<p>"Harvard students are infatuated with the idea of who deserves to be here. Whether it’s legacies—admitted for the loyalty and funds they bring to the institution—or minorities—accepted purportedly only for the color of their skin—most of these discussions are based on a harmful paradigm: the idea that we can enumerate why some students deserve their spot at Harvard, and why others don’t....."</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Anyone who argues that we deserve to be here does not deserve to be here.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Great points.</p>
<p>Great point? That doesn't even make sense! What a load, though I totally expect it out of the ultra-liberal, oh, excuse me, "multicultural and postmodernist" Harvard community. Honestly, if you can't tell why someone deserves to be there, why doesn't admissions just pull some names out of a hat? URMs "deserve" their spot because of the skin color, legacies and athletes "deserve" their spot because of loyalty and money -according to the admissions office. To pretend otherwise is just a manipulative lie to cover up elements of admissions that many people find unsavory.</p>
<p>"the stories of the dead and downtrodden aren’t given the same voice as the success stories that society loves to lionize"</p>
<p>I LOVE this quote! The author would have to be totally out of touch with literally every form of media in our society to believe that. Whether it's the TV, radio, the internet, or especially newspapers, the "dead and downtrodden" get almost ALL of the coverage! The occasional super-standout riser gets some press (like a poor man that becomes a millionaire with his innovative new company) and they deserve it, but can anyone honestly say that they cover those types of stories more than stories about the dead and the plight of the poor?</p>
<p>Point 2: Which is better for the poor and downtrodden: coverage of their terrible plight and how the world is supposedly fixed against them, proving that no matter how hard they work they will never succeed, OR coverage of those who used to be among their ranks but now have risen to comfortable living and social prominence and how they did it?</p>
<p>Notice how no responsibility for the plight of the impoverished or downtrodden is ever assigned to them. I'm not saying that their situation is all their fault or that there's nothing we can or should do for them, but honestly, when you drink your life away, get fired for not showing up to work, or drop out of high school to sell crack, it's your fault, and not "an example of how society has failed" a certain racial, ethnic, or social class.</p>
<p>A Harvard education is only an "American Mirage" to those that truly don't deserve it.</p>
<p>I don't think it's a mirage to people who don't deserve it...just to those that don't get it. You have to remember that Harvard could probably fill their class with an entirely different group of people from their applicant pool and get largely the same result. The people that apply there tend to be great, and the mirage is only what the people who don't get in make of it, because those that do should take it in its entirety.</p>
<p>The point is, 70% of the world lives on less than one dollar per day. You're typing on at least a $500 computer. That's almost a year and half salary for someone. We're darn lucky to be in the wealthiest country in the world, and we have all the opportunities in the world. For the 1 billion in India, those opportunities are largely not there. We don't deserve to live here any more than the 1 billion people born in India deserve to live there.</p>
<p>That is true, but I took the article to be mostly about the state of "deserving" within America in reference to Harvard admission (albeit with a tangent on immigration). And the Indians, I believe, would mostly look at this diatribe against meritocracy as dangerous and ignorant. In countries like that, they are very strick about who "deserves" what, and meritocracy is the name of the game.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In countries like that, they are very strick about who "deserves" what, and meritocracy is the name of the game.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>In INDIA?</p>
<p>Ever heard of the caste system?</p>
<p>"there are people in this world who work harder than me, who are smarter than me, who have accomplished more than me.."</p>
<p>Haha. India is the worst example of anything. The IT boom leaves the poor behind, and the corrupt and stubborn government is useless. Same with China.</p>
<p>America is where it's at. USA USA USA.</p>
<p>the caste system in india is finally pulling loose in developed parts of india. india's IIT, world renowned university system, have such super competition that they have also opened up affirmative action, bringing in students with low grades but from lower castes. </p>
<p>india has a secular government, but the poor places will have castes i guess. development will get rid of it.</p>
<p>I was thinking more about Asia as a whole. And even in India, I believe, though the caste system certainly doesn't help the matter, it is mostly the best and brightest going to their top schools, not legacies or minorities or athletes or anyone else chosen except for the fact that they "deserve" it based on sheer academic merit. Sifat has pointed out affirmative action programs that have been started, but I still doubt they reach anywhere near the level of we have in the USA.</p>
<p>You are totally, utterly wrong.</p>
<p>India has been using a form of "affirmative action" for years. Basically, in India there is this thing called the backwards class. These are the untouchables, the people that nobody wants to be, the lowest level of human class that there is. Now, medical colleges, trying to increase backwards class enrollment, set a quota which required that X% of backwards class people must enroll every year. The problem was that there simply were not enough backwards applicants to even make that percentage. Due to this, they made it a rule that the percentage accumulates over the years. For example, let's say it's 10% this year. Next year, if only 5% enroll, another 5% will be added to the quota. It became so huge that eventually the ENTIRE CLASS was set to be backwards class people (close to 100%). All of the smart kids not getting in got *<strong><em>ed, and the backwards class people got *</em></strong>ed too.</p>
<p>This is just one example. India has been "ahead" as far as affirmative action goes for years. But that's just the problem: It usually doesn't work.</p>
<p>Not to mention that anyone who is rich can simply buy their way into many Indian schools just because money is so powerful over there. There are certain medical schools where kids can make "donations" of set "amounts" and be "guaranteed" admission. Real fair, huh? Ivies cater to the rich, but they do it skillfully without destroying the reputation of the school.</p>
<p>It is easy to be "skillful" behind closed doors acting above the law. I think we are lucky (minorities) to be let in to the Ivy League once in a while. "You better learn not to rock the boat since we are only visitors at the club." I was told this at Princeton someone in authority regarding a complaint I had LOL. Interesting isn't it.</p>
<p>Interesting hedoya. A harsh accusation with no support.
You seem to have joined CC for no other purpose than to disparage Princeton (much like one who departed CC just prior to your arrival).
Your post history is very telling.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that anyone would say that hedoya. I think that many of the inadequacies that we perceive in ourselves are often chalked up to aristocracy culture when they shouldn't be. Lose our jobs? Oh some fat corporate cat is taking all of the money. War gone awry? Oh blame the corrupt politician at the front of it all. Economy sucks? Oh stupid oil guys messing everything up. Weather run amuck? Oh it's global warming, but I'm going to drive my 10MPG Hummer to work every day anyway, even though I watched Al Gore's movie 100 times.</p>
<p>Just keep blaming others. It will get you far until you realize that there isn't any point.</p>
<p>I don't think that Harvard accepts people just for their academics, and accepting people "because of the skin color" is not always to meet quotas, but to bring diversity and different outlooks on life. Accepting people with 2400s, millions of ECs, and 4.0s will breed the same kind of student. And we have to remember that not everyone has the same opportunities as others, especially minorities, not because they aren't smart enough, but because they don't have the same resources. Don't take this as a generalization of all the minorities they accept though, I can only speak on behalf of my experience.</p>
<p>Sorry I think the system can be improved. There was a time when women were not permitted to matriculate. I am sorry you are getting the wrong impression but there is room for improvement at all schools in all areas including Princeton, Harvard, Yale and the rest. If you love your school you work towards improvement and voice your opinions.</p>
<p>And I am proud to say I am all for transparency of process and accountability. Is that not the American way?</p>
<p>Cledus Judd - Don't Mess With America</p>