it will EVER happen for them just by looking at their height is just very misinformed.

Yes, it's not quite 1 in a million, but it's still very rare. A lot of young girls dream of being a model, and they have to get everything right, including luck, to make it. starting with a massive handicap of being 5'2" decreases those odds dramatically. If a short girls arms and legs are well proportioned, a lot of them aren't, they might have a shot in a very very rare situation, but again you're making the sub-set of possibles even smaller. The amount of girls that fall into that range, coupled with the amount that actually would want to be a model, then couple in those who have the character and mind for it, and then a luck spin... well.. I don't know if I'd rather play the lottery or try and make it.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:
Yes, it's not quite 1 in a million, but it's still very rare. A lot of young girls dream of being a model, and they have to get everything right, including luck, to make it. starting with a massive handicap of being 5'2" decreases those odds dramatically. If a short girls arms and legs are well proportioned, a lot of them aren't, they might have a shot in a very very rare situation, but again you're making the sub-set of possibles even smaller. The amount of girls that fall into that range, coupled with the amount that actually would want to be a model, then couple in those who have the character and mind for it, and then a luck spin... well.. I don't know if I'd rather play the lottery or try and make it.

you keep talking about 5'2. But there's a BIG difference between 5'2 and 5'5 or 5'4, for instance (which is what kickham was talking about in the first place).

Anna Adrielle wrote:

you keep talking about 5'2. But there's a BIG difference between 5'2 and 5'5 or 5'4, for instance (which is what kickham was talking about in the first place).

actually what kickham said was:

5'5 and under

And mentioned one 5'4, that leaves 2 simply as "under" and 5'2 is "under". The op was talking about no height requirements at all, and recently I've noted a couple threads where people were 5'0 and 5'3 talking about trying to make it as models. so it seems to be well within the range of discussion.

Shei  P wrote:
I don't know about the world of MM, but in my world (fashion streets NY) is getting taller.

My agency and many of the top in NY agencies (IMG,DNA,Next, Elite) aren't signing new girls shorter than 5'10 this season, unless they have a great book already.

that's what i always wonder about girls who are 5'3 who dream of moving to new york and being fashion models, and think that if they try hard enough they can achieve anything. do they really think that new york is having a hard time finding tall, thin, insanely beautiful women? don't they realize that girls who have perfect agency-standard stats travel (or even move) from every country in the world to ny to model?