<p>I wonder how the conversation got on black athletes? First off, the original topic was "elite" schools. Are great black athletes going to the "elite" schools for their athletic prowess? The answer is no by most accounts, their going to the schools with great sports programs Sometimes, it's the other sides turn to face the music. Everyone want's to talk about AA this and minorities that, but for one thing, black's do not benefit from AA mostly. We all know this. </p>
<p>Now, while I can understand it being hard to turn down a check for 5 mil from an unqualified white kids parents to get them into an elite school, IN SOME CASES, schools (not the elite ones) are taking unqualified black kids who run 4.2's with 40 inch verticles so they can fill up their stadiums like, say, Florida State football or Syracuse basketball. They are bringing a helluvalot to those institutions on a yearly basis with championships, sold out arena's, school recognition, school pride and large amounts of revenue.</p>
<p>Fencersmother,
I remember that Depaul team that lost to St. Joe's in one of the bigger upsets in NCAA tournament history (Skip Dillard...). Now, about Mark A, he seems to be doing alright in his life and career, so why it is an issue that as a teenager he didn't have a great rep as a student? People grow up.</p>
<p>Sorry, I'm the one who posted about black athletes. I remember the too frequent and frequently acrimonious threads about AA, that invariably suggest that undeserving URMs are taking spots away from more qualified applicants.</p>
<p>It's good to be reminded that the spots are often taken away by non-URMs and non-athletes. I am in fact in favor of both diversity and admitting donors' kids. The latter make the former possible.</p>
<p>This is not news to the well informed, but to anyone just casually browsing through the glut of AA threads where URM's are routinely bashed, it probably is news. Reading such threads would lead a lot of people to believe that if you could just get rid of AA that somehow every "more" deserving white kid in America would get his or her rightful seat at an Ivy school. Maybe this will help some realize what a waste of time it is to go around blaming URMs for their rejection letters.</p>
<p>Is that people actually agreeing with me??? marite, hifi and FLVADAD, I mean no offense by saying this, but I love ya'll. You just don't know how difficult it is for me on this site. It is painfully obvious that there aren't many black men who post on this site because some of the posts made by others suggest that they'll never expect to be challenged by a black perspective. Some act like we don't even exist, or if we do, their just going to be antagonistic to us any way. </p>
<p>Now I don't know if all of you are black, men or women and I don't care, but with your posts, the three of you understand the struggle out here for blacks (particularly for black men) and how underrepresented we are, even on this site. While most of the posters on this site exude some class and restraint about their racial views, so many of them dance around the race issue less-than-eloquently. And people on this site hate AA like the plague, but they never wan't to talk about discrimination and privilege granted to rich white kids. </p>
<p>And I love the point you made marite, "the latter make the former possible," but you all have really made some super points. </p>
<p>To give you an example of how hard I fight this issue, go to the Cornell thread and on about the 2nd or 3rd page you'll see a thread entitled "Advantages" and see how me and this guy "theslowclap" had a long and nasty back and forth. I also get tired of "articulate rhetoric" when defending my stance on race related issues. That allows some closet bigots to hide in their comfort zone, but you have to flush them out. Some people aren't gonna see things until you start presenting it to them raw and uncut.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is painfully obvious that there aren't many black men who post on this site because some of the posts made by others suggest that they'll never expect to be challenged by a black perspective.
<p>datdude: It is not an issue. I was just comparing a small group of highly skilled, very visible athletes. (I realize I was getting a little off topic there.) Two of these young men really wanted, or at least actively pursued, their educations. One was wholly disinterested. I have not kept touch with these folks and just wondered what they were doing now with their lives, and how their educations (or lack thereof) may have affected their adult, post-athletic, lives. </p>
<p>After re-reading some of these posts, I realize I was completely off topic there... sorry</p>
<p>And you know what the worst part of the dim (legacy/donor scion) white student and the 5th grade reading (doesn't matter what race) athlete attending schools WAAAY above their heads is?</p>
<p>Neither of them get much out of it. Yeah, the athlete might make it big in the pros, but his agent, the groupies, and all the other hangers on will soak him dry. The dim white student may get his sheepskin, but daddy or one of his golfing buddies is still gonna have to get him a position at the firm. Top schools don't recreate "My Fair Lady" with either of these types. </p>
<p>Ah, but the fantasy that 4 years at a top college can change the world for the unworthy. They CAN take those who haven't had the opportunities but have the talent and desire and give them what they need to move up, but those who don't belong at a school, well, it is a waste.</p>
<p>BTW, I'm glad to see such a civil discussion as well.</p>
<p>datdude, actually, a couple of the most eloquent parent posters are black men. There are some legendary black women on this forum. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but black parents are well represented in the parent's forums.</p>
<p>I don't think the article is talking about "full pay" students -- it is talking about students from wealthy families who gain admittance either because of large donations made to the college ("development cases") -- or because of the level of fame & connectedness of the family. </p>
<p>There are indeed some quite "dim" students who fit that criteria at prestige colleges. My d. also noted last year that the richest & least intellectually inclined girls on her floor also had managed to get assigned to the largest dorm room... coincidence? Who knows. In any case, those girls were there to party and shop, not to study. (There was one girl whose parents gave her a $4000 monthly allowance. That's more spending money than my net income!)</p>
<p>Once my d. got over the initial shock of discovering that her high-prestige college had its share (albeit small) of students who were clueless & inane (kind of like Romy & Michele in the High School Reunion movie) .... I don't think it mattered much to her. There were plenty of slacker at her high school, too -- the difference is that the college slackers were a whole lot richer. </p>
<p>After all, as has often been said... somebody has to be at the bottom of every college class in terms of GPA -- and if it is the spoiled offspring of the fabulously wealthy, so be it. (My d. has gotten the idea into her head that she wants to apply for an extremely selective program at her college next year -- she says only 2 students are accepted each year -- so from her point of view, the less competition the better). </p>
<p>Of course she is also surrounded by plenty of smart, serious students, including many who also come from extremely wealthy families but who were also strong students who are in college to learn.</p>
<p>Well, this article's not changing how the admission process was and will be, so lets just focus on doing the best we can ourselves. Nobody can say that they were shocked by this article.</p>
<p>I disagree Gryffon5147 as I think some schools, and particularly Harvard, will not want to be seen this way. It was only 3 years ago that SATs were "very important" for many schools. After the recent growth of media criticism of SATs, schools have changed their info sessions and data to say that GPAs are "most important". This is my second time around and I "hear" the difference at all the info sessions. Image is important to schools like Harvard and I think schools will react if this editorial creates interest. I am in the Boston area - the Globe carries a lot of weight, especially it's editorial pages. Anyway, as I understand it, Harvard is already very sensitive about connections and certainly doesn't need development money that badly.</p>
<p>barrons - ugh! DS1 is at WM and I am sure there are similar events taking place there (you are in VA - it seems!). I am trying to keep DS2 north of Maryland to limit this type of atmosphere although I recognize that parties go on everywhere. There is something about the pretentious garb and mass consumption that is just disgusting.</p>
<p>Let me start by saying I've been thoroughly satisfied by all of your posts. Marite, this leapord will never change his spots...regardless of your color, the love is still there. Cheers, I am a student (non-traditional) at Penn (Communications major), so I usually post on that or other Ivy sites so I was missing you guys, but MAN am I happy I found you all. </p>
<p>I recognize tokenadult from some previous threads, but calmom, Gryffon, goaliedad, fencersmother, citygirlsmom, all of you, I feel such a sense of relief to be communicating with some mature people. Let me just say that I will always attempt to present an agreement or disagreement in an acceptable manor. I'll try not to lose my head, cause on the Penn site, many of them are brats and dweebs bent on causing confusion and I've been quick to respond at times. I'm not above confronting some of the posts I've felt were distasteful, childish, antagonistic and most of all, racist. I've argued people down, sometimes risking some of my precious study time because I've felt some of the posts were very provoking and going unchecked by the site administrators. I love to write, write for the school paper (Daily Pennsylvanian) and am passionate about fighting against black males being ostracized, ridiculed, misinterpreted and misunderstood. </p>
<p>And Gryffon, I am a little shocked at the article, but only because people would rather talk about AA and how minorities are stealing spots from more qualified white kids. The media bias against blacks in the world is the most powerful bias we face on this earth because it is what controls people's minds. If sportscenter or foxnews or cnn or the radio or newspaper says it about us, it is accepted as fact and we are left to stew in our living rooms and listen to them kick dirt on us. Doesn't matter if we write in or call in, our concerns are rarely taken seriously and we're mostly portrayed through media as mad, or "playing the race card."</p>
<p>Just as a friendly reminder to forum participants, when the discussion crosses the line of College Confidential's terms of service and becomes personal and unwelcoming to other participants, feel free to report posts by the "Report Problem Post" link at the bottom of the offending post. The moderators here are all committed to editing (or deleting, as needed) posts that leave issues and aim at personalities. The main reason I've enjoyed posting here so much for so long is that the discussions stay issue-oriented and I can learn from people who have a different perspective from mine without feeling personally dissed--everyone should be able to feel that way here.</p>