<p>A lot of the programs that give preferences to those who can bring diversity, and who have not had the opportunities or had a lot of challenges in life, are there to give these under represented groups a chance that those in them would otherwise not have. In time, without this immediate “break” perhaps the numbers will catch up naturally in absence of biases that may also be present that bring them down, however, affirmative action and other such programs are try to make a “wrinkle in time” (sorry Madeleine L’engel) and expedite the process. It’s not going to work every time. It’s an opportunity and it depends on the individuals offered it as to how successful the fit will be or just getting to the end point successfully, forget the danged “fit”. Even kids who have it all together and look like shoo ins drop out of these programs for any number of programs. I would not expect that those who have impediments are going to do any better or even the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this argument is that it equates outcomes with ability and potential. High SES kids are not innately more intelligent than kids like mine. Kids like mine have simply had access to habits, advantages, teachers, parents, tutors, camps, coaches, family, friends who come from similar backgrounds and have similar expectations places on them. </p>
<p>Look, we are going to end up back at the pizzagirl argument, here, which she has gone into in enough depth that I need not. nobody who ends up at a top university is suffering here, even if they thought they were going to Harvard. It’s tough to explain this to the kids, and they need to be treated with compassion. But, going to Duke instead of Princeton isn’t going to ruin anybody’s life. Parent’s really need to let kids know this up front.</p>
<p>But, the point is this, which is a little bit different: Kids from high SES don’t derive a significant life altering benefit from attending these institutions, whereas kids from disadvantaged SES backgrounds do. There are stats to prove it. Mini posted them the last time I saw them, and I’m not really in the mood to go and find them.</p>
<p>So, if these institutions do not admit lower SES kids, and focus only on high or middle class kids, which mostly they do, btw, the few who perform quite well, graduate with high numbers, will not be better served. I’m sorry. Mismatch is a societal ill and not an institutional issue, imho. Clearly these institutions agree, even if you do not.</p>
<p>Inclusive beats exclusive every time. Or is the other way 'round? I guess it depends on whether one believes those “born on third base” socioeconomically can validly claim their success is merit-based.</p>
<p>I believe that those born on third base have every reason to claim their success is merit based, by the way. I know some incredibly hard working kids, who also happen to be priveledged. Pitting one against the other is the problem, and it is also unattractive, from either side, imho.</p>
<p>In other words, I believe both. That the underpriveledged deserve to be judged based on the circumstances in which they found themselves to start with and the high SES kids should be praised for their hard work, as well. </p>
<p>AND/AND. Not EITHER/OR</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess what bothers people like me is the false equivalence of top students to people like George W. Bush and Al Gore. Top academic performance is as “merit-based” as athletic performance, ironically something which no one ever associates with being “born on third base.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll go you one further. Going to the University of Iowa instead of Duke isn’t going to ruin anybody’s life, either, even if (you’re right) compassion is appropriate when someone’s hopes are dashed. I tend to be less compassionate, however, when someone’s disappointment leads him or her to blame others who did get in. Sometimes it’s just the way the cookie crumbles. And private schools have wide discretion in how they choose to crumble their cookies when it comes to selecting students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beliavsky has no concept of noblesse oblige, does he?</p>
<p>Look, I’m happy as a clam my S got into a top 20 fancy-pants school, but the fact is - he was the product of two well-educated parents who value learning and gave him plenty of opportunities. And if his “Northwestern spot” got handed to some kid who might have had lower stats, didn’t take as rigorous of a class schedule in his inner-city school, but somehow had some spark / potential / diamond-in-the-rough status, and he had to “suffer” at his second choice school or at U of Illinois – well, I can live with that. He was already born on third base.</p>
<p>Part of being sophisticated and worldly is not having to be so … overwhelmingly desperate for certain markers. And what Beliavsky is saying is really … it hurts the Short Hills kid to have to settle for Duke instead of Princeton, it’s not faaaaaaaaair that his spot was given to the kid from the South Side of Chicago, so we shouldn’t do that. So tacky and lacking in any broader moral social justice sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Well said. I have little patience with what I consider a loser mentality. There is no “problem” of smart kids not getting into good colleges. The only “problem” is a made-up one - that a bunch of unsophisticated wannabes have decreed that (HYP)/(HYPSM)/(the Ivy League)/(the top 20) are the only possible places that a smart kid “deserves” to be and that a Great Travesty has occurred if he doesn’t get in. Wake up and welcome to reality, already. No Great Travesty has occurred. And anyway, if such Great Travesties are occuring that (HYP)/(HYPSM)/(the Ivy League)/(the top 20) are being watered down by all those undeserving and ill-prepared students – well, then, aren’t you glad you dodged that bullet?</p>
<p>If top academic performance correlated to top performance in life I’d be all for it. Unfortunately it doesn’t. (E.g., Under no circumstances could President G.W.Bush be described as a top academic performer.)</p>
<p>“I tend to be less compassionate, however, when someone’s disappointment leads him or her to blame others who did get in.”</p>
<p>Precisely!</p>
<p>Well, as you both know, I don’t really blame the kids for the way they freak out the first month, and give a whining grace period to kids until May 1st. </p>
<p>Just as kids can be disadvantaged with financially impoverished parents, intelligent kids can be disadvantaged with parents who do not teach them about grace and good sportsmanship . Plus, some of them have been so indoctrinated by their parents to believe their life is over if they don’t get into X, Y or Z, one does have an opportunity to extend compassion to them, as well. </p>
<p>JMO.</p>
<p>Also, having lived in the wealthiest area outside of chicago, I can agree with you, absweetmarie that the parents who went to Iowa or Kansas or Wisconsin (when it was a safety school, back in the day), are more well represented than those from the Ivies, hard as that may be to believe on the East Coast. ;)</p>
<p>(Though I’m sure hurts to be shut out of Harvard or Duke by some kid whose family doesn’t own even one vacation property, never mind several!)</p>
<p>The studies, even with their imperfections, tend to bear out that all students benefit from a school with diversity of backgrounds, economics, experience, opinion, persective and goals. It’s not a fad experiment. </p>
<p>I have lots of thoughts on what makes some kids able to succeed in a competitive academic environment- and what definitions of success can be. Also, why some disadvantaged kids look to STEM majors, then change. I don’t validate anything based on whether one group sticks with STEM more than others. More about the good they do, how they are empowered to, as Yale puts it, paraphrasing, show “a concern for something larger than themselves.”</p>
<p>Off topic but: To be honest, poetgrl, I think it never hurts to be compassionate. And I could stand to increase my range in that arena. </p>
<p>That is all.</p>
<p>So many groups to marginalize … so little time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have projected a lot of views onto me that I did not express in this thread. That is a slimy and dishonest debating tactic, but it seems that several CC senior members have no problem with it. I don’t think my children should penalized in selective college admissions for having parents with graduate degrees or not being black or Hispanic. That does not mean I am “overwhelmingly desperate” for them to get into HYP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(Under no circumstances could President Dubya be described as a top performer in life.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point is your children weren’t “penalized.” They were simply made to compete against those who started with the same advantages they did. They were measured against their peers, and the others were measured against their peers, and those at the top of whatever group was needed to create the class best representative of the universities missions, were accepted. If your child did not “measure up” against his/her peers, then they didn’t earn the spot you thought they “earned.” </p>
<p>That spot never even existed. Not ever.</p>
<p>^ agree. The danger is you assume Black or Hispanic is not as worthy of the admit as your kid is- and even point to your own successes as some marker. (You worded it that way.)<br>
You have to reconsider what makes any kid worthy of an admit. And, without real perspectve on what adcoms like, seek, and need, you may be falling back on stats, hs leadership titles and etc. Which is only some small part of the decision-making. It’s that CC perspective. What makes kids stand out in their high schools- not the only consideration that makes them right for College X.</p>
<p>Btw, your kids may have legacy advantages that exclude another great kid.</p>