<p>
</p>
<p>From what I can gather, folks have gone further than this.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NjQ2ODE1[/url]”>http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NjQ2ODE1</a></p>
<p>Here is an excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the perspective of this foreigner, the American college admissions game is downright strange.</p>
<p>Canuck guy, American college admissions are actually pretty straight-forward. It’s only the race for the few spots in ultra-elite schools that is downright strange.</p>
<p>Did nobody else find it ironic that kelsmom prefaced her diatribe with:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and then only managed to do the same thing to me, here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can barely talk around all those words you stuffed in my mouth.</p>
<p>Same goes for everybody else who mentioned my name; thanks, guys, for completely misinterpreting just about everything I wrote.</p>
<p>I guess I was wrong in assuming the tenor of the debate would change once we switched the vocabulary of <em>race</em> for the vocabulary of <em>socio-economic background</em>. What this thread seems to portend is that the debate will always depend on who’s ox is being gored. Props to Amherst for opening it up.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no personal “ox” in this debate. My family is fine, my kids are well and happy (one is at flagship U; other is heading toward some school–to us it doesn’t matter in the least if it’s not an elite LAC or HYSPQRSTUV). I think it’s interesting to offer a different perspective from time to time. Obviously, others don’t see it that way. I think what Amherst is up to is pretty transparent, but that’s just mho. Of course they are free to do as they wish, and I would hope we are free to comment on their decisions. It seems to me we all want the same goal of more opportunity for African Americans. I don’t see what the problem is in suggesting there may be other, or perhaps even better, ways than a few admittances to HSYP and elite LACS as the best means to achieve that goal.</p>
<p>I didn’t see one person here criticize Mr. Jack personally. Everyone expressed their admiration for his achievements and wished him the best for a very well-deserved successful and happy future. If I didn’t make it clear that I also feel that way, I would like to do so now.</p>
<p>I have never thought the goal was “more opportunity for African Americans.” The goal is what it has always been: relevance.</p>
<p>Tommybill, to my knowledge, the only current US senator who was a KKK member is a left wing Democrat: Robert Byrd. But let’s direct the conversation to arguments that are taking place in THIS century, O.K.?</p>
<p>I stand corrected: relevance.</p>
<p>Juxtaposn, if I completely missed the point on what you were trying to say, I apologize. However, the way I interpreted it is absolutely the way it came across to me. Curmudgeon inquired earlier what set me off. It’s the sense of entitlement I see over & over in posts on CC. Time and again, I see posts from students about how “unfair” the admissions process is. Unfair to whom? To those students who somehow feel entitled to acceptance simply because they achieved a certain profile that they believe qualifies them to be accepted. But it doesn’t work that way, and colleges are not in the business of accepting every kid who feels he/she is qualified. The selective schools are very upfront about the fact that they do not simply look at grades & test scores. They are also upfront about the fact that a very well qualified student may be passed over in favor of a student with some other profile (and that may well be a “lesser” profile in the eyes of the student passed over). Private schools have every right to have whatever admissions policy they choose.</p>
<p>If the supposedly unqualified (okay, less-than-qualified) students are able to stay in the college, they obviously were NOT so unqualified, after all.</p>
<p>As far as my personal beliefs are concerned, I happen to believe in the value of a diverse student body, carefully selected to provide a nice balance of experiences, interests, skills, values, etc. I think it’s one of the great things colleges can provide for students. Those schools that choose to operate this way are tops in my book. Those who don’t agree with these methods of putting together a student body need not apply to selective schools — and the schools cited here (such as Harvard, Amherst … was Williams also cited?) ARE honest about their admissions process. That is, they don’t tell you exactly how they choose students … so how can anyone make a point that the schools are hiding anything? I don’t get it. They don’t have cut & dried formulas, so there is no way to cry “unfair.” Part of their selectivity goes beyond grades & scores, and adcoms are totally honest about that fact.</p>
<p>There are many excellent colleges. A student with excellent stats will get into some good schools, so it’s not like being turned down by a particular school in favor of someone “less qualified” will keep that student from going to a decent school.</p>
<p>By the way, for every disadvantaged kid who gets a seemingly amazing break & turns it into a better life, that is one less family in the cycle of poverty. How can that hurt anyone?</p>
<p>Seems to me the least these upper-crust LACs, indeed each of us who has been lucky enough to receive an education, can do is to extend a helping hand to somebody like Jack. I like the imagery of leveling the playing field. He was fighting like crazy–uphill all the way–to get out of his circumstances by doing well in school. His position in life was out of his control, but he could control his work ethic and focus. Seems to me education is the best way to change the circumstances he (or his family) did nothing to create. Thanks to his educaiton, he can now break the cycle for himself and, no doubt, many others.</p>
<p>He proved that he could do the work! How unfair that there are many more Jacks out there who are denied quality educations because they didn’t have the guidance, extra help, money, etc. to make up a measly couple hundred SAT points. Call it gene pool, call it privilege–to whom much is given, much is expected. I have such respect for somebody who can fight the odds and get it done like Jack did!</p>
<p>As for those who have a sense of entitlement, who begrudge giving somebody a break, who cry foul because Amherst extends the helping hand–well, they will probably never understand and those of us who ‘get it’ probably shouldn’t waste our energies trying to explain. The Jacks of the world will, no doubt, make great contributions to the society we ALL must live with!</p>
<p>Stickershock don’t you think limiting the discussion of cultural trends and political issues to just the last 8 years is a mistake. History has so much to teach us it seems to me to be a mistake to ignore it. </p>
<p>I gave one example of the right wing’s discouraging diversity and opposing people and circumstances that would encourage it. The example I gave was and is of huge cultural and political importance to our nation. Your response is to say that happened too long ago to not matter, I disagree with you in that regard. Rather than trying to respond to your definition of the issue with a lesser example of the right wing discouraging diversity, can you give me an example of the right wing encouraging diversity? </p>
<p>BTW Robert Byrd is an institutionlist not left wing.</p>
<p>I made an typo above…</p>
<p>Stickershock don’t you think limiting the discussion of cultural trends and political issues to just the last 8 years is a mistake. History has so much to teach us it seems to me to be a mistake to ignore it. </p>
<p>I gave one example of the right wing’s discouraging diversity and opposing people and circumstances that would encourage it. The example I gave was and is of huge cultural and political importance to our nation. Your response is to say that happened too long ago to matter, I disagree with you in that regard. Rather than trying to respond to your definition of the issue with a lesser example of the right wing discouraging diversity, can you give me an example of the right wing encouraging diversity? </p>
<p>BTW Robert Byrd is an institutionlist not left wing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand corrected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was that the same Earl Warren that put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Am I the only one that find the logic here convoluted?</p>
<p>As you can probably tell, I have no vested interest here whatsoever.</p>
<p>I read the NYT articles very carefully and I do not understand many comments made by the posters. Mr Jack is a bright young man he deserves praise on his own merit. Why so many assumptions must be made about his past? What extraordinary hardship did he experience besides coming from a low-income family with a single parent? Did he grow up in public housing or in a shelter? Worked to support his family? Lacked medical care? Perhaps he did, perhaps he didnt, it is not described. He had a loving and supportive mother. How was he disadvantaged by attending a gifted program in elementary school to a magnet middle school and, in his final year of high school, to the private Gulliver Preparatory School on a full scholarship? What sort of social stigma did he have to fight in that environment? </p>
<p>Before you throw stones at me, let me mention that I have experienced somewhat similar circumstances. In 1989 I arrived to the US as a legal immigrant (political refugee) and my D was born in public hospital several months later. I was on public assistance for several months before my H found his first low-wage job to support the family. We had no savings, no belongings except some clothes, not even any household items or furniture in the tiny apartment we rented. We slept on the floor for several weeks before brining a mattress and other used furniture we found in the curb garbage piles. We have also received a donation of used baby furniture and other essentials. We hardly spoke any English at the time and did not have any friends or relatives to provide any support or advice. Ten months later I attended a graduate school in addition to TOEFL, I had to pass all required tests in English including general and subject GREs (I did not have a college degree either, but was accepted in spite of this this is a different story though, I did not receive any special considerations due to socio-economic or political status). While preparing for the tests, submitting applications and interviewing at various colleges, I took care of my infant D and cleaned houses for supplemental income. My story is not unique it is rather typical, in fact dozens of my friends have similar experience. Moreover, my elderly parents who came with us have also learnt some rudimentary English and immediately obtained low-wage jobs (clerical /data entry and mechanical plant worker). I swear that never in my lifetime I considered myself or them underprivileged contrary to this, I always felt extremely fortunate and privileged. I never considered food stamps (that I received for 2 months) to be a hardship this was a blessing, FYI you can feed an entire family on food stamp if you are frugal enough. I was healthy, I was not starving, I was not even malnourished, I did not live in a shelter, I was not endangered, I was in a free country in a secure place, I had my family, I had a legal status what hardship did I experience?</p>
<p>And whats with political correctness? Big Medicine TV show describes 300+ lb person as an obesity patient with life threatening disease requiring urgent bariatric surgery, whereas Mr Jack is built like the football player?! When he develops diabetes, hypertensiona and stroke at middle age, he will indeed experience incredible hardship! Instead of helping him to avoid it, the article seems to encourage his appearance. If the journalist MUST mention his physical shape (for no apparent reason as far as I can tell), why not describing it accurately? Does Mr Jack need excuses for his appearance?</p>
<p>I do believe that this article is insulting to Mr Jack as if his own achievements were not striking enough. He is a bright young man why does he need to be pitied by the article and why his biography and appearance must be sugar coated? </p>
<p>P.S. For an obvious reason, I signed in under new user name</p>
<p>Canuckguy: yes, the logic is totally convoluted. But that is how any discussion about “diversity admissions” goes. Along with twisted thought, the tired polemic of “evil rich right winger” is trotted out to dismiss anyone who suggests that schools be honest with the upcoming applicants about the % of spots that are targeted for what preference candidates. If kids know that “the elites” are hoping to fill 40% of spots with low income students with GPA of 3.0-3.5 and SAT of 1050-1200, and another 25% with legacies with the same credentials, then that kid with no brownie points can make an informed decision whether to compete on his record against Intel award winners for a spot in the remaining 35%. Why not be up front with everyone that the focus for the class of 2011 is X % of this and X % of that and the rest will be strictly on the high school record of top scores/grades/EC’s? We demand truth in labeling, truth in advertising. How about some truth in the admissions game? If kids had this information I suspect that the pressure and frenzy of the entire process would be lessened. I also suspect that those schools that announce their target percentages for preference candidates would see a drop in applications, a correlative drop in money, and perhaps a drop in the pool/selectivity rating. This couldn’t be the dissentive to such candor could it?</p>
<p>If kids know that “the elites” are hoping to fill 40% of spots with low income students with GPA of 3.0-3.5 and SAT of 1050-1200, and another 25% with legacies with the same credentials</p>
<p>Patty… you just make this stuff up…no one is misleading you but you are misleading others…How about some truth from you about the admissions game?</p>
<p>I think that legacies often have the same credentials, they just get an extra push. The SAT scores of 1050-1200 for Ivy or very selective LACs legacies quoted above are not true.</p>
<p>I think if the schools want students from various backgrounds who then do succeed, if they can predict, then that’s fine.</p>
<p>It’s when schools, esp some selective public universities, make such a big deal about accepting minorities, and then have minority graduation rates of 50-65%, that it would seem these spaces are being taken away from students who can succeed. Not all public universities have such dismal grad rates, but many do (per JBHE).</p>
<p>What a great statement of the blindingly obvious. Of course these are examples! How would anyone know the true stats? The colleges do not release them. That is the precise point.</p>
<p>Juxtaposn…</p>
<p>I didn’t put any words in your mouth I ask you a question. I’ll ask it again…</p>
<p>If Mr Jack had been an all conference football player football player instead of a Rhodes scholarship nominee would you still think it wrong for Amherst to have admitted him with a SAT score 200 points lower that the median for his Amherst class?</p>
<p>Will you please give me a response?</p>
<p>Patty, which elites are you talking about where 65% of the class has SATs under 1200?</p>