<p>
</p>
<p>The key word is “wealthy.” Their US readership is 82 percent male, average age 57, average HHI $257,100, average net worth $2.6 million. This is directly from their media kit.</p>
<p>What is more telling to me is what she DIDN’T fake. She didn’t fake that she grew up economically advantaged, which would give her resources for SAT tutoring to raise her 2120, she could have taken the trip to Africa to see Kinto. From the article, the only thing she used her influence for was being a Senate Page, yet she “wishes” she could have done other things, two moms, coming out of the closet? Really" My kid couldn’t do the Africa service even though her motives would have been pure. If Ms. Weiss thought that people padded their apps, well she had the money to do it. Or maybe, jeez, she could genuinely care about Kinto and do a trip. That didn’t happen, she was too busy beeing a normal teen. She didn’t want to go the extra mile. Dad’s money and connections will surely get me in, right? Yeah, I will say it. She is lazy. She had the money to do “things” that she thinks that would enhance her application, yet she didn’t. Lazy, Ms. Weiss. There is a reason that other people got into these schools and not you. YOU, had the means to do many things but chose not to. Some students that got in had no means, but still managed to do meaningful things.</p>
<p>They didn’t steal your spot, you lost it.</p>
<p>@ Periwinkle: I’m sorry, but you’re incorrect. What she does is lay out what she would have done differently. If we’re to follow your logic, then what Suzy said–I would have “two moms”–is not something you can fake either. But she still wrote it. So what’s your point? </p>
<p>“Then there was summer camp. I should’ve done what I knew was best—go to Africa, scoop up some suffering child, take a few pictures, and write my essays about how spending that afternoon with Kinto changed my life.” - Suzy Weiss</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal knew exactly what they were doing when they published her OP-ED. That you don’t see this as a harbinger of things to come in the way of Romney’s 47 Percent comment is alarming. People–ahem, some affluent people, at least–are becoming sensitive to the “rise” of the homosexuals and minorities. Suzy Lee Weiss, and anyone willing to defend her cynicism, should check out the racial disparities at the top 100 colleges–universities and liberal arts colleges–and then ask yourselves this, “Why is she attacking minorities and homosexuals?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>"Everything she said was red meat to her wealthy, conservative readership…The key world is “wealthy.'” Ok, I get you now, …not. Wealthy people hate homosexuals and minorities, is that what you mean? Or is it that homosexuals and minorities are never wealthy? What the heck are you trying to say, with “everything she said was red meat” to the wsj readers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Attacking? Wow, some people really are paranoid. I guess Suzy and the WSJ and wealthy people also hate volunteers and people who have jobs since she <em>attacked</em> applicants who did those things too, huh?</p>
<p>Bay, the clear insinuation–as others have pointed out–is that she thinks someone more “special” took her spot. Someone with two moms. Or someone who was LGBTQ. Or a minority. The subtext is that if not for affirmative action, she’d be packing her bags for an Ivy right now.</p>
<p>sally305,</p>
<p>That was not clear to me, and I doubt it was clear to the majority of the others who participated in this thread who found her piece to be a funny satire. </p>
<p>Again, some people seem to thrive on finding offense in every little comment.</p>
<p>@Bay: Suzy did not attack minorities and homosexuals, but she did single them out. Also, I’m not sure that people on CC “thrive on finding offense in every little comment.” In fact, I’m not sure what you mean by “thrive.” As stated numerous times before: satirical or not, Suzy’s OP-ED was offensive.</p>
<p>
Please don’t state your opinion as a fact. If the letter was offensive to you, well, no one can argue with your feelings. I don’t think it was remotely offensive, and you can’t argue with my feelings either. I don’t even understand why it’s big deal to be offended by something you read. It’s not permanently scarring, really.</p>
<p>@Bay, you and I and the other CC’ers who found the letter to be a well-crafted piece of harmless humor need to go share a bottle of wine far, far, from the offended hordes.</p>
<p>I missed the part where I said I was offended by Ms. Weiss’s letter. Mostly, I thought it was cliched and uninspired. And I’m guessing the only reason it got published was that she had a connection at the WSJ through her sister who had been an editor there.</p>
<p>If something offends a lot of people, isn’t a fact that it is offensive? It may not be deliberately offensive, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. It would only be in fact offensive to those people who are offended by it. It would not be offensive to those who were not offended by it.</p>
<p>Whether something is offensive is a subjective determination. You could apply the “reasonable man” standard I suppose, if you wanted to make a blanket decree about the article’s offensiveness. Not sure why one would need to do that since there is no right not to be offended.</p>
<p>Right. This is why I was not offended. There was nothing in it that was addressed to me or anyone like me. Still didn’t find it especially impressive or original as a piece of writing, though.</p>
<p>
Hmm. Then what would be the term for something you observe is likely to be offensive to some group to which you do not belong? Insensitive, maybe?</p>
<p>Rather than come up with labels for some peoples’ feelings, it would probably be more productive to discuss exactly what the “somethings” are in Suzy’s piece that you think may be insensitive or offensive.</p>
<p>My take from this thread is that what offends some readers the most are three things: 1) that Suzy comes from a privileged background, which to some means she has no right to complain about her admissions outcomes; 2) that she mentions “diversity” as something that would have helped her get in, specifically, racial diversity and more specifically, NA diversity and 3) sexual orientation diversity. Some seemed upset about the “fake” charity thing, but I don’t understand why that would be offensive to some if their own participation in charitable efforts were real. She wasn’t speaking to those people, I don’t think, rather only to students who came up with offbeat charities for their own self-interest.</p>
<p>@ Bay: Suzy’s OP-ED was, in fact, offensive to some people. There’s no disputing that. </p>
<p>She has every right to complain, but she shouldn’t do so at the expense of other people–especially people who had no impact on her decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you know this? Her litany was hypothetical, anyway.</p>
<p>As between Suzy and an identical candidate who is NA, who offers more diversity?</p>
<p>As between Suzy and an identical candidate who has two moms, who offers more diversity?</p>
<p>As between Suzy and an identical candidate who has “come out,” who offers more diversity?</p>
<p>We know that the elite colleges she was rejected from specifically count race as a factor in admissions. They openly state as much. So why would Suzy’s mentioning that be offensive? I suppose some might be offended that colleges do that at all, but that is not Suzy’s fault.</p>
<p>The two moms and coming out are less clear in terms of whether they would be helpful in admissions. But there is no doubt that those attributes make a candidate more diverse than one who has a mom and a dad and who is straight, simply because they are unusual. Why is that offensive? Plus, we know from this site that LBGTQ kids write about their orientation in their essays, so they themselves must see it as something relevant to offer the colleges. If I had two moms, I’d write it about it in my essay, because it would make me unique in my perspective - perhaps one of the only applicants to offer that experience from the entire applicant pool.</p>
<p>Bay, I don’t really understand what you are trying to accomplish with this conversation. To me, Suzy came across as a whiny, entitled girl without a lick of self-awareness or emotional intelligence. I don’t know how they do it, but admissions officers seem to be able to pick out these kids and see through them. If you read the many posts from professional adcoms or alumni interviewers on this site, you will quickly get a sense that often what they are looking for is kids who are INTERESTING and offer a perspective that is different from the more dominant mindsets on their campuses. Any way you look at it–and by her own admission–Suzy was an undistinguished candidate for colleges that can pick and choose exactly the kind of students they want.</p>
<p>sally305,
Yes, you nailed the point of her piece, as I see it, except for the lack of self-awareness comment. Suzy was totally self-aware. She was being whiny, and blaming everyone else when she didn’t do anything to distinguish her un-diverse self. That was the humor in it, that some don’t see for some reason. She was making fun of herself but also highlighting the quirks of the system.</p>
<p>My point is trying to figure out why people are offended by it. I see it as a twist on facts. If facts are offensive, don’t blame the messenger.</p>
<p>Admittedly, did a quick read of this letter, but my immediate reaction to it was, “Oh, boo hoo. Poor you.” The tone of the letter is off putting. There are so many great places to get an education in this country. Um, yeah, if you have your heart set on the Ivy League (or another highly selective school), then yes, you do have to find a way to differentiate yourself from the pack. That’s life. But not getting into an Ivy or other <em>prestigious</em> school is not a tragedy, though of course it is disappointing to set your sights on something and not get it. But the tone of this particular writer comes across as sounding pretty entitled, IMO.</p>
<p>As an aside – I know lots of kids with two moms or two dads. It’s pretty mainstream nowadays where I used to live, the Bay Area, and also here in Minneapolis. I doubt that that situation on its own is a tipping factor.</p>