<p>I didn’t think this essay was good at all. I’ve seen better essays from middle school students.</p>
<p>@awcntdb -
Your post makes no sense to me. Who is asking Dave Berry to be a censor? Not starting a thread that has a bogus premise isn’t even close to the same thing as censoring anything. That is simply a bizarre thing to say. I am fine with him linking to an article that has the essay, I am simply saying that he put it in a context that is flat out wrong.</p>
<p>The title of the thread is highly misleading. The clear implication in the title is that this essay is what got him over the top, that it was the key factor. Your own list of 6 points says that every one of them helped get him in, that the process is holistic. Most of us agree. But it is turning language on it’s head to take a title that says “Here’s THE College Essay…” and make it seem like he wasn’t implying that it was so good that it was the magic factor that did the trick. Obviously the emphasis there is mine, not his, but if he meant it to be a demonstration of a holistic process, then why didn’t he title the thread “Here Are Many Of The Factors That Got A High School Senior Into Every Ivy League School” and then proceed to list his stats, his EC’s, etc. as well as the essay? By isolating on the essay, he is elevating it above all other considerations to make it seem more important than it probably deserves.</p>
<p>If any one ever watched those 6 videos done by the admissions officer from Stanford that were on YouTube at one point (don’t know if they still are) where she goes into great detail evaluating 6 candidates, it becomes obvious that the essay is not more important than test scores, grades, and leadership positions. So my complaint against Mr. Berry starting this thread stands. It is very misleading as to what goes into admissions considerations.</p>
<p>Finally, your logic that if his essay had been awful he would have gotten denied, so since it was at least passable then it “did get him in” is deeply flawed. Just because something didn’t keep you out doesn’t mean it got you in. Not in and of itself. I think that is where you are confused. You are taking the term “got him in” as meaning anything that contributed “got him in”. That is not what we are talking about here and not at all what the title heavily implies, if not outright says. As I said, if that is what he meant then why isolate on the essay instead of talking about the whole person?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally disagree.</p>
<p>Something that is “not a disqualifier at all” is hardly “The Essay that Got a High School Senior into every Ivy”.</p>
<p>That would be the same as saying “Here’s the 2250 SAT score that got a High School Senior into every Ivy” and then showing a snapshot of his SAT score.</p>
<p>As I said before, any student reading this next year, may actually think that it is an essay like this that gets you into 8 Ivies since that is the way CC has positioned it.</p>
<p>The honest way to present this essay would be a simple, “Here is the essay written by the student who got into 8 Ivies”. And in the description, as a reminder from the previous thread, list the overall stats and ECs. On second thought, that could have just been a post in the original thread about the student. There was no need for a separate thread, much less one with that headline.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are funny!</p>
<p>What the heck do you mean by a non-white/asian student?</p>
<p>You do realize that not everyone can score above a 2100, right? The test is curved. </p>
<p>@awcntdb I never said African Americans aren’t as smart as everyone else. And I’m sorry to be so blatant. I would be glad to compare him to everyone - if that’s what colleges actually do. It’s not, so I have no choice but to also only compare him to other African Americans. </p>
<p>Also, are Asians/Whites smarter than the rest of the population? No. Yet they are clearly and obviously held to a higher standard than URM (Hispanics, AAs) when it comes to college admissions. That’s why being URM is a so-called HOOK. And being Asian is an “anti-hook.”</p>
<p>I’m just doing what colleges in this nation do.</p>
<p>What @fluffy2017 ? If you are asking why I used 2100 as an example is because that’s a typical test score to be admitted into the most selective institutions which is the topic if conversation here. I am not ignorant to the fact that it isn’t even common to score in that range. But it is for the most these universities. I am also not saying that only whites/asians score that high either. I am saying that when it comes to Ivy League applicants and admits (predom white/asian which ironically is what most people fail to realize when they think an “under-qualified AA” took their spot…), that is the case. I don’t get why you’re offended…</p>
<p>Sidenote: I’m personally not a fan of the SAT but then again I’m not a fan of anything that reduces a quality education down to something so simplistic and reliant on recollection rather than actual brain power. I feel slightly offended that the test is even a requirement for most universities (but on the other hand I see why they use it–it’s quick and easy to look at a score than it is to extensively assess a student’s capacity to think deeply). It’s something that I am working to change about the American education system.</p>
<p>@absentions Are you honestly saying that Kwasi was “held to a lower standard” even though he scored above the average? Wow.</p>
<p>I might agree with you about the hook part if your basic premise wasn’t so misguided. I have said this countless times and I will say it again. URM are not held to a lower standard. They are held to the same standard as everyone else. It’s just that if the admissions counselor was holding two applications, scores & objective information alike, the student who likely had a tougher background would be likely be the recommendation for admission. This is simply because this student still maintained great academic standing ALLTHEWHILE dealing with whatever difficulties they may have experienced. That goes for military personnel, URM, working class students, orphans, students with disabilities/handicaps, domestic students living internationally, students who overcame serious illness, victims of abuse/bullying, etc. (I could go on and on). Those are the students universities seem to want. The students who show that they can overcome adverse situations. They also seem to prefer students that can bring something different to the table: innovators, artists, and activists. Those who can (and actually want to) improve the world with their natural abilities.</p>
<p>It’s not plausible to say that universities want those who try to look good by structuring their application around what they assume universities are looking for (e.g. 7,000hrs. of volunteer work at the local soup kitchen and 18 clubs). I’m pretty sure adcoms can detect when a student is doing something to look good/that their parents tell them to do vs. when there is an actual passion.</p>
<p>I love all the haters here. It was probably refreshing for the AO’s to read an essay that actually sounded like it was written by an intelligent 18 year old kid, not by a firm hired by the parents. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you are at a disadvantage if you haven’t had to overcome an adverse situation.</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>@fluffy2017 what are you talking about? You are not at a disadvantage. Overcoming something difficult can only help you–not hurt you if you had no difficulties. It doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>You completely disregarded my entire post in favor of your viewpoint. I just stated that if the admissions counselor had virtually the same student in their hand, and the dividing factor was that Student A. was a war veteran while the other had a relatively ‘easy’ life, the admissions counselor would more than likely go with the war vet who likely witnessed some of his closest comrades die in combat. Yes my statement was poorly worded and looks even worse out of context, but I simply meant that they like students who can overcome adversity (see: Amherst admissions process video, the article on Berkeley’s process, as well as countless other sources that prove this point). However, it’s not the only thing that factors into the situation.</p>
<p>Are you done now?</p>
<p>@scahopeful - But aren’t the terms advantage and disadvantage relative to someone else by definition? If someone has an advantage because they have overcome some adverse situation, then it is impossible that the person without one is at a disadvantage. You said it yourself: If two students are very close in total appeal except one has this particular history and the other doesn’t, the one that had the hardship has an advantage. So of course the other is at a disadvantage. It is indeed a zero sum game because there are only so many slots available.</p>
<p>Now I am not sure how often this really becomes an issue, which maybe that is what you are trying to say. But just taking what you are saying at face value, your argument makes no sense literally by definition. Advantage is not an absolute in this context, it can only be as compared to someone else. When you then make the primary focus the person that had no hardship, you have no choice but to say they are at a disadvantage compared to that person. If there are enough of those applicants that had hardships that it is material to the pool, then the people without hardships suffer. Again, how theoretical all this is I have no idea.</p>
<p>@scahopeful I’m sure that’s the pretext under which admissions offices are functioning. But I, personally, do not believe it. A 2250 and a rank of 11, in an Ivy League applicant pool, are nothing but common and ordinary.</p>
<p>That is exactly what I’m saying, actually. What, then, is the purpose of Affirmative Action? And being URM does NOT mean that someone is disadvantaged socioeconomically (this is 2014, for god sakes). There are plenty of poor Asians out there that do NOT get that special consideration (and poor Whites). There are plenty of rich, resourceful Hispanics and African Americans that do.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not hating. I congratulate him for his accomplishments. Those aren’t easy for ANYONE. I’m just saying that his being URM may have, and most likely, helped him to get accepted at all 8 colleges. There was an Asian female from my old high school who got a 2400/36 (and plenty of leadership positions/ECs) and got rejected by all except for Columbia. I’m sure the game would have played out differently if she was not Asian. </p>
<p>It’s easy to hate and tear apart an essay. Yes, there are better essays out there, but this young man did a good job overall. Maybe not the reason why he got in, but there are other factors to consider as well.</p>
<p>@Yamella - No need for hyperbole and over-dramatization. Critiquing something that was made public by the author is not hate. He put it out there to be critiqued. He just thought it was greater than it is. Just means in his world his writing and teachers are not as awesome as he thought. I darn sure would not let my sons submit it that essay. Just remember, no one stole the essay - he put it out there. At that point, all is fair game. </p>
<p>@absentions - Thank you for your clarification above. I actually agree with you, and to answer your question of the purpose of affirmative action, it is to make certain people feel good about themselves, regardless of the negatives it brings. It is a feel-good program, nothing else. </p>
<p>It is unfortunate people do not see that you cannot solve something by using the very same system you said you despised without being a hypocrite, or worse, becoming the same as your nemesis. Affirmative action is no different than Bull Conner giving preferences to whites, just now it is giving preferences to URMs and whatever group they want to add. There is no difference whatsoever for treating people differently because of skin color is racism, not matter if you swap the people getting preferences. </p>
<p>And people say, “But we have good intentions.” Great, we can now be as discriminatory because we mean good. Bull Conner was meaning good to his people as well. This concept that is OK because the self-titled good people are doing it is a slippery slope to justify anything, as long as good intentions are linked to the argument. Scary! </p>
<p>@scahopeful - You stated, “URM are not held to a lower standard. They are held to the same standard as everyone else.” </p>
<p>What you state is the logic problem that colleges and affirmative action supporters have. If what you state is true, there would be no need for affirmative action and a blind admissions process would be accepted without fanfare. So, clearly the standards are different. </p>
<p>I go one step further. If the standards were the same, colleges would happily release the complete metadata of admits by race to quell the issue. Hum…do not hold your breath for that data. </p>
<p>My recommendation - best not to make such statements that even the colleges are not willing to simply give out data to support. Data that they have on their desks right now. Waiting for release…hum…won’t happen.</p>
<p>And just because people keep repeating that mantra, does not make it true. However, people let the cat out of the bag because when you say if the standards are the same, then get rid of preference programs by race, they argue that is not fair and the preference programs are needed. Hum… Not fair to hold everyone to the same standard? But, I thought standards were the same? The more they talk, the more disingenuous they sound using this same standard line. Even my kids figured how illogical it sounded when they were around age 12. </p>
<p>Additionally, your approach itself is fraught with assumptions, which feed into the falseness of affirmative action. </p>
<p>You state adversity makes students better candidates. Oh really? Go to the jails around this country and tell me why adversity did not make the inmates better people. See the problem? You (and maybe the colleges too) make these leaps of logic that are not supported by anything except your own conjecture. </p>
<p>Many people face adversity, but you cannot make any assumption it was adversity that made them better people. I put money it was most likely an adult somewhere who kept them on the straight and narrow and away from adversity. Forget adversity, I give the unseen adult(s) in student’s lives the bulk of the credit.</p>
<p>You really need to think about this because adversity has no moral virtue or standing just because it is adversity and has no directive power to determine outcomes. </p>
<p>A super-rich white student from Greenwich CT could be as upstanding morally and resilient, as a student who live in a poor, down-trodden neighborhood with gang violence. To state the adversity of poverty and gang violence should be given some extra points if the student comes out a good citizen is nonsensical. Why not give extra points to the super-rich student’s parents too? They did a wonderful job in raising their kid, and they are somehow deemed less worthy because there were no gangs around. </p>
<p>And this is the entire problem, in a nutshell, that I have with this 8-Ivy league story. No white kid would have gotten any of that publicity with that Ivy League profile. And it is surprising to me people do not see it for the blatant racism it is. There is this assumption of adversity, overcoming and struggle just because of his skin color - why do you think they put him on TV? And nothing could be further from the truth. There was no adversity, overcoming or struggle, but it is really just crazy to even assume there was and if such existed that it makes him a better person than someone else. </p>
<p>You can call it what you want, but if a white student would have never gotten noticed for this, but this student did, then it the only proof needed the standards are different. This kid’s excellent, but commonplace Ivy profile is living on the racist’s high-ground. I refuse to join that condescension. He is a wonderful kid with a great academic record and looks like every other Ivy admit. To suggest otherwise is buying into the double-standard so many people say does not exist. And, unlike others, I will view and treat him just like every other kid with that profile; nothing more, nothing less. That, to me, is true equality. </p>
<p>@fallenchemist I understand what your saying and in that context, yes the other student could be at a “disadvantage”. Overall however, the student isn’t at a disadvantage. For example if they were being compared against another student who didn’t have any difficulties then it would not matter because they are both in the same boat.</p>
<p>Note that I never said that the student had a disadvantage overall, only when to being compare to a student who did have struggles. I’m still, in a way, reluctant to call it a disadvantage simply because it is not ALWAYS the case. It happens probably majority of the time but not always. Therefore, how can we call it a disadvantage?</p>
<p>@absentions please stop with your “this is 2014 for god sakes” racism is very much alive and well. Racial profiling still exists. Just two years ago an innocent black kid was shot literally for being black and the man who killed him was never brought to justice. While a black woman (who, mind you, was just trying to defend herself) was sentenced to prison time. You don’t think it exists because in your world (presumably non black/latino), it probably doesn’t. And I never said that being an URM inherently makes you poverty stricken. But it does make it such that you face certain challenges in life that a white person WILL never face–regardless of socioeconomic status. Black men are more likely to get pulled over/arrested just as muslim men are more likely to get searched by the TSA. Black women (especially dark skinned black women) grow up being told that white/light women are better in every single way and all they can strive to be are teenaged mothers. </p>
<p>You can just look at our media and tell that black/latino people are treated with less respect then white/asian people. When was the last time you saw a black woman portrayed in a film as anything besides a slave, a promiscuous woman, or an overbearing “single black female”? Even if you bring it down to stereotypes you can see that racism (and don’t get me started on colorism) is very much alive and well. Tell me, what’s the first stereotype that pops into your head about a black/latino person? Now what about a white/asian person? Go ahead, I’ll wait…</p>
<p>@awcntdb, you’re getting it completely wrong. If “affirmative action” is practiced by these schools (which we have no factual way of knowing if it is), then it is to put the edge on an applicant, not as an excuse to lower standards for them. For example, I’d accept a perfect essay (great structure and interesting content) over an imperfect one (boring, repeated essay that everyone writes), over a non-perfect one regardless of race. My point is you guys are making no sense. You’re saying AA exists and then saying that it is used as an excuse to lower the standards for URM. Then saying that most URM score below/are outperformed by their Asian/White counterparts. If that is the case, then tell me, why aren’t more URM admitted into the most selective schools? Or does this “quota” (you all’s words–not mine) only exist for Asians? It makes no sense. A school is not going to lower their standards for something that is not necessarily generating funds by the university (like say a LEGACY or an athlete).</p>
<p>You’re the one making an assumption about schools that could lead to lawsuits. I never made such a statement. I did make an assumption but it was completely factual. You have no factual premise to make such a defamatory statement. I simply said that with black students representing a higher percentage of people in America, it’s ironic how they represent only a small percentage of the classes at these institutions (vs. Asians --> 5.8% of pop. but 18% of school pop. or whites —> around 60% of pop. but 70% of the school pop.). Your issue here seems to be with black students when it needs to be with white or asian students (that is, if you’re looking for another race to trash). What makes your assumption correct when there is no accurate portrayal of it.</p>
<p>It disheartens me that you’re comparing inmates (those who, many times, clearly couldn’t rise above their circumstances) to college students (those who clearly have). Rising above being the key factor here. Also, are you asserting that black people belong in prisons simply because many of them have adversity in their lives? I disagree that it is a false assumption that colleges like to see that (when I clearly provided several sources for you to google in which selective schools have stated) that they like that sort of thing. Many times, OVERCOMING adversity–not merely facing it, makes one a better person. It is not nonsensical to say this. If you were a rich white kid, you could have faced adversity as well (I never denied that). However, it is not as common for these kids to face it as say a war veteran, or a homeless kid. </p>
<p>And, please, the white girl who got rejected to all of her choices had her face plastered on the news and internet.</p>
<p>Why is it so difficult for you all to accept the fact that a black student, who scored ABOVE AVERAGE, got into a university?</p>
<p>**completely supported by factual evidence. Sorry for the typos, it was hastily written.</p>
<p>For me, the original news story came across as being something akin to “ordinary office worker wins lottery.” We’ve all come to describe these colleges with miniscule admit rates as “lottery” schools, right?. This student matched all 8 numbers on the super lotto ticket! Lucky kid! The lucky “winner’s” ethnicity was incidental. I do not pretend to be colorblind (I am a product of my society, after all), but his race did not even register with me until the fourth or fifth article I read. Kwasi Enin seems like an intelligent, likable, hardworking young man. As many have said, an “average” candidate for the Ivies. (And, IMO, an excellent example of just the kind of student—of any race—that these schools say they are looking for.) </p>
<p>It was only when I started reading comments on these discussion boards that I realized that other people saw the student’s race as relevant in any way. And I’m still not quite sure why that is. Are people saying that Kwasi Enin doesn’t belong in an Ivy school? Because, if you look at the most simplistic measures—GPA and SAT—he does. He’s, as people keep saying, “average for the Ivies.” Is it that Enin won a lottery with odds that were closer to 1 in a 1,000,000 rather than 1 in 10,000,000? Because the odds of a “clean sweep” are astronomical even if you’re not a prep-school educated member of the monied class or, as people are fond of pointing out, one of the many 2400/4.0 super-geniuses who are being denied an adequate education in America. </p>
<p>My question is: why is race being discussed in this context at all? Because, for me, the very fact that race is relevant for so many people is proof that claims to America being a “post-racial” society in 2014 are clearly premature. </p>