I Hate Myself For Being An Arm Chair Liberal

Parents Forum
141

<p>
[quote]
People don't walk about muttering about such and such student getting an unfair advantage or not deserving to be at xyz because s/he is a legacy.

[/quote]

As someone who was a female engineer ("AA" admit) and a legacy (big name alum), I can attest to that. First of all, I think that some of the AA nonsense stops once you enter college and realize how extraordinarily talented everyone there is. However, I had people say to me that I "only" got into the engineering school because I'm a woman. I was at the top of my class, near-perfect SATs, and enough ECs to keep three people busy - in short, as good or better an applicant than the guys. Doesn't matter - "You're a woman, they need women in engineering." My MIT rejection brought surprise to people - "Wow, you're a great student and you're a woman." Sickening.</p>

<p>When people found out about my legacy status, the reaction was totally different: "That was the nail in the coffin of your admission." I do think that some of it is the high school/college distinction, but there is something different going on.</p>

<p>Now, I'm going to tick a lot of people off here... but why dump on athletes, the kids of big donors, and legacy admits? Believe it or not, they add something to the school. If super-star athletes propel the college to fame, more students will want to go there. There is also some correlation between quality of athletics and US News ranking. </p>

<p>If Daddy gives the school a few million, then the kids that get in can enjoy a new building; new classrooms; or, maybe, it all goes to financial aid. Hate to break it to y'all, but your kids fin. aid packages are largely the result of generous, wealthy alums. Unless you want to pay ticket price, you better hope that your kid is sharing a place with the kid of some wealthy alums who donated a ton of cash to the school. </p>

<p>Legacy admits - if Mom loved the school, and the kid grew up listening to college stories, the kid might be more likely to want to go there. Colleges want students who want to be there! Y'all talk about "fit" until you're blue in the face, but when it comes to a college admitting students who would be happy there, everyone gets upset. Big-name legacy admits, IMO, also make some sense. First of all, there's like two of them every year. The numbers that a school enrolls every year varies by more than that - their admissions are statistical noise. (Ditto for big-donor kids.) Furthermore, there is a LOT to be said for having excellent communication between the administration and students. Colleges expend a great deal of time and effort to ensure that students have their voices heard. When the higher-ups in the administration have dinner with students on a semi-regular basis, the school is better. I was told that what my friends and I had to say about the school didn't always square with what the administration thought was going on. </p>

<p>I didn't want to go to a lily-white school. The strong international and minority presence of students at my alma mater was a huge attraction for me - and for other students. In many ways, a school is more desirable for having minorities. </p>

<p>If y'all were really all about stats, then you would advocate admitting white, upper-middle class kids from suburban Massachusetts. If you want geographic diversity, be prepared to sacrifice on the numbers - but a lot of top students really want a school that isn't high school, redux. If you want economic diversity, be prepared to share a classroom with a student whose high school grades were weak but who worked to help out his single mom. If you want a school that has an athletic programme, a cappella, dance squads, a poetry mag, a student newspaper, and a Monty Python society, realize that some "high stat" kids are going to get tossed in favour of a baseball star, poet, oboeist, dancer, or a singer. Sure, the stats are lower, but it's a more interesting - and thus more attractive! - school. There's a price for everything.</p>

<p>Just my two cents.</p>

142

<p>Ariesathena:</p>

<p>You are so right. One's gender is as obvious as one's skin color and makes it possible to become a target of unwarranted assumptions.</p>

<p>Some of my S's high school friends are African-American. They're legacies at H &Y. AND they are brilliant.</p>

143

<p>"Most non-AA students are just a speck in the sea of applications, and many deserving kids are overlooked and don't get the chance to access the fine resources of the greatest universities. It's just supply and demand."</p>

<p>"Ironically, my son made this very same point last night. It is the thing that angers me about how I have raised him. He so much sees himself as an individual like everyone else, he argues that he should hve only as much a chance as anyone else."</p>

<p>Why should it anger you? You should be proud that he does not want the AA stigma attached to him.</p>

144

<p>Drosselmeier, can I say something? I'm the parent of a white, Jewish girl who doesn't test well. She's also very independent-spirited and didn't follow the prescribed academic path through high school. She's a dynamo though, and writes well - and she has just been admitted to Barnard, U. of Chicago, NYU & Berkeley. If you look at the numbers, though - you'd wonder why she got in <em>over</em> all of the kids with much higher test scores and stronger academic records. </p>

<p>If my daughter were black or hispanic, everyone would lump her into that AA category. This is not the fault of AA -- this really just comes from the internal prejudices of the people throwing out the label. In other words, because my daughter isn't a minority, and she isn't an athlete, and we are not rich and she is not a legacy -- she doesn't fit any sort easy category to provide an excuse for her incongruous rise above the competition. So instead she is now branded an "anecdote" -- the "exception that proves the rule" -- that is, since she represents an instance of something that never happens, then it can only have happened to her by some sort of odd accident or happenstance, and the report must be discarded. Cognitive dissonance. </p>

<p>The reason you need AA is that you could be the parent of a girl like my daughter (with 8 kids, you probably are). My d. is the one who was voted "most likely to succeed" in her 8th grade class -- she is just a kid with a lot of confidence, poise & guts. She's got brains, but it is the personality that wows people. But because of the color of your skin, if you have a child who has the same kind of personal dynamism and charisma -- but not the "stats" -- every success will get chalked up to "affirmative action". </p>

<p>But the worse thing is that, without AA, I am not sure that your hypothetical charismatic but test-challenged kid would do as well as my white daughter, simply because of racism. Because the bottom line is that all of those standardized tests and standardized measures can be used as a barrier to minorities or to the underclass of society -- and it still doesn't mean that the privileged class faces the same barriers. </p>

<p>So I congratulate you on the success of your daughter, but I really wish that you could live in a world where your 8 children did not have to prove themselves with 800 SAT scores in order to get ahead or to be acknowledged as meritorious. Unless she volunteers the information, none of my daughter's classmates at the school she attends -- whether it is Barnard/Columbia or Berkeley or Chicago -- will ever know that she scored 1220 on the SAT. No one will <em>assume</em> that she must have scored low and no one will expect her to prove again that she really deserves admission to these colleges. No one will even rant and rave that she stole the spot of their more deserving kid... because she doesn't look like a spot-stealer. </p>

<p>And that's why I still chalk it all up to racism, or at least class-based judgments. Because I know very well that when my daughter gets acknowledged, everyone will always agree that it is because of who <em>she</em> is, whereas if you ever have a child like her, others will assume it is because of the color of her skin. It is not an answer to say that the barriers should be erected to make it tougher, so as to counter these assumptions -- the kids like my daughter will still manage to skirt those barriers, precisely because my daughter does not face the same kind of innate societal barriers.</p>

145

<p>Calmom,</p>

<p>I am sincerely gratified to learn that the admissions process at Columbia, UC and Berkley worked. And some way, from what I have learned about those schools in particular, I'm not surprised.</p>

<p>In the end, we never ask how people we admire scored on standarized tests or what their gpa's were. Unfortunately, it is big part of the admissions game today and must be dealt with. Be that it were not so and we could truly see the remarkable gifts of each child for what they were (yes, my kids went to a Montessori school).</p>

146

<p>Calmon:</p>

<p>That was an amazing post. I really need to think for a few hours about all this.</p>

147

<p>Simba:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why should it anger you? You should be proud that he does not want the AA stigma attached to him.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because I don't think his view is realistic. It only looks at the matter from an individual's point of view when there are many MANY others who don’t know if people who look like they do can even hope to do anything worthwhile.</p>

148

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>You said what I tried to say so much more eloquently! And yes, colleges do want students like your D. They bring so much to the community.</p>

149

<p>I unnerstand what you mean. but ivys are ivys.</p>

150

<p>SBDad - I just want to clarify - my daughter was admitted to Barnard - she did not apply to Columbia. The reason I referred to "classmates at Barnard/Columbia" in my above posts is that the schools share facilities and so Barnard girls invariably end up taking Columbia classes along the way -- so if she chooses Barnard, her "classmates" will be students from both schools.</p>

<p>And Marite - you are right, the colleges do want more girls like my daughter -- of all races and backgrounds.</p>

151

<p>"Because I don't think his view is realistic. It only looks at the matter from an individual's point of view when there are many MANY others who don’t know if people who look like they do can even hope to do anything worthwhile."</p>

<p>I agree. As long as AA is practiced, the true talents of any one of color will have a shadow of doubt.</p>

<p>Also, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a safety net of AA as a boost and still expect others to believe that you are there on your own merit.</p>

<p>I am just glad my son was not in graduating class of 06. The top ranked asian only got in to a second tier school. Four lower ranked URMs go in to Ivies. Last yar he had only one to compete. This year he would have had Four - talk about the odds.</p>

152

<p>But the sad thing is this conversation really only comes up when talking about the ivies /elite LACs.</p>

<p>I highly doubt that this conversation would be taking place if we were looking to get our kid admitted at Whossamatta U.</p>

<p>now for my rant</p>

<p>The part that I really don't understand is that those who the method that these schools use to fill a class so egregious because the ivies do take a more wholistic approach to admissions and not one has ever stated yet, a minimum SAT score **that is required for admissions ** as the process never has been or never will be based on merit, but yet no one is running to pull their kids out and are still lining up and tossing their $70 bucks in the hope that they do get admitted.</p>

<p>What is that saying, those that don't learn from their history will repeat their history. </p>

<p>In that respect if AA were eliminated tomorrow, those who got a leg up in the process to the point that they are considered overrepresented (becasuse you surely are counted in those minority numbers) and now decry that very same system because they forgot that they too were admitted based on the color of their skin, may end up back in the same situation they were in before AA (where the numbers were something like 2%) was implemented. When it has all been said and done, you not the ones with the names on the buildings, sitting on the board of trustees, and donating 7+ figures to the cause. Oh, but those things would never come into play. (rant over)</p>

153

<p>I'm not avoiding <em>anything</em>, SBDad. I just know for a fact that the process of admissions, as well as the results, are far more complex than an artificially simplified issue of AA. Drosselmeier's D is a case in point, but she is by no means rare or unique in her stats -- as special as she may be ;).</p>

<p>It is almost antiquated these days to talk about "AA as a factor." There are so many factors, & in the end almost nothing reduces to AA. If anything, I think you are the one ignoring the elephant in the room: the 2 factors most likely to result in positive results -- both with regard to education in general & to college admissions in particular are (1) parental support/knowledge/active presence and (2) income. Again, Drosselmeier is a sterling example of #(1), and were there more of him within the A-A'an families with pre-college students, the h.s. success rate (& thus admissions rate for top colleges) would look quite different, i.m.o.</p>

<p>And if you do not think that #(2) often trumps other "disadvantaged" factors in Ivy and similar admissions, then I must say that you have not been reading both the ED and RD results very carefully over the last 2 yrs. minimum. (On CC alone). I have been, & I can name a number of instances where low-income whites have had better results, admissions-wise, than some Latinos of the middle-class -- despite similar test scores & other numerical measures.</p>

<p>Northstarmom would be better able than I am to address the SAT scores of URM's, but I'll say that in general you may be off in your assumptions. Again, income more than ethnicity tends to be more a factor in test outcomes. That is setting aside the issue of LD, which can perilously affect testing outcomes & is no respecter of income or race. High income will have precious little effect on LD test results; however, it will help some because of the available money for tutoring in the h.s. course work itself. (The classroom & standardized -- such as AP -- testing for that coursework is, again, a different matter.)</p>

<p>There are no valid scapegoats & no one left to blame, except for those of us Boomers who had the audacity to reproduce in even modest numbers, & the greater audacity to apply our education & whatever level of funds we had to provide our offspring with opportunities greater than even we saw at their age. Our babies, of a large population component, have come of age</p>

154

<p>Simba asked Drosselmeier: "Why should it anger you? You should be proud that he does not want the AA stigma attached to him."</p>

<p>Well Simba, you see, that's the rub. Yes indeed, there is an AA (Affirmative Action) stigma, and of course no one wants the AA stigma attached to him. But in the grand scheme of stigmas, it is only a minor variation on the over arching AA (African American/Black/Negro/Colored) stigma that has plagued African Americans for 450 years.</p>

<p>FOUR. HUNDRED. AND FIFTY.</p>

<p>Think about it.</p>

<p>So, you see, it's really small potatoes that black people should be terribly tramatized by the "stigma" of AA. There are social stigmas, both great and small attached to blackness everyday for the vast majority of us. Stigmas and stereotypes that infuse the fabric of America like negative Ions, assumed "truths" and "facts" about us that are, as a whole, unquestioningly accepted by many white Americans (and sad to say, due to this 450 year history of racism, have been internalized and subconsciously accepted as true by not a few African Americans). </p>

<p>One of these "truths/facts", as I pointed out in an earlier post, is that black students aren't as intelligent as whites, not as academically capable as whites, nor worthy of their relative few spots at the nation's top schools. AA didn't mark the advent of this mind-set. And the abolishment of AA will not reverse it. It's been entrenched for 400-plus years. God only knows how many years of controverting history it will take to make these myriad stigmas go away.</p>

155

<p>poetsheart: give me a break !!!! If after so many years of freedom you can't shed the past baggage and move forward, no one can release you from your internal conflicts.</p>

<p>and when kids want to break away from that stigma, parents get angry and hold them back.</p>

156

<p>
[quote]
Yes indeed, there is an AA (Affirmative Action) stigma, and of course no one wants the AA stigma attached to him.

[/quote]

Once again, I'd like to point out that it is GRADUATING from an elite school that counts -- admission is only a foot in the door. Once a student, of any ethnic or socioeconomic background, has the degree, they win -- there should no longer be any stigma. The classes at selective colleges are difficult and the competition is intense. It takes hard work and intelligence to make it through. So, anyone with the degree can hold his/her head high and be gratified with his/her success.</p>

157

<p>HOW MANY YEARS OF FREEDOM, SIMBA?!</p>

<p>When was the Civil Rights Act passed into law? How long ago was school desegregation instituted? Now let's see....Brown Vs. The Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court in 1954. That was 3 years before I was born. But it was more than 13 years later, when I was ten years old, before I was allowed to darken the door of the formally all white school in Williamsburg, Va., cradle of American Freedom and Democracy. That was 1967. I suppose you believe that things from that point on just miraculously turned around, and that the blatant discrimination and racism I had afore been subjected to just ceased to exist. That I was FREEEEEE----HALLELUIAH!</p>

<p>Well, if you think that, it only shows how delusional you are when it comes to the history of slavery, the legacy of Jim Crow, the long-term repercussions of on-going (yes, ON-GOING) racism in America. That you think laws passed less than FIFTY years ago magically erase the effects of laws and attitudes and social paradigms that prevailed for FOUR-HUNDRED AND FIFTY, shows that you only see that which suits you. </p>

<p>You said: "If after so many years of freedom you can't shed the past baggage and move forward, no one can release you from your internal conflicts."</p>

<p>If you think that this baggage is only an artifact of the past that can be shed like an old coat, you demonstrate just how naive, or either, just plain callous you really are for a "liberal". If you think that the repercussions of America's racial history are not still strongly reverberating today, and that racism is now merely a minor annoyance, like a bad seat at the movie theater that we black folks milk like a cash cow, a "race card" that we use to trump the game, I doubt there's a thing I could say to make you see how wrong you are. The only way you would know what I know is to live it. You'd be willing to trade places wouldn't you? You could shed my excess baggage for me while you're at it and prove that it's just as easy to be a black person in America as a white one---nay, that it's BETTER to be black, easier. After all, black people have Affirmative Action to negate all that past bit of unpleasantness---slavery, Jim Crow and all...</p>

158

<p>
[quote]
I am just glad my son was not in graduating class of 06. The top ranked asian only got in to a second tier school. Four lower ranked URMs go in to Ivies. Last yar he had only one to compete. This year he would have had Four - talk about the odds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I dunno, I have seen top ranked Asians who, when it came time for them to put blood and fire onto a page in an essay, couldn’t write worth a cup of dirt. I have seen low ranked URMS who, because they live in pain all the livelong day, could make a page sizzle with anger, longing and even hope. I in fact have seen this A LOT. You have tons of button mashing Asians who cannot seriously promote themselves on a written page, and URMS who can express rings around everyone. So, I’m thinking maybe the admissions committees are looking deeper than some guy who has hacked the SAT and who lists fiftytwenty clubs.</p>

<p>I have thought hard about calmom’s post and conclude that she is EXACTLY right. We are being had. There are plenty of superb kids out there who do not score well on tests but who have the spark that really make this world go around. I am thinking maybe colleges ought not emphasize the test very much at all. Were I an admissions officer, I would basically set a range, say 2040. You get a twenty-forty or better, then your application gets over the first admissions hurdle because you have proven you can do college work. So the 2040 scorer and the 2400 scorer are equals. Once the application goes to the next phase, ALL test scores are zeroed out. Then it becomes a matter of grades. You meet a certain level, then you move to the next phase. Then all grades are zeroed out. Then comes the meat and potatoes phase, where the rubber really meets the road. We will find out which of these scholars is just a button masher and which one has a heart of fire. We will evaluate his essays, find out about his life, interview him, see his references, etc. Then make our choice.</p>

<p>I think Harvard is doing something like this, and if so, I applaud the school. My daughter once wanted Harvard a lot (but no more, thank God!). She wanted it so much that when it came time to put herself on paper, she choked and played it very safe, writing a mamby-pamby essay about our home life. I didn’t know enough to counsel her otherwise. I read it and thought it was fine, though a bit lightweight for her. The girl obviously had the scores, but Harvard rejected her because I’d bet money she just didn’t make the case that she had red blood flowing in her veins. I love Harvard because of that rejection. I really do. I never thought Harvard was capable of shaping my daughter into all she could be. It is a bunch of people who seem more interested in dumping on each other than in forming a serious, scholarly community. It is just a different culture, one that never impressed me, but that seems to work for a lot of other people.</p>

<p>But that rejection did something great for my daughter. She took a breath and decided to be flatly true to who she is. She banged out six essays, one after the other. One of these was a “rant of an insane mathematician.” Another was about a creature called a “snark” in a game called “Half-Life 2” and how that creature in a prior game was evil, but how in “Half_Life 2” it was an ally. The idea was how in the first game the snark was a thing to be killed-- an ugly, horrid thing, but how in the recent game it mysteriously morphed into a thing of beauty and interest, though its outward form had not changed from game to game. The title was just the coolest thing in the world. The piece was beautiful and inventive. Another piece was this seriously philosophical paper that I really didn’t understand, but that I knew had a lot of blood and fire in it. Because of that Harvard rejection, my daughter decided to put herself right out there on the edge. I think that is why she was accepted to every other college to which she applied. The folks could not help but be drawn in to those pieces. I don’t think her scores really did much at all. It was everything else that did it.</p>

<p>So, I am beginning to think scores aren’t really the important thing here. It seems the scores and even class ranking just get you in the door. After the minimum score level and ranking is met (which many URMs probably routinely meet), you are going to have to show some guts in other things, and I think here is where a lot of URMS legitimately excel. I think calmom’s daughter excelled here too. Those folks saw the girl’s awesomeness and the scores just didn’t really matter after that.</p>

<p>If I am right here, then all this whining about rank and scores is just foolishness. We should strive for the highest scores and rank because we want to do and be the best we can be in ourselves. But as far as demanding “OUR” place on the basis of the scores, we really need to get a grip on reality. We have no legitimate right to demand anything. I think the admissions officers have it right.</p>

<p>One related thing I should say before heading to bed. I am not going to listen anymore to people who bitterly criticize admissions officers choices, throwing up the AA scapegoat. I’m just going to ignore it. Such people are like children who question the decisions of their parents, though having no clue about the big picture behind those decisions. I for one deeply appreciate the job admissions officers do. It has to be one of the happiest, saddest, most fulfilling and agonizing jobs on earth. I’d bet these people get all kinds of disgusting emails from parents who think they are owed something just because their kid scored well on a test or ranked high in a school.</p>

<p>The thing just HAS to be a lot messier than scores and ranks. People are all going through different things, and admissions officers are right to take all of this into account. While the decision they have just made in 2006 may seem ridiculous to you, to me they have been more nurturing and important than almost anyone can imagine. Those admissions folks had to look and see something in my kid that they liked. And they had to see this basically using text on paper. When they actually found it and accepted her, they didn’t just accept some kid for possible matriculation at their school. They were telling me that my family has something to offer them, that we matter a great deal. They were almost directly telling my children that they should follow their sister and keep up the good work, and that if they do, maybe their time will come too. We are talking just this amazing amount of hope. Those folks were lifting up not just my one daughter, but the whole family, and doing it in a very profound and special way.</p>

<p>I’d bet the same thing has happened in the complex and messy lives of those four URMs too. Those students earned their place every bit as much as anyone else who got in. So, I am just not going to listen anymore to bitter complaints against them that question their worthiness to get in over an Asian who may not have had the same fire in his belly as they.</p>

159

<p>Yes I admit I am ignorant - my knowledge of American history is miniscule. I am asian who came to this country some 35 years ago.</p>

<p>But, I still believe for one to move on they have to conquer their internal conflicts. If you keep playing the past events as a never ending tape, you would never be free. You would be in prison of your own thoughts for ever. </p>

<p>British refered to us as 'coolies', and ruled us for 200+ years. We earned our freedom in 1947. I was born shortly after that in a free country and I intend to live free. If I live and re-live the past it would be a never ending story.</p>

<p>And don't tell any asians that they have it easy in this country either.</p>

160

<p>"
I dunno, I have seen top ranked Asians who, when it came time for them to put blood and fire onto a page in an essay, couldn’t write worth a cup of dirt. I have seen low ranked URMS who, because they live in pain all the livelong day, could make a page sizzle with anger, longing and even hope. I in fact have seen this A LOT. You have tons of button mashing Asians who cannot seriously promote themselves on a written page, and URMS who can express rings around everyone. So, I’m thinking maybe the admissions committees are looking deeper than some guy who has hacked the SAT and who lists fiftytwenty clubs."</p>

<p>wow wow wow we are hurling insults now.</p>