<p>I suspect that the students here are ignorant of a classic smart-but-rejected-and-banished-to-a-state-school student pertspective: a sense of egalitarianism which leads us smart state school kids, especially when among students of Vandy (Duke & the Ivies, too), to view the academic world very simply as them and us.</p>
<p>The us, in the best traditions of sons and daughters of a Revolution, tend to look at them as pompous elitist poofters, fit only for the Lantern, "a bas les aristos" and all that, and we gather at and study in our "non-elite" institutions with a sort of "Non pasaran!" mentality, with Vandy being little more than a Bastille in our eyes. Having received rejection letters with contrived complimentary statements ignites the fire in our veins. We can only hope to receive acceptance letters from competitive graduate programs at institutions such as this; by obstructing their passage of privilege, we are striking a blow for the Rights of Man. I always wear a red Phrygian Liberty Cap and mentally pick a particularly obstructive position when filling out my applications, hoping to displace the son or daughter of a congressperson, celebrity, or a billionaire.</p>
<p>When the revolution comes, it will be from among the ranks of students who found that the ultra-rich, ultra-famous, and their congresspeople had been submitting letters of recommendation and plump donations on behalf of their seed or on behalf of their friends' seed in order to ensure acceptance into Vandy. They'll be joined by the parents and constituents who find that their congresspeople have actually been figuring out ways for their children and their friends' children not to have to pay back student loans to the government. It will end in a more even-handed student loan distribution practice and a more equitable distribution of those oh-so-coveted acceptance packets...a few Vandys here, a Vandy or two there, and a bucket of Vandys for you.</p>
<p>How “inciteful”.
“banished to a state school”-That’s classic! Because merely going to and thriving at a college is not good enough. Instead going to a state school warrants this sentiment. What about those who didn’t get into UVa, Bekeley, etc.? Same thing doesn’t apply to those rejected from those, huh?</p>
<p>What a wonderful, poetic, and comical joke :)</p>
<p>Of course, I have nothing against state school kids (after all, I am one). I’m just aiming my pen at the people who <em>really</em> have access to these schools. They pull favors for their own children and their friends’ children, getting all of the affirmative admissions decisions and all of the scholarship money for themselves. The rest of the clueless sots applying to this school are only competing for roughly 40% of the available spots. But hell, us clueless proletarian children insisted on acting like a bunch of nutso clots and demanded the $50 application fee from our blue-collar, fast-food-working, brick-laying, floor-mopping parents under the psychotic delusion that we could have a chance.</p>
<p>State schools operate on a much more level playing field (although filthy “public servants” also have their way of getting special favors), so individual merit is more greatly considered. After all, all of our elite citizens and “public servants” in the bourgeois class want to send little Gucci-clad Chauncy Archibald Guilliam IV to Vandy and Harvard so they find a “better fit”, so our state school spots face a lesser threat.</p>
<p>Not sure if BrewDog is kidding or not. My only response to this is: knowing big words won’t get you that far in life, I’m afraid.</p>
<p>I’m part of the proletariat (and so are many of my friends, which are non-URM by the way. But wait, maybe Emory isn’t good enough to be considered one of the elite schools you speak of, thus I don’t count among the many proletariat admitted and enrolled at an elite institution). In some senses, if you get in, one can certainly afford it. Can’t say the same for top publics/flagships. Schools like UVa, Chapel Hill, Berkeley and other state flagships are just as bad (In fact a study was done here in Ga. about UGA and how a seemingly abnormal amount of wealthy students attend). Also, I guess you are referring to legacy. I know it’s big at many Ivies, but I don’t know about Vandy (it really doesn’t seem that serious here as we’re up and coming). Spread the hate evenly, and recognize that most top schools, private or public, have a country club effect. The only thing that could be somewhat successfully argued is that legacies and wealthy students have an advantage (for the latter, this is often created prior to admissions). Also, Harvard and many top schools’ app. fees are well over 50 dollars (some are like 90 which I find absolutely ridiculous, which is one reason I did not apply. I got waivers at 1 of two top schools I applied to and each were 50 bucks).<br>
Also, why are Vandy and Harvard mention in the same sentence? As brutal as Vandy’s admissions is, it is not like Harvard (which is a complete crapshoot by every means, even for a rich person or legacy. Vandy’s getting there, but isn’t there yet), and I assure you the legacy/elite admits is probably not as bad as Harvard (someone in another thread cited how Harvard’s bottom 10% income wise is still higher than the average American’s income). </p>
<p>Anyway, you’ll be alright. Why the heck can’t you do something awesome at the school you’re going to? Oh wait, you can. Enjoy it. Sorry about w/e happened.
LittleLost: There weren’t many big words that I recall. If anything, I would have said “complaining about the random admissions process of elite school will turn one into a public servant, moving on and doing well at X college will.”</p>
<p>Also, seems that you applied to schools w/well below 20% admit (or those very close to it w/extremely high stats and impossible admissions). This has nothing to w/you being poor. This admissions season was intense, especially for people who applied to those schools. Maybe you would’ve had more of a chance at the publics I mentioned (which are just as good as the private schools in many/most respects) or simply applied to top 20s easier to get into (we’re one of them).</p>
<p>I agree with Bernie. My point was just that flowery language distracts from the point (I’m an engineer though, so what do I know, heh).</p>
<p>I’m a chem, bio double major that actually likes the humanities and social sciences (basically got enough credit for minors in 2 areas outside of sciences). They were flowery for effect. They wanted to come off as ironic. They were also speaking in a tone that paints a picture of how he depicts (as it gives an air of elitism) those who go attend institutions which are the source of his annoyance. We both get this, but let us not continue to play along w/■■■■■■ despite their harmlessness.</p>
<p>Obviously we shouldn’t encourage ■■■■■■…but I can’t help but say something to this.
It’s understandable that you’re upset for being rejected, anyone would be. But that gives you no right to say that those who beat you out for acceptance only got in because of who they know as opposed to what they have done. Yes, there are students, probably less qualified than you, that got in based on social, political, or financial factors. There will always be those students. But individual students who happened to be born lucky do not represent the whole.
Personally, I got into Vanderbilt with no alumni family members, no prestigious recommendations, no monetary donations to the school, and absolutely zero connections. I made it on my own merit. I’m not the only one either. Look at the statistics for the incoming class. Everything from the extracurricular activities to the grades and test scores are not only extraordinary, but are also far exceeding the average for most colleges. These statistics do not come from letting in solely average to below average students who have connections.
You have resentment for a school that rejected you, that’s understandable. But again, look at the statistics. Your resentment has spawned comments that are not only ignorant, but are also insulting and entirely degrading to all students that have worked and persevered in order to get into ANY prestigious college, whether they did it with or without the social advantages you blame your rejection on.</p>
<p>I actually think they were proposing that, not only do “connected” people gain admission disproportionately (again, don’t know or even think it’s true at Vandy), but that more wealthy students have a natural advantage from the beginning as they are much more likely, for example, to be able to afford and find time to partcipate in 1 million ECs. I agree with most that you said, but going to Emory, I know that a majority of students here are actually quite well off (many being extremely wealthy), and this certainly did not hurt in terms of getting intense ECs and the like. One could also argue that many have much more access to test prep. and tutoring for the SAT/ACT/APs. GPAs are useless to me (as long as it isn’t below 3.4-3.5ish, meaning they got As and Bs) as HS is pretty easy for most (especially those w/no financial worries and various household issues, or those with the slightest bit of motivation to overlook/overcome such issues like myself) and grades are even more inflated than colleges, so it really isn’t surprising that more wealthy students do well in all categories. </p>
<p>And no, most of such students here are not connected in any way. All of them are (or at least were) qualified regardless of their economic statuses and regardless of if they were so called “less qualified” than some student who did not gain admission (could have been poor or rich, this person). They are all capable of doing the work and “X selective” school thought they had something to contribute or were a great fit for the institution. I find that one must look at it as the applicant versus the institution: it with its rigor, goals, mission, and character (do you fit it, and can you add to it and aid it in its mission and achievement of its goals. Unfortunately, yes, after a certain threshold at certain schools, ability to pay certainl ydoes come into play. This can perhaps even be said for “need-blind” admission schools), as opposed to one applicant versus another. I really have to wonder if they really sit around a table and say: “I like this person better than this person” or whether they get a single application, review and say: “I like this person. They will go well here” or the contrary.<br>
Anyway, they probably didn’t simply deny you because you were poor/didn’t have connections. Most have excellent fin. aid programs to handle that if they want a reasonable amount of qualified lower income student to study there (I am a person on such a program. And Vandy has an excellent program as well that serves this purpose). It takes a lot of money to implement and maintain such programs so to say that they reject less fortunate students simply because they are less fortunate is to imply that they are not using said programs and are randomly wasting money. I seriously doubt that highered (especially private) institutions would function or invest in programs that they don’t plan to use as they function like corporations and are in the business of making money and educating.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you on every point you presented Bernie. My comments were made in reaction to the original post and what I felt the point they were trying to make was, which did not go along with what you have said at all.</p>