Michelle Obama felt lack of brilliance at Princeton.
This is the context within which her comment was made:
“‘I’m expecting brilliance. Genius. And then what I discover is, wow, there’s a lot of arbitrariness to this stuff, you know?’ Obama told ‘CBS This Morning’ co-host Gayle King. ‘There’s a debate about affirmative action when it comes to race. What I point out is that I got to Princeton, I realized there’s a whole – all kinds of affirmative action that goes on. There are kids who get in because they’re athletes. There are kids who get in because there’s a legacy. It’s just that race stands out….But it was important for me to see that.’”
Interestingly and coincidentally, today I saw a FB post conversation between my Princeton freshman son and his two high school best friends, both also freshmen, one at Yale and one at Harvard. The conversation was about how everyone around them seem more “brilliant” than them but in a half joking way. This is of course a very common phenomenon, one that affected Michelle Obama, as well. I know that my son was intimidated prior to going off to Princeton. He’s always had this tendency to worry more than what the reality actually calls for. To assuage his premature intimidation, I pointed out to him that his Princeton class is going to be made up of at least 50% (more likely 75%) in combination of legacies, recruited athletes, URM’s, FLI, development cases, etc., which is also true at its peer institutions like Harvard, Yale and Stanford.
I’m sure there are geniuses and truly brilliant students at HYPS just as at any other colleges, but it’s a common misconception that these elite schools are full of them and that you’ll encounter them at every turn at campus dorms, dining halls, libraries, bathrooms and whatnot. Oh, but my son just learned that his RCA won this year’s Rhodes Scholarship and one of his orchestra members had her solo debut with the New York Philharmonic when she was just 13.
Thank you for including context @TiggerDad
Sure makes the story different from the title alone, “Lack of Brilliance at Princeton,” doesn’t it?
To be fair, an average outsider doesn’t know that though popular colleges attract lot of brilliant kids,more than half are “institutional need” people.
As she already had a brother attending Princeton, it’s surprising she didn’t already know about the environment there. She sounded very surprised about AA student issues as well. May be as an athlete, he wasn’t as insecure and adjusted better.
What’s your point, @CupCakeMuffins ?
This article does not convey a lack of brilliance at P. She says she realized there is a diversity of types. In contrast to the hubbub focused on URMs, many types get in, for many good reasons.
Don’t fool yourself that any college is all brilliant kids. The vast bulk of them are mortals. Even top performers.
And do not assume the athletes, legacies, first gen, big donor kids are some sub performing category. Institutional kids include, eg, the very talented musician, the highly accomplished classics major, etc. None of this is as simple as, “He’s in some category, he’s lesser.”
“To be fair, an average outsider doesn’t know that though popular colleges attract lot of brilliant kids,more than half are “institutional need” people”.
Cupcakemuffins You seem to be suggesting “institutional need” kids can’t be brilliant. At these schools the kids in each cohort are the best of the best and earned their way in. All kids have a path. The best athlete, musician, artist or unique background all are the “winners” within a competitive field. Please don’t diminish them.
Most average elite college applicants doesn’t know much about what goes on in college admissions and feel insecure and not worthy enough.
Also they may think getting in is holy grail but may find out later, it wasn’t the best place for them. Bottom line, don’t feel disappointed if you don’t get in and don’t feel intimidated if you do get in.
I’m not sure that the average applicant knows that or thinks of that.Or that the average freshman realizes that until s/he actually sets foot on the campus as a student. I certainly didn’t, and I was working on this site while in HS.
I’ll say that my own experience of surprise was similar to @TiggerDad 's son and his friends. I adjusted, Tigger’s kid adjusted, MO adjusted, and the world went on.
And it’s not unlike starting a new job, moving to a new area, etc.
That’s what this thread is about? I missed it.
Do you have a running interest in top colleges, making sure people know they’re the be all and end all? Maybe putting them down?
True life lesson across the board. For any potential job, house, community, car, and to some extent spouse, you don’t know much about it until you’re in the situation.
ETA: And we definitely do not know what we’re getting with our children when we start out with them!
Oops, “making ssure people know they’re not the be all and end all.”
Lol, we all cross our fingers and hope for the best. And shift our definitions of success- or brilliance- as the kid’s life ebbs and flows.
@brantly True that.
Just came across this Business Insider article on Google feed, “A college counselor told Michelle Obama she wasn’t ‘Princeton material’ — but she applied to the Ivy League school anyway and got in”
Whatever reasons the college counselor thought that MO wasn’t a “Princeton material,” her case really drives the point that one of the reasons why elite colleges went holistic, rather than basing the admissions criteria purely on top scores, is the fact that being geniuses and brilliant aren’t a sure indicator of being “successful.” You give a normal intelligent person, such as MO, a right set of environment and opportunities to thrive in, then as long as there’s motivation and drive to succeed, the chances are, they will.
Cupcakemuffins would you view Michelle Obama as more brilliant or institutional need?
Schools such as Princeton can choose the best of the best and there is no distinction (as you suggest) that 50% are worthy (brilliant) and the other 50% is somehow less worthy (institutional need).
Kids that didn’t get in aren’t victims of an unfair system, they just didn’t distinguish themselves among an extremely accomplished group. That doesnt mean they aren’t equally qualified, wonderful or destined for success.
I have responded to you before that your posts tend to deminish those that got accepted as either lucky or “institutional need”. I assume that isn’t your intent but it is the consistent theme you present.
@Nocreativity1 My stand is that kids shouldn’t think of ones attending elite schools as unicorns and lose confidence upon not getting in. All sort of people attend elite colleges, it’s an spectrum of different kind of people, you don’t know who got in for what reason. Your worth doesn’t depend upon admission counselor’s approval.
^ Agreed. Nor should parents feel inadequate if their kids don’t get into the most prestigious of schools as their worth as parents doesn’t depend on the unbiased and thoughtful decisions of professional admissions counselors.
Nor should parents whose kids got in need to defend a flawed system as a perfect absolute. Mine were accepted into many of these colleges but that doesn’t mean I need to to play defender of this system and view admission officers as reincarnation of Jesus. Most are well intentioned and doing their jobs but system is far from perfect.
“Lack of Briliance at Princeton”, your title says it all so letting it go. As M. Obama says when they go low we go high. Congratulations to your son once again.