<p>Would just like to add my two-cents worth on the argument raging here, simply because I'm also Wesleyan Freeman Scholar 09 and hate to see bickering between my two partners from Hong Kong.</p>
<p>I'm from Malaysia, and this is the first I've heard of UWC's, so do correct me if I am wrong. From what I've read, UWC's seems to offer a very good deal, so much so that it gives impressions of being elitist to those outside it's system. For instance, think of the Ivy League, isn't there some serious prestige attached to it?</p>
<p>Even though, as Gianievve said, UWC does offer need-based scholarships, that does not mean a 'rich arrogant' stereotype would be eliminated. A stereotype is nothing but public perception, Neha1 and Boomer01 seem to be saying that the high fees, highly selective entrance procedures, general affluence of the students (face it, there will be more well-rounded high achievers among the rich, it's a question of opportunities), and perhaps arrogant behavior of a few individuals have served to reinforce this view.</p>
<p>OK, so here's what I got from the argument going on....</p>
<p>Jurily's first two comments are to me perfectly valid expressions of a personal opinion, perhaps she happens to know a couple of jerks who happen to be UWCers. I agree that, as Cevonia alluded, the generalisation was in bad taste. Despite that, Jurily has the freedom to express that view.</p>
<p>Jurily's next two comments were no longer contributed in a manner conducive to the discussion. The first is vaguely self-congratulating, and both seemed malicious in nature, aiming to discredit UWCs. Jurily, such personal views of yours should be conveyed diplomatically with more tact, or else not expressed at all.</p>
<p>Wallace's reply to Jurily is choke-full of expletives, and launches a direct, provocative attack on Jurily's 'person'. I disagree with this strongly, I think An<em>outcry</em>to_ignorance would agree with me that this is not the type of 'true communication' that UWCers are supposed to know and show.</p>
<p>Things just go downhill from there. Jurily gets emotional, the core of her next post seems to be simply what I said in the above paragraph, but contains some badly worded sentences that sparks even more controversy. Kill<em>yew and An</em>outcry<em>to</em>ignorance come to the defense of their 'school', but do so using language and tone that would only serve to (intentionally or not) further provoke Jurily.</p>
<p>Here's the way I see it. Jurily has made two main accusations, the first being that UWCers are jerks. Though it seems Jurily never meant it as a generalisation, the statement has since been retracted. Can we agree to let it rest, if Jurily apologises?</p>
<p>The next is this "UWC prestige crap". An<em>outcry</em>to<em>ignorance, I think you were mistaken to look at the words separately. Reading the original post, I am of the opinion that Jurily meant that "the prestige/reputation that UWC enjoys among 'outsiders' is misplaced". Kill</em>yew said "(they) never think (they) are a better school", An<em>outcry</em>to_ignorance said "UWC is also ordinary". You all seem to agree, at least a little. It is just that Jurily's words were horribly crude.</p>
<p>Wallace ought to apologise to everyone (especially to Jurily) for the language used.</p>
<p>The rest of the accusations and complaints came after provocation, from one side or another. In Malaysia we have 3 major races, and a number of smallers ones, all jumbled together. If we started insulting each other the whole country would fall apart. Hence diplomacy and tolerance is a large part of our culture. UWCers I have yet to see any of this 'true communication' An<em>outcry</em>to_ignorance talked about.</p>
<p>The aim of communication has always been to avoid confrontations and to develop understanding. That's what this forum is for, isn't it? To spread knowledge of UWC and encourage balanced discussions about its strengths and weaknesses. Lets see some of that here, please.</p>
<p>My apologies to anyone I have insulted, it was not done intentionally.</p>