<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, one of the things that I’ve been admiring as I read through CC debates in the past week or so is how well-written and logically-crafted posters’ arguments have been—on both sides of the aisle. </p>
<p>BTW, after seeing interviews with Kwasi Enin I would posit that his likability was more relevant to his sweep than either his race or his essay. I can imagine the interviewer jotting down, “I LIKE this kid” as s/he summarizes first impressions. </p>
<p>As the mother of a socially-awkward, incredibly shy stutterer, I guess I should probably be railing against the inherent advantages of the personable and socially adept. (But, I’m not because I realize that’s part of the “package.”)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is actually what you are talking about.
If you don’t have something that schools want, and other people do, then you are at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>@scahopeful If an applicant needs the help of Affirmative Action to give him or her an edge then they ARE being held to a different if not lower standard, whether you’d like to admit it or not. Whether or not racism exists has nothing to do with what I was trying to say.</p>
<p>Also, he didn’t just get into ONE university. His achievements are far from typical.</p>
<p>@EllieMom - We will never know for sure if race was a factor in his getting into all eight Ivies. His stats, EC’s and (IMO) essay, average for an Ivy, make it incredibly unlikely that he would have gotten into all eight if that is all they looked at, no interview and no race designation. Now you could be 100% right. Perhaps his interviews were so good that race had no role in it. But then you say
Because the schools themselves have admitted that they use race as a factor in admissions. In the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court to decide if race can be a factor, many schools (including several Ivies) filed amicus briefs asking the court to uphold race as a consideration in admissions. It is beyond naive (I am not saying you are naive) to believe that race is not taken into account in admissions, because in the opinion of these schools, at least, it is important to make sure that there is a mix of ethnic backgrounds. A far cry from the days when the Ivies were bastions of white privilege that excluded almost everyone else, including most Jews. So while Kwasi probably would have gotten into an Ivy or two regardless of race, and maybe more based on interviews, it is easy to believe that his getting into all eight had something to do with his race.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m okay with colleges setting a lower standard for certain ethnic groups, as long as they make thatstandard public knowledge. To make blanket statements - holistic admissions and Affirmative Action- is just callingfor trouble. Other countries make it clear that ethnic minorities can score a certain numberof points lower on entrance exams, etc. </p>
<p>Sorry, completely.completely misused “blanket statements” - replace it with "vague. "</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I fully concede to a certain amount of naivete when it comes to discussions like this. 
I guess my surprise was that there were so many people who questioned the legitimacy of the schools using their own criteria for selection and/or expressed surprise that criteria other than academic excellence as measured on “objective” scales are used in that process. </p>
<p>I still think that an Ivy sweep is a lottery win that’s probably worth two inches of column space in the newspaper or 30 seconds on CNN on a slow newsday, even if the odds are slightly better than 1/100,000,000 for the applicant who achieved it. </p>
<p>And I question whether it would still be discussed a week later if the student who won the lottery had been a kid from Wyoming benefitting from a geographic rather than racial preference. </p>
<p>
It is a long-cherished tradition to use current events as a springboard for discussion about broader issues.</p>
<p>The way I see it, there are three kinds of people applying to highly selective colleges: non-excellent students, excellent students, and brilliant excellent students. The amount of non-excellent students who receive admission is negligible, so there are practically two kinds of applicants. I make two observations:
- Kwasi is obviously an excellent student, but I cannot find evidence that he is brilliant. I hoped that his essay would provide such evidence, but it did not. Maybe evidence exists that merely has not been made public.
- Many brilliant excellent students are rejected from every highly selective college, every year. Evidence of this fact is abundant.</p>
<p>So the question is: why do colleges reject brilliant excellent students, and in their place, admit students who are merely excellent? It is a question deeply relevant to our culture and relevant to the system that incubates much of the intellectual growth of the world. And this is where the discussion stops being about the individual example cherry-picked from current events and it starts being about the issues.</p>
<p>In answer to the question, many people would say that colleges value racial rarity over intellectual rarity. Hence the reason why race is being discussed in this context at all.</p>
<p>My answer is that a typical highly selective college looks as applicants not as individuals but as a group, and that their goal is to create a group that they can posture as “well-balanced” (a parameter that they define for themselves), rather than to make sure that the most desirable individual gets in, then the second-most desirable individual gets in, etc. Because apparently, according to them, a [Smith-dominant</a> set](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_set]Smith-dominant”>Smith set - Wikipedia) is not “well-balanced”.</p>
<p>nevermind.
not worth it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if he doesn’t, he’s got you here to remind him of the fact that he “is nothing special.” Thank God you were here.</p>
<p>Frankly, the fact that he falls completely in the middle of Ivy accepted students means not that he should darn well know he “isn’t special,” but that he will fit in beautifully. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>@Nrdsb4 - I would definitely agree with you if he went to school like most, i.e., showed up and got judged on who he is without pretext.</p>
<p>However, introduction and first impressions set the stage. And the introduction his classmates got is someone being presented and acting like he is more than the standard admit. </p>
<p>Ivys (most colleges really) are like a team and a club and meshing does matter. Imagine if a draftee of a team who falls right into the middle of the team’s skills and ranking ran around and was promoting himself like he was tops, how good a mesh do you think will initially happen? He will find a footing somewhere, but I think his first impression of TV etc. will be a negative. </p>
<p>For his sake, I do hope you are more right than I am. But there are big egos there and having been there, seen and interacted with those very egos, I am not as confident as you that it will be a beautiful fit right in. I would loved to be proved wrong, but he has to live with it now. He just got horrible advice about going public like he did, or if it was his idea, a wise adult should have stepped it. </p>
<p>I disagree that the facts aren’t on my side. Like I said, see: Berkeley & Amherst (these are definitely not the only two but the most well-known ones). An admissions counselor is more likely to fight for an exceptional student with an incredible story than an exceptional student without one.</p>
<p><a href=“College Admissions: Inside the Decision Room - YouTube”>College Admissions: Inside the Decision Room - YouTube;
<p>“Race, ethnicity, gender, and religion are excluded from the criteria.”</p>
<p>“For an applicant who has faced any hardships or unusual circumstances, readers consider the maturity, determination and insight with which the applicant has responded to and/or overcome them. Readers also consider other contextual factors that bear directly upon the applicant’s achievement, including linguistic background, parental education level, and other indicators of support available in the home.”</p>
<p>^^Straight from Berkeley’s website: <a href=“Selection Process - Office of Undergraduate Admissions”>http://admissions.berkeley.edu/selectsstudents</a></p>
<p>Can’t get any more direct than that.</p>
<p>There is actually an article that expands on this and how a student who overcomes hardships brings something that the university wants. I just don’t feel like looking for it.</p>
<p>The only ones who can’t see this are those that are blinded by the fact that no school has openly stated that a black student will get in with a 2.5 1500 over a white/asian student with a 3.9 2500. Now if both scores were equal that could be different. Race is only a factor when the scores are identical. So, if you want to argue AA, you better understand the identical application concern since that is the only case in which two students’ applications will be boiled down to “what have they overcome in life?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a white asian student has a 2500 SAT, he or she probably cheated to get that extra 100 points.</p>
<p>@scahopeful - I give you much kudos, as you are all in on this approach, just like I am all in the other way. </p>
<p>Berkeley is probably not a good example though because it was forced by law to change. And the admit numbers did change when they were forced. In fact, the entire CA was forced by law to change. </p>
<p>But, there are thousands more colleges that practice the opposite of what Berkeley says and they do not dispute that fact. They hide behind the holistic review thing in a major way. They are free to do as much.</p>
<p>One poster earlier said it rather starkly that life without some defined incredible story of hardship is a disadvantage it seems. I find that disturbing to be a qualification for college. But, I will admit colleges are free to do as they wish. I just wish they would think more clearly about it.</p>
<p>It is interesting that it is OK to argue for AA and other programs, but it bends people the wrong way to argue for a straight race-neutral, race-blind system. And it the people who say they are for total equality that argue for it the most. I really do not get that logic. </p>
<p>General statement - Looks like I broke a CC rule by linking to another poster’s thread in one of my posts. In either case, I do recommend people hangout in the student sections and see what students think and how students are reacting to these issues, then reach your own conclusion if this current college admissions process is a positive or negative thing.</p>
<p>Didn’t read any of it but saw a paragraph started with “Lastly,” and just closed the page. I was always told to be unique and crazy with these essays and THIS gets him in?</p>
<p>@fluffy2017 lol </p>
<p>I agree that the essay was boring, but… </p>
<p>I don’t understand how people are mad about this? What is it? Whites and Asians are the most privileged people in this country. I could list statistics all day. I could list instances of how blacks/native Americans/Hispanics are discriminated against in everyday life. I could talk about American history/colonization (Redlining…gentrification…Apartheid). I could cite quotes. I could list videos. </p>
<p>Every time an oppress person rise up and gain a little achievement, the oppressors always claim reverse discrimination. </p>
<p>Christians do it with the Non-Religious (there’s no war on Christmas) . Men do it to women (Misandry isn’t real) . White people do it towards minorities ESPECIALLY towards blacks (reverse racism isn’t real). </p>
<p>Why does it seem like white people are more mad about this than asians? When they are more “discriminated” against than whites? Don’t tell me, I already know why.</p>
<p>The truth is Kwasi was at a lower social status since the day he was born. Rather he was middle class or not.</p>
<p>But a privledge group will always freak out when they find out they are starting to lose their privledge.
Someone who are use to yeses will freak out once they are told no.</p>
<p>Stay butthurt. </p>