<p>
</p>
<p>I think she understood the issues perfectly – there is a strong game component to the application process. Perhaps she decided to not pursue some of them, either out of principle or by assuming her stats as they stood would be sufficient.</p>
<p>It is also quite possible that she nevertheless got into one or more elite schools if not HYP – almost everyone gets some rejections.</p>
<p>This kind of article is almost impossible to get published without an inside connection. Considering this I think Mrs Weiss is doing just fine in the preference dept.</p>
<p>[Suzy</a> Lee Weiss: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me - WSJ.com](<a href=“Suzy Lee Weiss: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me - WSJ”>Suzy Lee Weiss: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me - WSJ)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then how is that anybody else’s fault but hers? This seems to fault colleges for looking at the intangibles and engagement outside of the classroom, which is not the case. If, by principle, she didn’t find merit in anything she engaged in outside of the classroom, she’s not the type of student those colleges are looking for, and the top colleges don’t hide any of it. I can understand well-qualified students being upset at rejections-- but students who make fun of what may be overdone ECs but not addressing true engagement is the problem. I still doubt that colleges value the ‘African volunteering trip’ student in a vacuumn.</p>
<p>Loved the piece. Unfortunately, it captures something we all know is going on. Adcoms sort people into boxes that get dealt with differently (this is not an invitation to open up debate about preferences for legacies, URMs, athletes or scions of the rich and/or famous). Kids manufacture pseudo-credentials and those with experienced, plugged in parents are advantaged in this. The mythology promoted by Adcoms is that they see through this, but my guess is that they see through only the poorest attempts at pseudo-credential manufacturing. When I talk to kids at tippy-top schools, I see significant evidence that shameless self-promotion combined with proactivity works if you are good at it – stands to reason as it tends to work in corporations and politics as well. So, within each box, schools overweight self-promotion/proactivity. Given that skilled self-promotion/proactivity is probably correlated with life success, maybe that overweighting is not so bad. </p>
<p>I think that what bothers the author is that she believed the purer than snow meritocratic explanation the schools give for how and why they do admissions. She has a sense that she was taken in by a self-serving, hypocritical story. What makes us smile is that her over-the-top descriptions have just enough of the truth in them.</p>
<p>Agree the article perceptively captures the “spinning” of high school students. So many students pad resume to gain Ivy only to spend next few years mostly on the lawn playing frisbee. </p>
<p>Sooner or later, the colleges will wise up and follow the European model of rewarding pure brain power and understanding that very smart kids are naturally interesting whether or not their resumes look like those of someone much older.</p>
<p>Shawbridge, I’m 100% with you.</p>
<p>I agree with you, purpleacorn. Weirdly enough, I am equally tired with this witty, albeit well put together “college admissions is immoral and unfair” stuff as I am with the obvious fact that college admissions is indeed, at times, immoral and unfair.</p>
<p>I got a chuckle out of the fact that someone has already altered the Wikipedia article about her high school to add:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Taylor</a> Allderdice High School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Allderdice_High_School]Taylor”>Taylor Allderdice High School - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I think the problem with college admissions is just that most students go in thinking the numbers didn’t apply to them, and as a society, parents/teachers have constantly sold us on the idea of a ‘dream school’ and reaffirmed that ‘we are good enough.’</p>
<p>I’m increasingly annoyed with students who blame others on their own lack of admissions. I’m an ORM in college admissions, and I didn’t have the opportunities that some of my peers had because of family situations (though I am still extremely lucky and blessed). However, I’m happy with the choices I get to have regarding schools, because they’re all fantastic opportunities. I know friends who were accepted and rejected to the uber-selective schools, and all of them deserved it. Sure, there might have been some application padding, but the kids I know that got in are truly as exceptional as these schools would have you believe, tbh. The ones I know that got in are all genuinely good students, friends, and people, they deserve it, I promise. (And quite a few of them are Asian Americans, who, depending on who you ask, are at even more of a disadvantage as Ms. Weiss’s ‘saltine-cracker’ diversity.)</p>
<p>The sad fact is just that these schools don’t have enough spots, even for the truly exceptional and brilliant kids, let alone the genuine ones. But not getting into one of the lottery schools isn’t the end of the world-- the kind of student that applies to those schools for the opportunities will make his/her own opportunities wherever they go, even if it’s ‘just’ the flagship or a local directional.</p>
<p>Yes, admissions isn’t fair, but life isn’t either. The people around her have lied to her if they told her she could get into those schools. These schools don’t make any qualms about how selective they are or the brilliant cohort of students they are looking for.</p>
<p>Did you all really think she sounded bitter? I thought she was funny and loved her descriptions: calling herself diverse as a saltine cracker for example. </p>
<p>I agree with Shawbridge’s take.</p>
<p>the article is funny, purpleacorn, and wise.</p>
<p>I did, but perhaps that was her portrayal of EC descriptions. To me, she seemed like she only highlighted the stereotypical ‘rich, overpriveleged’ ones, and it seemed to me that she was ignoring (or pretending they didn’t exist) the ones fueled by actual interest and engagement. Yes, kids do start fake charities and go on mission trips, but then there are the kids I know that started real charities that accomplished significant amounts or the ones that raised money for the year before their mission trip. Perhaps I have blinders on, but I know of too many deserving kids who did engage in their communities extensively to buy her portrayal that all extra-curriculars are done solely for the resume boost.</p>
<p>Edit: poetgrl, I don’t deny that it’s funny, but I came out of it with a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps I’m in the minority, but that’s just my personal reaction to the article.</p>
<p>Another support for Shawbridge.</p>
<p>Perhaps adcoms are well intended and truly want to reward the real vs. fake charity starters. However, we all know that college admissions became a game. The more schools value the intangibles, the more they favor the wealthy. It is much easier to start a company, start a charity, volunteer at a lab, hire ghost writers/statisticians, become well traveled, build your own robot, “volunteer”, etc. if you come from a well to do family.</p>
<p>Yes, some adjustments have to be made, say adjustments for the HS the student graduated from, but again, the more adcoms weight intangibles, the more they create room for gaming the system.</p>
<p>jsmathwiz - I have to tell you, your post was insensitive and rude. My kid and the writer of the article deserved to get into the tippy top schools just as much as your kid did. Just because they’re not URM’s doesn’t mean they’re any less deserving than your kid. So it’s very frustrating for those “spoiled rich kids” who get shut out. They’re allowed to feel slighted and say so.</p>
<p>@jsmathwiz </p>
<p>“URM and lgbtq child”</p>
<p>…well, no wonder she got into the top institutions…<em>cough</em>affirmativeaction<em>cough</em></p>
<p>How are all of you missing that the post was a JOKE!!!</p>
<p>I don’t think we are jonri. I think some of us laughed at the joke and appreciated the humor while others thought the joke fell flat.</p>
<p>Purpleacorn, I take a pretty jaded view of kids who found their own charities but in the end, jaded or not, I think it’s a really good thing that more kids are bringing more good to the world. I don’t even care whether it’s strategic or genuine. I’m glad to see the giving and I hope that it brings more awareness to the teen who becomes involved in philanthropy and informs his/her life going forward.</p>
<p>The only time I lose perspective is when I see kids putting items on their resume and then not fulfilling the obligations associated with the items or relying on other classmates to pull extra weight for them (lab reports, homework) so that they can fit all the items in.</p>
<p>…lol what a Rocky III moment</p>
<p>In the words of Clubber Lang “I pity the fool”</p>
<p>^ I do believe that the article was written tongue-in-cheek. However, she does start off with the perpetuation of the myth that AA is the way to the Ivies. If it were that easy, we would see a much higher percentage of URMs at Ivy league schools.</p>
<p>@stantheman66 - seriously, URM children have to have the same stats, ecs, stellar essays and recommendations as their ORM counterparts. Your post really irritated me because you obviously haven’t been on some of websites where the URMs have been rejected with stats that are comparable to their ORM counterparts who were accepted. If you believe that in this day and age that being an URM and/or gay alone will get you into an Ivy league school, you are kidding yourself.</p>
<p>agree with #39. </p>
<p>but we must consider the source (the wall street journal–a right wing propaganda machine if ever there was one). i honestly doubt whether the author really was an 18-year-old ‘kid’, rather than a disgruntled adult who wanted to take advantage of admissions season to make a statement against affirmative action. maybe trying to influence policy? of course, i could be wrong.</p>