<p>
[quote]
"Just because it can't be statistically proven doesn't mean it isn't true."</p>
<p>A rather odd statement. If someone puts forth a hypothesis, then one bears the burden of proof to show that it is true or provide a measure of the confidence level of the hypothesis. [It wasn't statistically proven that the moon is made of cheese a few hundred years ago but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Flying spaghetti monster anyone?</p>
<p>I think that there are people who will do anything they can to get what they want. This is not specific to any demographic, but my feeling is that these kind of people are more common among high school students applying to top colleges.</p>
<p>The article was a little overdramatic in my opinion. We all are disadvantaged somehow in the admissions process. Get over it, try your hardest in high school, write some personable killer apps, and then cross your fingers.</p>
<p>Judith was clearly using a bias that we all use now and then; we hear an account from someone close, then use it to make a sweeping, dramatic conclusion.</p>
<p>Teens whining about "card-playing" certainly hasn't become an epidemic, but you can't argue that it's not a noticeable trend in many high schools. The simple fact is that colleges have every right to want a diverse student body as well as a way to bring in kids raised with terrible access to educational resources. If a well-to-do minority student here and there gets in with the help of race, so be it; no one should have sympathy for an upper-middle-class white teen who still whines after failing to take advantage of the resources that many underprivileged (and, as reality goes, minority) teens would love to have.</p>
<p>I think it might make for an interesting discussion to focus on another line from the article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
That such accusations have flowed so thick and rich in the past year of presidential campaigning and now circulate unquestioned among our next generation of college students, reflects two realities: one is the degree to which the meaning of the historical battle of America’s long-discriminated-against populations has been corrupted,...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now I'm not saying I agree with this, but couldn't one make the argument that this cheapening of race is actually a good thing for America? If we manage to reduce race into something seen as meaningless, and force people to proclaim there is no inherent difference in the races, isn't that a better chance to move into a post-racial society? Obviously, it has to be balanced against the danger of creating resentment towards URM's, but couldn't one make the argument that we can cheapen race until it's practically worthless?</p>
<p>DCforMe: I agree that we need to eventually "cheapen" race until it is worthless and pointless; yes, the argument can be made. (Although, personally, I don't think that will ever happen.) I just feel that the time and manner in which we go about doing that is important. However, I think what the author means is that "the struggle" has been redefined as a movement to "take advantage" of one's historical disadvantage, something I think many people have been trying to do. I think that before we can begin to think about moving past race (and gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc. for that matter), is to have serious discussion (or understanding) about these issues and use those to "cheapen" them.</p>
<p>Drbigboyjoe verbalizied what I think makes alot of people upset. It is the case where the disadvantage or bias is perceived as historical rather than actual. Is the child of a wealthy professional URM disadvantaged when compared to a recent immigrant from perhaps an "overrepresented" minority, who is not a native english speaker etc? These are questions for thought, not knee jerk reactions.</p>
<p>Obviously it is easier to find "disadvantage" in poor inner city schools.</p>
<p>Here's the thing about the "cards" -- frequently the thinking behind them is good but it isn't sound. It rests on assumptions about "lack of access" that might not actually be true. </p>
<p>I know that anecdotal evidence isn't always academically rigorous, but here's something I've been wondering about --
I was talking to a friend the other evening and she mentioned that her daughter will have a tremendous advantage in applying to colleges because she's a first-generation college attender. However, my friend then went on to say that although she herself didn't go to college (the mom), it wasn't truly because she was tremendously disadvantaged or they couldn't afford it or she was "denied access" in some way. She was actually kind of a party girl in high school and she was never all that ambitious and she really just wanted to get married anyway, so she chose to forgo going to college. (Her siblings went though.) So here's an admissions committee making all these assumptions about how this girl needs to be rewarded and helped along because of the impoverished environment she's coming from where she has been denied access to all these resources -- but it's not actually true. The child in question still has plenty of loving adults with college experience to help her make academic decisions, choose activities, etc. </p>
<p>Strangely enough, my friend then went on to list other moms who also didn't go to college because they did too many drugs in high school, got pregnant while in high school and so forth -- and maybe we're lucky because we live in a rural area where the cost of living isn't too high, but most of these moms eventually landed on their feet and managed to give their kids the same types of advantages that most of us have had -- music lessons, band, football. She actually mentioned that the kids appear to be reaping the rewards of their parent's lack of discipline due to some wrong assumptions which admissions people hold. The kids getting hurt are the ones in the community whose parents actually finished college.</p>
<p>My friend was actually talking about how some Ivy-league guy on the EAst Coast might think "mom didn't go to college" and picture some life of abject deprivation, but in many places, mom didn't go to college and life is actually still pretty good, and the whole picture that the admissions office has is wrong. That's the problem with so many of these scenarios -- they rest on a lot of assumptions, many of which are wrong.</p>
<p>So many of the perceived "advantages" awarded to applicants are beyond the control of the students themselves, and this is likely the source of their frustration and resentment. In reality, there is very little about an applicant that is not determined by who their parents are, and how those parents chose to raise them. From skin color, to income level, SAT prep, fencing and oboe lessons, geographic location, competitiveness of high school, parental education level, legacy status and alma mater donations - all of those things are directly attributable to the parents, not the student, yet all of those things are rewarded in the application process.</p>
<p>Momzie, I understand your disgust with this individual, but admissions officers will be able to tell how much of an affect this "status" actually had on the student (and actually, she is not first gen, if her aunts went to college) through the essays and activities of the student. There are very good at determining who is playing the system.</p>
<p>"We did not bemoan our fate or think anything was unfair. We looked at the situation, determined what was most important to each one of the kids, and found perfect places for them despite the competition. No, it wasn't HYPCM. But we were fine with that, and we don't begrudge a URM who eases into one of "those" schools with lower stats. We say bravo for negotiating a more difficult mine field."</p>
<p>I live in Central NJ and it seems the environment here is similar to Long Island.</p>
<p>The sentiment expressed by mythmom is very similar to what I saw not only in our family but in general around our community. </p>
<p>Admissions is by nature competitive and communities like mine, and probably yours, are full of successful professionals that are highly competitive by nature. Not surprisingly many of our children, but not all, want the biggest possible prize. Sure there are those that push and are pushed beyond the limits but for the most part play the game fairly and accept the outcome. In fact a vast majority not only accept the outcome but end up enjoying and their college experience and thrive in it.</p>
<p>There is another CC thread in which the topic is whether Jesuit colleges, such as BC, Georgetown and Notre Dame, favor students from Jesuit high schools and/or who share a religion in common with the school. I posted a question asking whether my son should consider joining a Jesuit order, whether it would increase his chances for admission at GU and whether there is a risk that the admissions office might see through a senior-year conversion and hold it against him. One person responded with an "LOL" so at least there is some hope for us here on CC.</p>
<p>My answer to all this chest-beating is that you can't control what anyone else does. You can only control what you can control.</p>
<p>Less than 1/100th of 1% of the total number of college juniors and seniors actively involved in the college search and admissions process come to CC. The people who are here, are largely (but not exclusively) people with uber high stats posting inane threads like, "Chance me! I have a 1530 SAT!" or "I need help! I have no idea what to do. I have a 1580 SAT and 4.0 UW gpa and am class president!" Its kids looking for more acknowledgement and accolades. Some parents posting, "my kid is perfect!" kind of stuff. </p>
<p>So I focus on those who are genuinely struggling, perhaps with modest stats, or just truly confused or stressed out. </p>
<p>I know of stories of kids in a private school who all cross applied to schools their "competitors and "friends" were applying to" to see if they could bump them off and have bragging rights on who got admitted, when they had NO intention of attending those schools even if they were admitted. It was so bad they even cross applied to a bunch of safeties to see if they could knock them out. And their parents acted like innocent Snow White. But you KNOW what was really going on. Sick.</p>
<p>Its out there. So you just move along and keep your own counsel and be VERY careful what you say to people. </p>
<p>My D had her heart broken by an ED school in 07. It didnt make any sense, except the above scenario. So when we "scrambled" for the RD applications we told NOBODY where we were applying and to the biggest rats in the house we sent up false flags to steer them away. It worked.</p>
<p>Just stay away from hyper competitive people. You can usually get the "vibes" that they are up to no good or are just being nosy gossips. Ignore all those uber stats "Chance Me!" kids. They dont need anyone's help, all they want is more attention.</p>
<p>also, if you or your kid got into a top name school....GREAT! Congrats! I don't begrudge you, unless of course you lord it over people and condescend for the rest of your life. </p>
<p>The dirty little secret is that you can get into MOST of these name schools, particularly if they waitlisted you, as a transfer student in sophomore year.</p>
<p>I know a kid who was waitlisted at Georgetown, went to NCState and got in as a transfer the next year. So if that is what you wish to do, fine...go for it.</p>
<p>My D was solicited by three schools who waitlisted her the previous year. She is happy where she is at and is staying.</p>
<p>Im black and a Muslim, major Mechanical Engineering. Do you know how hard it is if you are black and you have a Muslim name to go through a double blade discrimination. Can anyone tell me to whom I shall complain in the Campus? So not to write names on the exams instead all the students to write just their student ID# in order to make a neutral for all students. Also I want to mentioned that all the instructors are not discriminators.</p>
<p>There is a technical term for kids like this -- SOCIOPATHS. In China they like to say that they traded the emperor for millions of "little emperors." Their disparaging term for the generation of spoiled entitled little brats engendered by the governments one-child policy.</p>
<p>The answer is less regulation, less goverment crap which makes people compete aganist one another using the loopholes. If everything were an open playing field, with one standardized test. Then we can all hold hands.</p>
<p>crackerjacks: Cant argue with your reasoning. It's always the government's fault. Did you find the second shooter by the grassy knoll yet? I knew it was the CIA. kumbayah.</p>
<p>What I find disheartening is the impact I already see on the incoming classes as a result of this mindset. They take on tones of bolder entitlement once they get in. The loss of the "generosity of spirit" is a good way to put it I think.</p>
<p>I was expecting more from the article-it was pretty poorly written though I agree with the author's political views. However, this whole gaming of the highly college admissions system is not as ever present as some would like to make it seem though it is certainly "there". Look at all the threads on CC about how to game the process, don't be naive and think its limited only to CCers-there are always people in all institutions that will do whatever they want to get whatever they want. Despite my acknowledgment of the problem, I think it's well, a relative non-issue. Now before people say I appreciate the fact that people are wheeling and dealing to get into these schools, I'll say unequivocally that it's wrong. But lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things, I'm sort of happy in a way that kids are so concentrated on getting into good colleges that they are willing to do something immoral to get it, as opposed to kids being on concentrated on something bad or certainly not conducive to good health (like drugs and alcohol) that they'll be doing something immoral to get it. To restate myself, it's sort of a good dilemma that we are worried about kids doing immoral things to get into college. Sort of analogous to the "problem" of choosing between HYPSM. To be frank, there is no way, no how, that you'll get certain people to stop being selfish, scheming, cunning, you name it. It has nothing to do with parenting, our materialistic society, or government. It has to do with human nature. It is human nature for us to want the biggest, best, prize. We want the best friends, best mates, best house, best kids, best town, and yes, best prestigious education. I don't think there are many people who can tell me that they don't want to be distinguished positively from the rest of their peers. It is just a matter of how far we'll be willing to achieve it. That these fiercely competitive and kids are spending their time pretending to be a certain race or forging a teacher recommendation is in my opinion far more benign than these kids running gangs. Again, in a way, we should be sort of happy that we at least get these worries. There are poverty stricken communities, even here in America, who would laugh at us being distraught or sick over some kids who are, frankly, probably trying to make something better of their life. I know this is a college related forum, but sometimes we need to have some perspective. As to those who say we should try to do something about it, trust me, as long as colleges continue having more and more selective admissions there is nothing we can do about it other than to hold our head up high and refrain from entering the fray.</p>
<p>^ I agree that to some extent a visceral notion guides some high school students to covet for prestigious education, utilizing whatever means necessary to satiate their aspirations. Yet, I also believe it to be rather blind to solely associate the predicament to the human condition. Rather, the environmental as well as competitive pressure should be at fault. To parallel immoral kids to pugnacious gangs is to forget that most of these gangs exist because of the lack of environmental and competitive pressure which encourages them to pursue a more successful path! While undoubtedly more benign than wild gangs, this perspective is rather warped in respect with its conclusion that we pedestal the "playing-the-___ card" situation due to the more malevolent gangs. I believe we should just take the situation for what it is. No more, no less.</p>