<p>man<em>on</em>fire, you must be smoking something if you think that someone who works two jobs, lives in a two-bedroom apartment with 8 OTHER people (is that even legal?), and had to overcome a language barrier should be put in the same category as a middle/upper-class kid (regardless of race) with full parental support and a supportive home environment.</p>
<p>also, it's interesting how you were going on and on about your DAD's struggles. where are yours? it doesn't do to claim your parent's hardships, even if to show that one is able to overcome extreme adversities. the fact of the matter is, the standards of living of india and the u.s. are completely different, it's not fair to compare the two. it's easier (keep the distinction of this word to "easy") to live through such hardships when you can see that everyone else is going through the same thing (i.e. your dad in his village). it's a lot harder when there's all these people around you who are much better off than you and keep flaunting their stuff (i.e. a poor person in america). and i know what i'm talking about. i lived in indonesia for ten years... i too would sleep outside when it got crazy humid. i would even rub kerosene on my skin to keep the mosquitos from devouring me because there were times when we just couldn't afford mosquito repellant. granted, i didn't have to walk to school most of the time. but i would rarely have enough bus fare so i would wrap the coins inside a 100Rupiah bill really well so it would be really hard for the driver to finish counting it before i ran and disappeared like hell. my grandmother made all of my clothes (all A-line dresses), and we drank well water that's been mixed with trash toxins that seeped into the ground from the dead stream nearby. we would boil the water and use cheap filter hoping those were enough precautions. anyway, i'm sure most of CCers didn't grow up in such conditions, but this was pretty much the standard of living, so i didn't feel like i was poorer than everyone else or anything like that. i did very well in school, but that wasn't so much because i "overcame adversities". i knew it was my duty to do well academically, and i knew that everyone else was going through the same crap i was.</p>
<p>anyway, man<em>on</em>fire, if you want the system to be pure meritocratic then i guess all top/ivy-caliber schools should reject you 'coz OBVIOUSLY you couldn't solve that calc problem so OBVIOUSLY you're pretty dumb <em>drips with sarcasm</em>. if you really want that system, though, why don't (didn't) you apply to british schools? and i'm sure schools in india work the same way. anyway, i wholeheartedly agree with callthecops, and i hope man<em>on</em>fire attends a university that suits him.</p>
<p>You basically just supported my position dude that anyone can succeed academically in any environment. I disagree with you and callthecops on your grounds that students in Harvard should be well-rounded and have a lot of talents besides academics.</p>
<p>Here's my rationale. First of all, Harvard is considered to be the elite university in the nation, so only mainly academically gifted and a small number of athletes should attend the university. These are the people that truly deserve to go to this college, not semi-intelligent applicants with strange and rare hooks. Ultimately, who cares if a person is a good violin player or a fantastic debater, in the end its academics that should matter the most at Harvard. If an individual is agood piano player and wants to; pursue it as a career, then why is he or she not applying to Julliard?</p>
<p>The last time I checked Harvard was the university meant for the smartest kids in the country, not the most talented ones.</p>
<p>i dunno where you checked that, but i'm sure you did it while you were high. </p>
<p>and i don't see how i supported your position. everyone who lived around me lived in the same conditions. that's why i don't think what i did was special. that's not the case in the u.s.. it's a lot harder to not look up to those who are better off when they're all around you. you have no idea what these kids go through when they see that social mobilization is supposed to be very possible in america yet they just can't get out of their craphole (when i said "these kids" i meant disadvantaged kids). it seems like you're trying to argue against race-based AA. that's not what i'm doing at all (for or against). i'm defending MzLover3 since you think you're so all-knowing as to be able to say that he's not disadvantaged at all. unless you've been in his shoes, with the conditions he (and i) mentioned, you shouldn't be running your mouth about things you know nothing about (and listening to your dad's stories don't count; that's his struggles, not yours). you need to suck it up and focus on your studies instead of complaining about people with strange hooks (and MzLover's isn't a strange hook at all... he just works hard, something you need to start doing).</p>
<p>oh yeah, i'm not a dude.</p>
<p>just forget about it guys....</p>
<p>That's a good question. Sometimes I ask myself the same thing. Obviously I cannot volunteer every tuesday/thursday like you said, but I try to whenever I can. I am very involved in my athletics and yes, they do get in the way. I still manage to find time however. My DECA and NHS only meet once a month so they don't take up too much time. Band and orchestra meet during the day, so they do not take up any after-school time. As for friends, I have many actually. Being involved in all these different activities has given me an opportunity to meet and be friends with many different people. I still find time to just hang out with them like any other kid. Although it does get hard sometimes with everything I have going on. I hope that answers your question</p>
<p><3 Brian</p>
<p>yeah mzlover...remember its a "white mans country", we minorities should just stay out of the massa's universities</p>
<p>man-on-fire says, "The last time I checked Harvard was the university meant for the smartest kids in the country, not the most talented ones."</p>
<p>Dose of reality:
For some time now, among the more commonly accepted national ranking publications, Princeton is most often recognized as the top undergraduate, non technical, college in the nation (US News, PR, Atlantic Monthly, Prowl'r College Guide, etc,etc.).</p>
<p>Furthermore, Harvard just doesn't have enough room for the "smartest kids in the country." They would have to have more than one freshman class to accomodate that idea.</p>
<p>Besides, how are you going to determine who the "smarterst kids in the country" are? 1580 vs. 1600? Wouldn't make much sense because a lot of people get 1600 on second tries, so what to do, average into a 1590? How would the 1580s who couldn't retest for medical reasons react? And what about the kids who take the SAT in tenth grade and get a 1580, isn't that better than the 1600 from a January test date an anxious senior might receive? </p>
<p>readytoleavehs: I'm sorry you think that.</p>
<p>i was joking...sarcasm...never mind, if i actually had been stupid enough to think that i probably wouldn't have applied to Cornell, Princeton, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Washington and Lee, Carleton, George Washington, etc.</p>