<p>@Momzie - If you were only admitting one or two Hispanics, you would be correct. But if you admit a large enough number you will mimic their overall views and thus bring more to the campus than if you didn’t have them. Their “role” isn’t to contribute to diversity. They do that just by being who they are. You tell me. How else are you going to get the perspective of someone who grew up as an illegal immigrant, or as resident of the projects with gangs all around, or as a black in a 95% white public school in the suburbs, on a day in and day out basis in your classes if they can’t get admitted in the first place? Why can’t it be a win-win for the student and the university?</p>
<p>@fallenchemist - One takeaway for thought, but it applies universally to everything you said - 100 people could vote democrat for 500 different reasons. Therefore, it still does not mean you can predetermine what they think or believe. </p>
<p>I do not think I read too much into what you wrote, I just did what you probably did not expect, I took it at face value and did not pre-determine or have any pre-conceived notion that you meant anything other than what you wrote.</p>
<p>@fallenchemist - The moderator does not even want AA implied on the thread. Not sure if your last post comes close, but just be aware. I may disagree either you, but your posts are worth reading and it would be a loss to have the thread closed. </p>
<p>@awcntdb - You still completely don’t get it. Sure they can vote Democratic for 500 different reasons. But put any of them, especially a fair number of them, in a group that grew up in a household that voted 90% Republican, and guess what? You are very likely to get some interesting new and different viewpoints.</p>
<p>You just don’t get what I am saying at all. That’s OK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true. To wit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So apparently this student–as judged by the highly knowledgeable online poster awcntbd–is “nothing special.” He apparently lacks the “merit” (whatever that is) necessary for success at any of eight Ivy League schools. </p>
<p>I’m just SO GLAD we have so many armchair admissions officers here who have the only true insight into who is likely to make it at competitive schools.</p>
<p>Some people may look at this young man as a lesser admit. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. I personally think that they are wrong, but I am probably not going to sway them into thinking differently. Pre-internet days, it would have been a nice local story and that would have been it. Now with instantaneous, 24/7 news, twitter etc…, it is a huge story. I am on the side of people who think he would have been better served not sharing his essay. </p>
<p>Let me put it in a different perspective from race. I think that Hunt has alluded to the legacy hook/tip in relation to other applicants. When I helped my son move in to his dorm at university. I went to a reception sponsored by his residential college. I was probably at the reception for about an hour and spoke to a number of parents while I was there. Five out of the eight parents (62%) with whom I spoke were legacy parents. Now, I could have come away from that reception thinking, wow, those legacy kids have such a huge advantage over everyone else. They must admit them at a much higher percentage than everyone else. Here’s why my logic would be flawed. Maybe more legacy parents attended the reception than other parents; so, my odds of meeting and talking to a legacy parents would be higher. Two, maybe more legacy parents helped with move in. Three, maybe I just randomly happened to speak more legacy parents. Assuming any pattern from one person/encounter/situation is ridiculous. I think that there aren’t many legacy students walking around on campus thinking that they don’t belong and won’t be intellectually keep up with the students who were non-legacy admits with higher scores/GPAs. Nor, do I see posts on CC to that effect. Why do people assume that Kwasi or other URMs won’t be able to keep up or will be damaged by the whole process?</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily think that he lacks the merit. But at the same time, probably >50% of the Ivy applicant pool have the merit (many even more than him) necessary for success. But what made the admissions offices choose HIM instead of the other hundreds of thousands of applicants?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^^^We cannot know or assume we know the answer to that since we haven’t read his supplemental essays, his LORs, or any other information in his package that we haven’t been privy to. Did he interview? If so, maybe he knocked their socks off with his personality. Maybe, like people keep saying, it wasn’t any one thing, but was the whole package that the schools liked. “Merit” to the Ivy Leagues is subjective.</p>
<p>IMO it’s highly arrogant and presumptuous to say that this young man’s acceptance is proof that anyone else is being denied “what they deserve.” Wish I could remember the poster who made that comment (really hate the lack of post numbers).</p>
<p>@fallenchemist - I do get it, and you have described it well; I just do not prescribe to it, and really reject it as an operating mode of when I deal with people. That is the difference. </p>
<p>@awcntdb - I don’t use it when dealing with individual people either. The fact that you think I do after all that I have said proves to me that you still don’t get it.</p>
<p>@momofmusician 17 - “Some people may look at this young man as a lesser admit.”</p>
<p>You are correct that some do see him as a lesser admit and that is unfortunate and it is not correct. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, two issues have been conflated. There is a drastic difference with being an absolute worthy Ivy admit, which he is, and being a superstar admit above all others. </p>
<p>I do not think we can blame others for seeing the headlines and getting sucked in and all ready to see this superstar Ivy Leaguer. That was the build up across the news. Superstar Ivy student was one headline I saw. Even I was suckered in. </p>
<p>Then, people see his actual record and see him on TV and realize that he is no over-the-top superstar or even genius, but yet is still a damn strong, nice, worthy Ivy admit. The substance did not match the headlines and that is the problem here, and he got the short end. </p>
<p>I think my one kid (a multiple Ivy admit this year himself) said it best, “OK, I did all what he did by end of 10th grade, what is so awesome here?” Fair question. Because of the news headlines, my son was rightfully expecting something / someone else bigger, grander and actually produced something; a Zuckerberg or someone like that. I can tell you my son cannot be not the only current Ivy admit sitting on the couch saying the same thing. </p>
<p>I am not going to blame the messenger because the student cooperated with the storyline, but the news buildups helped cause a disconnect between the headlines and the supporting substance.</p>
<p>^I agree with you that the media hyped up this story too much. Having said that, I am impressed with a lot of kids’ accomplishments–and my threshold for being impressed seems a lot lower than yours or your son’s. Kids don’t have to have cured cancer by the age of 17 or played in symphony orchestras around the world or patented some great new invention. Remember that colleges are looking for POTENTIAL for great things. Kids’ high school records are just a window into what that potential might be.</p>
<p>@fallenchemist - What you said is simple to understand. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I do not get it; it only means I have a different philosophical construct and viewpoint about what you stated. Please do not confuse not agreeing with you with not understanding. </p>
<p>@sally305 - “Kids don’t have to have cured cancer by the age of 17 or played in symphony orchestras around the world or patented some great new invention.”</p>
<p>Absolutely agree, but unfortunately that was not what was sold. People, including me, were let down when I saw what the hype was compared to the actual story. I made that clear in multiple posts and have been consistent throughout.</p>
<p>“See this is the problem - he putting himself out there and he is coming off as nothing special for the Ivys. An Ivy admit, sure but he needs to present better, stronger and have actually produced something noteworthy for people, who know the Ivys, to reach the conclusion he is special within the Ivies. And unfortunately, that is how he is being presented, which is not the case”</p>
<p>It’s amazing to me that grown adults don’t get that HE isn’t “presenting himself” a certain way - that the interviewers / journalists are the one who choose how to present these people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Additionally, I find the title of this thread to be purposefully disingenuous.</p>
<p>But awcntdb, it doesn’t matter what you think. Why is that so hard to understand? This kid’s purpose in life is not to impress you. To say you were “let down” ascribes some intent to him that simply does not exist.</p>
<p>@nrdsb4 said “Additionally, I find the title of this thread to be purposefully disingenuous.”</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree with you more. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - I do disagree. He is no innocent bystander. Like my kids, he could have said, No thank you, to the overhyped stories and interviews. He has other family members who went to the Ivys, so he had to have known this was overhyped. </p>
<p>More generally, at age 18, there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. At age 15, my kids knew how to shut this kind of stuff down and did. My kids tell adults “no” about things all the time. They control their lives. Maybe I am in error expecting the same here. </p>
<p>^I seriously doubt your kids had the opportunities for 15 minutes of fame that this kid did. And so what that he didn’t turn down the chance to appear on TV? Maybe part of his rationale was to draw attention to the fact that people of color can do things that many seem to think are impossible (for them or for anyone). It’s just bizarre that you want to discredit this kid so much. How about we wait a few years and see how he turns out?</p>