<p>The OP has taken a lot of heat, even as this discussion meanders, for posing what emerges as indisputable truth: it is harder these days for white female applicants from the Northeast. The criticisms have fallen into two categories: (1) how can anyone be naïve enough to think that their D/S will get into ANYWHERE these days, since we are now in lotto-land, and (2) it is not-so-veiled racism (at worst) or elitism (at best) to voice these sentiments. </p>
<p>As to the alleged naivete, the OP showed that he was instead a sophisticated consumer of the information here and everywhere else and his D had, in fact, applied to schools a cut or so below those that disappointed her. Preparing yourself for failure is different than watching your kid curl up and cry. The same passion that led the OP’s D to compile such a list of achievements is also going to result in genuine grief from the D and thus genuine pain from any parent watching their D or S in that position. This group’s substantial collective intellect is at times outweighed by its heartlessness. </p>
<p>As to the entitlement, many of the posters appear to miss the point that these kids do not feel entitled. They instead feel obligated to live up to the high expectations placed upon them and, more importantly, to fulfill their natural talents. They like what they do, they like hard work, and they are good at achieving. That they are driven does not mean that they are mailing it in. That their circumstances are comfortable justifies scorn no more than in previous times, scorn was reserved for those “not of our class, deah.” It is in their DNA to achieve. Many have friends or sisters or brothers who were the lazy ones, but the students who are the topic of this thread have instead been pushing themselves their whole lives. For that, they are now the recipients of snide comments on this thread that they were “born on third base.” They are spoken of as automatons, mailing it in and numbly compiling allegedly college-worthy lists. That devalues their hard work and achievements. It is the worst kind of reverse snobbism – it’s like when Keith Richards and rock critics sucking up to him would say that only the working class can really make up rock bands. </p>
<p>As for the lotto, and CalMom’s repeated theme that not everything works out, that this is like job applications, that really, what’s the big fuss? – That is simply wrong. There is, thank the good Lord, NOTHING in these kids’ lives that is going to be as wildly up in the air as the present college admissions sweepstakes. Winning a promotion, getting a fellowship, making partner – you really think that those endeavors have reduced themselves to a lottery? No way. Are they difficult? Sure. Will the overall odds be low? Yes again. But they will not be so wildly low, merit will not be so severely devalued to the point of insignificance, and they will not lose out just because they are not from Nebraska. Merit and the ability to actually do the work will matter significantly more. The truly naïve are the ones who miss THAT. The disingenuous ones get it but rebut it by justifying it in social imperatives. </p>
<p>As to the worth of “other” colleges beyond and below the elite – I suggest this is a work in progress but hope those posters are correct. My son went to an elite LAC and I saw it lift his game considerably. He skated through high school and would likely have done the same at a less-demanding college. The students there instead made him harder working and awoke a spark in him. I took out of that experience that the quality of students is at least as important as the quality of the professors. For the top schools, it is in some ways an elaborate game with a continuous loop that they cannot lose: they admit top students who do great things upon graduation (and would have from anywhere) and whose glory thus reflects back on the institution, perhaps with very little instruction needed. It is my fervent hope for those now getting into the schools that until Lotto-land had not been graced with students of their GPA/SATs/interest that they will form laboratories that will lift all of THEIR games. If not, then please, let’s not dismiss so easily OP’s angst. It makes a difference, from future resumes to present education, and you know it. </p>
<p>Finally, the race card. Please don’t play it. There are perfectly valid social reasons, starting of course with the stain on our history left by slavery, for affirmative action to remain in place 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are equally valid reasons to suggest, as a recent poster has done, that it is every bit as racist to prefer an African-American student today as there was to exclude her in 1953. We can argue that colleges have the private right to compose their students from as diverse a set of backgrounds as possible so as to make the educational environment truly ennobling, or we can argue that that is as silly as making the swim team as diverse as possible rather than made up of the fastest swimmers. That difficult debate will continue to play out, but until it is resolved, it is ludicrous to pretend that the preferences noted by OP are not there. It is insulting to label those who question them racist. And it is naïve to think that in a society that continues to march forward based on preferences, resentments will not be fostered in tomorrow’s leaders. All choices come with negatives. </p>