<p>What do you guys think?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who enraged parents and morning show viewers everywhere when she published her parenting book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, must be feeling somewhat vindicated today.
Chua's eldest daughter was just accepted to Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well…this is sort of non-news news. Basically, who cares? With that said, I had a glance at the comments. They are so depressing to read that it’s almost (just almost) slightly comical. I love the comments calling out Harvard for perpetuating elitism and corporatism immediately followed by one condeming it for teaching ‘communism/socialism’. </p>
<p>I’m sure the irony is lost on the commenters.</p>
<p>My sincere congratulations to her daughter. While I cannot agree to Chua’s parenting principles, she is admirable in her willingness to speak up for her own beliefs. You can’t condemn the character of someone because you disagree with what they believe, nor can you judge the viewpoints of a person based on that of her relations.</p>
<p>I read an article the daughter wrote in response to people’s reactions to her mother’s book. She sounded mature and sensible, an interesting person that I would love to have in my classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s that even supposed to mean? Love the arrogant and bitter tone of that article :rolleyes:!</p>
<p>Her daughter’s acceptance doesn’t validate the effectiveness of her parenting, or show anything about the background of Harvard students. There’re thousands and thousands of students at H, all coming from vastly different backgrounds. Look through the acceptance threads. Do you see any two person that are the same? Her daughter will merely add to that spectrum of diversity. </p>
<p>Also, acceptance to Harvard doesn’t equate to anything, other than that you now have the privilege to enjoy four undergrad years at a good college. Plenty of high achieving student don’t even consider applying to elite schools and do just fine in life.</p>
<p>I love the Tiger mom and I am so honored to have Sophia as a classmate:)</p>
<p>This is a bit OT, but I gasped a bit when I read:
</p>
<p>Do you really think that people shouldn’t be able to condemn someone’s character because of his or her beliefs (i.e. sexism, racism, belief in genocide, etc)?</p>
<p>I don’t think you should. You condemn and disagree with the belief, not the person…</p>
<p>In the examples you gave, 200 years ago, someone who saw slavery and segregation as acceptable (which should the vast majority of Americans) is not necessarily evil or unkind, or a husband who sees his wife as not fit for anything other than the management of the domestic affairs can be quite respectable and honorable. You can’t decide on the character of a person because of beliefs much dictated by society, culture, or past experience.</p>
<p>When I heard about this I googled it.</p>
<p>Almost without exception the articles were headlined as “Tiger Mom wins, daughter accepted to Harvard”.</p>
<p>I give up. I’ve said it so many times I can hardly bring myself to say it again. I’m glad my daughter doesn’t go to Harvard. She didn’t like it when we visited so she didn’t want to go there. I wanted her to go to a small teaching college so I didn’t want her to go there.</p>
<p>But apparently since my daughter didn’t get into Harvard I’ve lost some competition I was in with Amy Chua. I feel very defeated, not because I lost the competition but because I never agreed to it in the first place.</p>
<p>You can’t meaningfully speak of judging character and beliefs because the two terms are sometimes overlapping and sometimes not. </p>
<p>Can you call something a “belief” if only one person believes in it? Or is that just a physical manifestation of his character? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what about human traffickers in the modern day? Do they “believe in slavery” still and thus are vindicated from our criticism or are they of poor character? You might make the argument that modern day slavery shows poor character because now there’s a widespread alternative beleif, and of the slaveowners in 1600, some had good characters and practiced slavery only because of widespread “belief,” while some would have still practiced slavery anyway because of their poor character. But then that runs into problems because I doubt there was any moment in history where someone didn’t challenge the moral permissibility of slavery. Everyone always had a choice.</p>
<p>It would be interesting having Sophia Chua as a classmate o:</p>
<p>When Harvard admissions determines whether or not to admit an applicant, there are two important factors (given that the applicant has stellar academics and ECs):</p>
<ol>
<li>What will this applicant bring to the class?</li>
<li>Will this applicant graduate, be famous/wellknown and/or make loads of money and donate to Harvard?</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m not joking. This is what admissions said.</p>
<p>So I guess Sophia fits the criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, you’re totally right. Faulty statement on my part in the first place :).</p>
<p>Just a thought- maybe Harvard admitted her because a)she was a double legacy, and b) they would make headlines exactly like this one?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>That may very well be the case. ¡Y si no te gusta, te jodes!</p>
<p>Does Sophia indicate academic prowess besides her musical achievements? It would seem like she was admitted based on her double legacy. What percent of Harvard admits are admitted solely based on legacy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, her academic record is outstanding. All As, the most challenging courses, I don’t know about her test scores.</p>
<p>$10 bucks says she turns slacker in college</p>
<p>I’m so tired of people on CC putting others down in order to feel better about themselves.</p>
<p>Some posts in thread are in extreme bad taste. She worked hard all her life, committed to a myriad of curricular and co-curricular involvements and it paid off. It is not in any way a validation of her mother’s parenting style, it is just a validation of her merit, achievements, and potential to be a positive contributor within the Harvard community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. URMs don’t deserve to go to Harvard. Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld is a damaged shell of a person who was accepted solely because her acceptance would generate controversy. Evan O’Dorney is perceived as discourteous and therefore has no life and deserves our ridicule for being so smart. Et cetera.</p>
<p>The bitterness, I just can’t.</p>