Admissions is a crapshoot for NOBODY

Applying to College
81

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>First off, I find it a bit awkward that a person with an elaborate but somewhat elusive command of the English language needs to have "IM friends" to buttress him in his argument. This is not a discussion about character, nor are we attacking the OP. It is simply a discussion on admissions.</p>

<p>Second, is there a school that instructs students how to write in this long and verbose version of prose? I will admit, I can't read Derrida worth a damn, and my AP English Literature teacher couldn't read much of him either. Which is why Deconstruction hasn't moved much in the grand scheme of things, in contrast to Romanticism, Transcendentalism, or other works of literary form. </p>

<p>To the majority of the masses, Derrida is a work of pointless drivel that is a random composition of words, juxtaposed in a manner where its sole intent is to confuse and to create the air of superiority. </p>

<p>I do not speak as an intellectual, at least not in the degree that the OP and the "supporters" of the OP. I thank God, however, that the career I desire to enter is reliant moreso on communication and understanding with the masses, rather than composing essays with an archaic and obscure form of the English language. </p>

<p>I concur, citygirlsmom, the writing styles are similar. Either there is an academy that robotically trains students to write in such a manner, or this is a thinly-veiled attempt for the OP to defend himself.</p>

82

<p>Four thoughts you might consider, in increasing order of relevance:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The Elements of Style belongs to another era of writing. It is delightful nostalgia, but nothing more. To implore someone to read a book you liked for self-betterment, however fair your intentions, is a rather shallow dodge of reality.</p></li>
<li><p>On that note, mad props to the Aeneas reference.</p></li>
<li><p>That this thread is even possible is the product of a deeply troubling paradox of the American middle class. Exceptionalism abounds, as when privileged groups are written off as shoe-ins and shoe-outs for elilte colleges. Moreover, the idea of justice in college admissions itself demands pretension and self-importance. The idea that entrance or denial into a university is earned or deserved for anyone, much less the marginal cases about whom we're really haggling (those who force a decision of in/out), is reflective of the unhealthy entitlement claimed by America's upper middle class. We can't talk about meritocracy until it's a meritocracy among equals, we can't talk about equality until it is based in a meaningful ontology, and we can never talk about ontology for reasons which are beyond the purview of this forum. Engaging lki's suggestion at face value is a shameful endorsement of the petty nothingness upon which we build altars to our selves.</p></li>
<li><p>I am sickened by the anti-intellectualism that has emerged in the rhetoric of many of lki's adversaries. I am likewise sickened by the deification of intellectualism for its own sake that emerges in other posts on this thread.</p></li>
</ol>

83

<p>** My commentary after the "**" below</p>

<p>First off, I find it a bit awkward that a person with an elaborate but somewhat elusive command of the English language needs to have "IM friends" to buttress him in his argument. This is not a discussion about character, nor are we attacking the OP. It is simply a discussion on admissions.
** Let's be honest. The bulk of the discussion purportedly commenting on the OP is not a discussion of admissions. There is a great difference between "needs to have 'IM friends' to buttress him" and "has friends who, appalled at the depiction of their comrade, would eagerly dispell misguided speculation and inferrences," the latter explanation being the more appropriate.</p>

<p>I can't read Derrida worth a damn...To the majority of the masses, Derrida is a work of pointless drivel that is a random composition of words, juxtaposed in a manner where its sole intent is to confuse and to create the air of superiority.
** So don't promulgate the polemics of those who, like you, have not attempted to grasp the brilliant nuance of Derrida's arguments.</p>

<p>I concur, citygirlsmom, the writing styles are similar. Either there is an academy that robotically trains students to write in such a manner, or this is a thinly-veiled attempt for the OP to defend himself.
** I, for one, have not had any intervening contact with lki between reading his original post and adding my own commentary. Having a style markedly distinct from his, I should hope that it was only our choices of vocabulary that led to your confusion.</p>

84

<p>Elements of Style is NOT nostalgia:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/resource/wc/habits.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/resource/wc/habits.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Elements of Style
Adhering to a consistent style provides readers a subconscious comfort. They are not distracted by multiple spellings of the same term. They're not forced to reinterpret subtle meanings. To learn more on this subject, several good handbooks supply general writing guidelines. Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" is a classic. Read it once a year. For thorny usage questions, consult the "Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manuel" and "The Elements of Nonsexist Usage." For guidelines specific to the College of Engineering, read on--<a href="http://www.engr.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/style.cfm"&gt;http://www.engr.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/style.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ecquinn/papers/bostonpaper.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/~cquinn/papers/bostonpaper.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

85

<p>Clear and Simple as the Truth:
Writing Classic Prose</p>

<p>Francis-No</p>

86

<p>Responding, in orders of equal relevance.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Four thoughts you might consider, in increasing order of relevance:</p>

<ol>
<li>The Elements of Style belongs to another era of writing. It is delightful nostalgia, but nothing more. To implore someone to read a book you liked for self-betterment, however fair your intentions, is a rather shallow dodge of reality.

[/quote]
</li>
</ol>

<p>Much as you'd like to believe that the Elements of Style is an antiquated anachronism of the English language, it is the leading manual of style for a vast majority of college and university professors. The same ones that will be reading your thesis paper sometime in the future. Oh, of course, your brilliant "intellectualism" is going to be your savior, especially because it's quite obvious you are superior above the rest of us. </p>

<p>Perhaps you and your acquaintances need a lesson in humility. To quote our beloved Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, "A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle."</p>

<p>Obscure Latin references to the Aeneid and supplemental Latin works won't really help you win this argument.</p>

<p>
[quote]

  1. That this thread is even possible is the product of a deeply troubling paradox of the American middle class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you mean the dwindling middle class? The one that's becoming smaller as the gap between rich and poor is growing? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Exceptionalism abounds, as when privileged groups are written off as shoe-ins and shoe-outs for elilte colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First, <em>gasp</em> at the typo. I never heard of the word elilte.</p>

<p>Second, it sounds as you have benefited from the graces of "privilege" yourself. As much as I'd like to believe it, our public schools obviously do not offer such a rich curriculum in the classics, save for some of the best and rarest of the American public school system. We are then, left with the alternative -- you are a product of the private school system, endowed richly with the lavish luxuries of academia. Call it an assumption, and if I am wrong, then so be it. Kudos to you if you are a product of the American public school system.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, the idea of justice in college admissions itself demands pretension and self-importance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, so now you're trying to justify arrogance and self-importance? What happened to the meek and humble? </p>

<p>
[quote]
The idea that entrance or denial into a university is earned or deserved for anyone, much less the marginal cases about whom we're really haggling (those who force a decision of in/out), is reflective of the unhealthy entitlement claimed by America's upper middle class. We can't talk about meritocracy until it's a meritocracy among equals, we can't talk about equality until it is based in a meaningful ontology, and we can never talk about ontology for reasons which are beyond the purview of this forum. Engaging lki's suggestion at face value is a shameful endorsement of the petty nothingness upon which we build altars to our selves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Blah, blah, and more blah. Let me trace back to my urban roots and say something "lower-class." I call extemporaneous ********. When you learn how to communicate with the rest of the world, try again.</p>

<p>
[quote]
** So don't promulgate the polemics of those who, like you, have not attempted to grasp the brilliant nuance of Derrida's arguments.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, you decide to belittle others simply because you have a greater knowledge of the obscure? Fine. So be it. I really don't care. See, I take comfort in the knowledge that even though I can't grasp Derrida fully (partially because I don't want to, I don't see a need to participate in discussing useless drivel) I, unlike you, will not be stuck in some backwards library, as a "fellow" -- immersed in a sea of books -- reading and discussiong and writing 'til life's end. </p>

<p>Tell me, since you are a Classics buff, how many of our commanders, our leaders, the masters of the world -- how many of them were intellectuals, quoting bastards products of their language in an attempt to feign intellectualism? Napoleon, Caesar, Washington, Alexander (both the Great and of Russia), Wellington -- they did not retain the power of command by using some obscure language that made them unable to communicate with their people. Tell me, how many academics are in the rank and file of our world's most treasured leaders? How many names of "brilliant intellectuals" have been engraved into the annals of history to mark their significance in terms of their contribution to the world? Very few. And even they had the ability to speak to the masses, to allow them to understand, instead of being stuck in some backwards location, thinking to themselves. </p>

<p>
[quote]
4. I am sickened by the anti-intellectualism that has emerged in the rhetoric of many of lki's adversaries. I am likewise sickened by the deification of intellectualism for its own sake that emerges in other posts on this thread.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not an issue of whether or not we dislike intellectualism, nor is it an issue of our capability of comprehending your so-called brilliance. If we all put our minds to it, if we dedicated the span of our high school lives staring behind books, reading -- discussing -- writing -- contemplating -- deriving additional drivel, then we could match "intellect." This is, however, a field I yield to you, dear Sir, as I've no interest in wasting my life away.</p>

87

<p>Perhaps I should clarify.
You are right, citygirlsmom, to note that the clarity encouraged by Strunk and White is an important tool in writing effectively, and they provide a valuable model for rhetoric. I, personally, find much of my inspiration for writing style in the editorial commentaries of Stanley Fish. Havind read S&W, I am familiar with the edenic standards it espouses.
It belongs to another era in that it presumes both an approach to writing and audience an audience for writing that simply isn't available today. Because extended reading is often the exception among college aspirants, varied and effective models for student discourse are sadly underutilized.
It is delightful nostalgia in that it recalls this sort of idealized reader/writer/pedagogy and, indeed, demands it of its adherents.
It is a good general rule to be cautious about so-called must-reads. This is true especially when must-reads substitute for frank discussion (and to a lesser extent when they serve as prerequisites for such a discussion).</p>

88

<p>I find it quite humorous that it takes you a lengthy amount of time to generate a response. Tell me, dear Sir, is it because you dare not deign to speak with a lower-brand of human, that is, the non-intellectual? Or is it that you are too busy attempting to generate a "sufficiently intellectual" response with the vast knowledge of Merriam-Webster that responses do not come in an extemporaneous manner?</p>

89

<p>Then I do deserve your kudos, tlaktan. I emerge from a K-12 education entirely in public schools. Not only that, but underfunded, non-specialty, non-magnet public schools in an economically diverse and by no means affluent district (you'll forgive me for not being urban).</p>

<p>Sorry for the typo. I'll be sure to proofread my late night jottings better in the future. I'm sure that's what Strunk and White would have wanted.</p>

<p>I'm too tired to clarify the other issues you raise, but please PM me or something so we can hash them out without belaboring the thread too much.</p>

<p>Oh, and last I checked Jefferson was fond of the classics. You'll also forgive me for not listing every famous scientist and thinker, for I doubt that was the intent of your query.</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
Then I do deserve your kudos, tlaktan. I emerge from a K-12 education entirely in public schools. Not only that, but underfunded, non-specialty, non-magnet public schools in an economically diverse and by no means affluent district (you'll forgive me for not being urban).</p>

<p>Sorry for the typo. I'll be sure to proofread my late night jottings better in the future. I'm sure that's what Strunk and White would have wanted.</p>

<p>I'm too tired to clarify the other issues you raise, but please PM me or something so we can hash them out without belaboring the thread too much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then this is a duel of the public school students, then. Alas, the underfunded, nonspecialty public school students. Except for the minor fact that my school is possibly under the worst designation under NCLB (PI-5, if you have any knowledge of the PI system) and is a part of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Which, being so large and so unable to focus on the individual, is currently seeing a massive depreciation in test scores.</p>

91

<p>tlaktan,</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but since when is the Aeneid obscure?</p>

<p>I taught myself Latin because it was not offered at my public school. Don't assume otherwise. I don't come from a wealthy background, and didn't have access to any sort of formal class or University library. I am fiercely passionate about Latin and the history of humanism. It's sad that the opportunity to study classics has been so much about class and socioeconomic status over the last several hundred years, and I hope that in my lifetime, the field will become more diverse and open to all. </p>

<p>My future study of classics will be a labor of love. If I die a "fellow", having spent my life in libraries discussing texts "endlessly", then I will die happy. What you consider a "waste" is to me a vocation. To find truth in dusty folios, to commit onself to beauty, to read and to write-- a romanticized view, perhaps, but we all have ideals. These are mine. If I can gain even a little understanding of the human condition, if I can thrill even once in learning from our society and its history, then my life will be worth living. I'd give everything to live the life of the mind because I am passionate about finding order in chaos, about continuing the long and tenuous thread of people talking about what it means to be human. It's not a waste, tlaktan, it's a calling.</p>

<p>Oh, and Alexander, as the pupil of Aristotle, certainly had a command of scholastic rhetoric. Plutarch, at least, seems to think so.</p>

92

<p>Remember, this is all in a personal perspective. To me, a scholarly calling is not my own, as I could not see myself doing such a thing. To others, it can be a noble profession. Certainly, the academic field has its merits, but once again, a matter of opinion. It is a respectable one, but when one touts academia and intellectualism above others, it becomes an irritating one.</p>

<p>And despite what you may want to think about the state of our public schools, the Aeneid is being less and less offered in our schools. At least, on this side of the Coast. </p>

<p>Alexandre was not known for his successes in the scholarly world but rather his conquests that led to the founding of what we now know as the Hellenistic Era. We hear about Gaugamela, India, the defeat of Grand Persia -- but how much indeed, do you hear about his scholarly efforts? </p>

<p>Napoleon was a man of great brilliance, yet he was known for the fear he invoked in the hearts of Europeans that hated the very thought of "Old Bony." Tsar Alexander was a man of intellect and a man of poor military strategem (re: Austerlitz) but is most known for defying Napoleon and his Continental Blockade and his strategy (through General Kutuzov) of removing the Napoleonic forces from Russia through environmental embitterment and flanking by the Cossacks. </p>

<p>It is essential to study the past in order to avoid the same mistakes for the future, but as you can see, the great leaders of our time used it to their advantage. To pursue their own empires. To expand, and ultimately contribute what they thought was a necessary addition to humanity. They did not solely linger in it.</p>

<p>You make a point about Jefferson. Jefferson may have been fond of the Classics, but do remember that the Revolutionary document he composed was reliant on what was considered radical literature -- but what we consider orthodoxy and canon for democracy today. </p>

<p>Few in America at the time were actually aware of the Classics themselves, but rather relied upon secondhand creations of classics. A great example would be Cato, by Joseph Addison. George Washington, as mentioned in David McCullough's * 1776 * was extremely appreciative of this play by Addison, and quite possibly one of the more famous lines from the Revolution ("My only regret is that I have but one life to lose for my country." -- Nathan Hale, it's been transformed and changed throughout the years, for forgive the inaccurate quote) was derived from Cato. Jefferson was more learned, of course, but I'm referring to the vast majority of America here.</p>

<p>To bring this back on track, academia is something to be respected. But when arrogance is a sub-product of this academic intellectualism, then with great irritation will one considered academically "sub-par" respond.</p>

93

<p>I kinda want a cookie right now. A nice, big, soft chocolate chip cookie.</p>

94

<p>Thanks to sousrature and kitmarlowe for rising to my defense. For the record, I gave them both a link to this thread and said they might like to look at and perhaps comment upon it. End of story.
I find it a little amusing that both seem to have claimed me for the academy.
And sousrature, I would disagree about Strunk & White. I think I could use a litle bit of The Elements of Style from time to time.</p>

<p>To pull upon what sousrature said, (re)read the text, my original post itself, before lending too much credence to the accounts that have arisen. I was trying to suggest that for some people (not necessarily all, though from my observations a not insignifican amount) get in with enough regularity at different schools for their acceptance to be related to more than one admissions officer's caprice or one school's institutional needs. I did not mean to segment all the world's applicant pools into an intellectual/not intellectual binary, and I explicitly state you CAN'T predict who will contribute is meaningful ways 20 years down the road. I was simply trying to explain behavior, make a purely objective, observable claim.</p>

<p>I hinted at a second question, should certain schools look for these qualities? Simply because of the nature of the academy, I would venture yes. But that's highly debatable.</p>

<p>For the record, I'm no super-intellect. Of the four most-mentioned schools, I was waitilisted at one and originally deferred at another. Of course I'm too emotionally invested in myself, and unable to objectively judge why I got in to a few places. For all I know it was the 'Eastern Europe' card.</p>

<p>Finally, much ado has been made about my pantheon comment. But look at the pantheon I was talking about, a pantheon of athletes and musicians, not of the greek gods. It was an ironic statement that served as a commentary on the glorification on going to an Ivy Leaeg school - the assumption many make that people at ivy leage schools do belong in a pantheon. And an assumption I don't agree with.</p>

<p>Now, I owe it to both my friends to bid ye farewell and go back to work on Part 1.</p>

95

<p>lki,</p>

<p>I agree that utilizing certain abilities will universally appeal to just about any top school whose objective, is indeed, to cultivate intellectualism into its students body. But I still would never put unshaking faith in an admin's ability to detect all forms of intellect; it is not possible, since they only see (apart from grades and test scores) an essay, and in some cases, get to interview the person for half an hour or so. Frankly, I know some of my classmates who got admitted into Brown and Cornell but I have found consistent weaknesses in their reasoning ability and lack of 'flair' during casual arguments regardless of topic.</p>

<p>Some of the other posts here are still more troubling, however. This thread also captures a disturbing misconception of many posters who really believe that an applicant with a 1530 on the SAT was rejected by HYPSM because they didn't get a 1580 and that people below the IQR of SAT scores must all be legacies, URMs and recruited athletes... right, because URMs and the nation's best athletes would really fill up that much space in the student body! It's a shame really... juniors and seniors applying to college come to this site for a little insight into college admissions but all they get is a skewed perception by hopelessly misguided posters, working them into a mantra of excessive test-prepping and in turn neglecting the uniqueness of their own lives.</p>

<p>The point of this thread being a discussion about the selective college admissions process, however, I noticed only a precious few people on these forums have really nailed it on the head. If you were to really put yourself in the position of an admissions officer, you would realize that his/her agenda is to build a diverse and interesting class rather than to rank the 'quality' of each applicant... namely because the applications they are reviewing have already made the cut that deemed each one 'highly qualified' in its own right. There are certain applicants that have an extremely good shot at any school they choose to apply, because they appealed to the college(s) in some intangible way . Granted, Stanford WILL admit a substantial number of straight-A students with 1500-1600 SAT's since they account for the institution's competitive statistics, but they will be saving other spots for the relatively few applicants with other 'star attractions'. Therefore, having an independent voice in your application and having a unique background puts you in high demand, and gives you a much better chance than the more typical (hence more numberous) overachievers who have to vie for another space in the student body. You can even be a world-class ice-skater with a 3.98 GPA and 1590 SAT, but if 2 other applicants happen to have the same talent, except one has more skating medals or has a 1600 on the SAT, you might be vulnerable to losing out in the competition (note that being an ice-skating champion is still a very powerful hook that will probably have a better chance of standing out than an applicant with 1000 hours of vaguely described community service).</p>

<p>That may not be exactly how it is everywhere, but my claims are more or less supported even by the CC'ers themselves who have the highest statistics possible, but the same kind of EC's (when scrutinized in unity, they often reveal the most compelling personality) but complain about constitent rejections, and in turn, wrongly advise students reporting to be the top 5% of their elite high school class to consider skidmore or binghamton a hopeful match/reach... what a bummer!</p>

96

<p>rustamped said: "disturbing misconception of many posters who really believe that an applicant with a 1530 on the SAT was rejected by HYPSM because they didn't get a 1580 and that people below the IQR of SAT scores must all be legacies, URMs and recruited athletes"</p>

<p>I haven't seen anything on this thread to indicate that anyone thinks you have to have near perfect SAT scores to be accepted to HYPSM. Also, saying that people in groups such as URM's, legacies, athletes and others have statistically lower SAT scores than the general applicant pool is NOT to say that all students in the lower 50% are from those groups. (Although with only a few hundred slots open, I think the number of people who got in as development cases may be significant.) </p>

<p>People need to be able to pick realistic match and reach schools. There are still people on these forums who have been told that strong EC's can overcome less than perfect SAT scores, and they think that strong EC's means student council president and less than perfect SAT scores means 1450. </p>

<p>My own person goal is to try to get people with the "Ivies or bust" mentality to consider colleges outside of the brand-name schools.</p>

97

<p>If the OP and his "IM friends" do nothing else, please work on your prepositions & participles. (Yeah, I know: that's so antiquated & out of style.)</p>

<p>dufus, it depends on the EC(s) as to whether it, or they, can override a "less than perfect" SAT score. You need to check the Yale EA results thread on CC for this year if you don't believe that EC's count for something, & often do override. With some exceptions (heading your school newspaper & majoring in journalism in college, among others), off-campus accomplishment tends to be more prized than on-campus. What students often do not understand is that school sports -- unless continued in college or student is a recruited athlete -- are usually not valued as much by top colleges as performing arts accomplishments, for example, particularly if that performing art exists at that college. There is no question that not every EC is equal.</p>

98

<p>Stanford recommends Elements of Style, so do Columbia, Florida State, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth..they recommend different books as well, but Elements of Style is widely recommended.</p>

<p>Those archaic institutions need to update themselves and get rid of that old fashioned book. </p>

<p>And, I for one, understand the vocabulary used. It is just not impressive. I am not anti-intellectulism, far from it.</p>

<p>Read the classic Orwell essay:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.resort.com/%7Eprime8/Orwell/patee.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Back to topic, I HIGHLY recommend a book I mentioned earlier: Colleges Unranked.</p>

99

<p>The writing style that is being questioned reminds me of some things that I have read from philosophy texts. I suppose that in that context, it is okay to write that way just as it is okay for attorneys to write a certain way when preparing legal contracts. I really question why anyone would ever write that way. Perhaps it adds precision to the meaning. At any rate, the people need to work on being able to write English prose for the general consumption of the public. Unfortunately, some "intellectuals" might be at a stage in their lives when they would consider such a suggestion as simply a request to "dumb it down" so that the unsmart people can understand it.</p>

100

<p>Here is a quote from one of Iki's posts. I think many of the posters here would hope he would follow his own advice:</p>

<p>"OK
First, your essay does not need to be on a topic that sounds like it was written by someone lecturing at Cornell's School for critcism and theory graduate summer program. It just needs to be coherent and show some intellect. You wow noone by knowing what 'deictic' means or postulating a balance between post-colonialism and husserlian structuralist theory (note, i didn't reflect on those composites).
Also, WHO CARES about how your page is numbered? Not the people reading your app. Just make it intuitive and simple! K.I.S.S."</p>

<p>I am not trying to be mean, but when my understanding of vocabulary is questioned, I felt compelled to post this.</p>