<p>I truly don’t think they believe they are more deserving at all. I think she was writing this tongue-in-cheek. In reading the accompanying article there was nothing the father stated that felt anything other then a father whose daughter wrote a letter that was getting some attention. There was no mention of the schools, their policies, etc. He had no bone to pick, point to make, etc. A snippet of her essay was mentioned only to show the similar writing style. Very satirical. There is no ‘platform’ here that the daughter was robbed or wronged in anyway. She wrote an article, she’s a witty girl, the end. Really.</p>
<p>This girl’s SAT was a 2120</p>
<p>Yes, that’s a problem, especially for a non-URM from a stable home. And, I’d venture to say that her M+CR score may not have been that great since I suspect that she had a high 7XX score in the W section. With her SAT score published, likely she’ll get feedback that her score wasn’t adequate. </p>
<p>Again, I think this was a rather healthy, funny way to “blow off steam.”</p>
<p>I thought that this was very hilarious. But, there is a reason why these schools are Ivy League and very elite because it’s difficult to be admitted. Like other people have said, there are plenty of universities besides Ivy League that you can get into. If you shoot for the moon maybe you can fall in the stars like getting into public Ivy universities.</p>
<p>A sense of humor is something that everyone will admit is not universal but nobody will admit they personally lack. Social satire is probably the best test - if you are offended or don’t find it funny, it is not this girl’s fault.</p>
<p>I thought she wrote the piece with tongue in cheek. It was hilarious, and a way to poke fun at an otherwise frustrating situation.</p>
<p>I guess I just don’t see that this girl feels any entitlement, or that her father is being unreasonable- he says the whole process is a “crap shoot” which it pretty much is! I thought Suzy’s letter was witty, tongue-in-cheek, and satirical and I think that is how she meant it to be. Her letter pokes fun at all of the extremes to which today’s applicants have to resort, but it does it in a very sophisticated way. I think this girl will be successful wherever she ends up- maybe as a writer for SNL?</p>
<p>As I said on a different thread about this piece, I don’t blame the girl for her attitude so much as I blame the editors at the WSJ for not suggesting that she edit out some of the cheap shots that take away from the humor–i.e., having “two moms” doesn’t help anybody get into college, and should have been edited out of this article. She’s only a high-schooler, but the grown-up editors should have helped her out.</p>
<p>Satire ceases to be funny if it is 100%politically correct, that is why she included the “two moms” reference. Her article was funny, witty and a SATIRE. </p>
<p>Good for her for using her connections to get it published in the WSJ. Many of us enjoyed it and wish her well in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that she “made it clear” it was satirical does not make it an example of decent satire. It might have been an attempt at humor, but beyond the puerile humor, there was plenty of unwarranted attacks and veiled insults. And, despite the claims here and elsewhere, trying to pass that piece for satire only shows a poor understanding of what satire is supposed to be. And cheap humor --and fabrication for shock purposes-- does not result in satire. There was no social purpose to Ms. Weiss piece beyond the bit of self-indulging and juvenile ranting. Funny, perhaps. Satire? Nope! Not even poor one. </p>
<p>Fwiw, there is a thread that has garnered thousands of posts in the Parent’s area, and all that needed to be said has been said multiple times. </p>
<p>If you cannot comprehend why people have an opinion that is different from yours, I’d suggest to try a bit harder.</p>
<p>
WSJ editors probably liked the cheap shots.</p>
<p>Lol since when is a 21-something SAT and a 4.5 gpa good enough for an ivy anyway?</p>
<p>Yes, the WSJ is no doubt delighted her article raised such a stir (and free publicity).</p>
<p>The WSJ, I get that.</p>
<p>But why is The Daily Mail interested?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Controversy generates website hits.</p>
<p>Merriam Webster defines “satire” as :
- a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn;
- trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly</p>
<p>If you don’t think the entire college application process is rife with folly, you haven’t been paying attention–and haven’t been reading the many CC posts from students desperate to get into “an Ivy”, ANY “Ivy”. So yes, the letter was definitely an attempt at satire, one that may be seen as successful or not, depending on one’s experience, sensitivity, and sense of humor. And I can certainly understand that people have differing experiences, sensitivities, and senses of humor, and that some may have been tickled by the letter while others were exceedingly annoyed by it. But I can’t see how anyone, including the editors at the Daily Mail, thought it was actually a serious, “scathing” letter. And it’s one thing to say you don’t appreciate the work, quite another to engage in name calling and derision of the author. Next time people don’t like something they read in the paper, I highly recommend turning the page and moving on.</p>
<p>To make point, you opted to use an incomplete definition. While more popular in laymen’s terms, it fails to include an essential element, namely its purpose.</p>
<p>There is indeed the part where vices and follies --a stretch to describe college admissions-- are held up to ridicule. But there should also be an intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Effective satire is meant to be funny, but its greater purpose is one of constructive social criticism.</p>
<p>For the record. I DO understand that this piece might amuse a particular audience, but I also recognize that the targets might find it a lot less amusing. </p>
<p>As far as judging this piece through my own lenses, that is a right I have because this person did make the (poor) decision to place herself and her ego on a tee. I simply accepted the invitation to take a swing at it. It was her choice, and the poor guidance of the adults in her life, that created the situation. </p>
<p>Funny perhaps, but it was nonetheless in very poor tasts. Unless you find attacking a number of groups and diminishing their merits for jocular purposes, an sign of class and maturity. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, you can swallow a spoon of your medicine. If you do not like my comments, just move to the next post. I won’t be chagrined nor disappointed. And not deterred to make similar comments when the next bratty, well-off teenagers decides to throw a little tantrum. </p>
<p>And, as far as crapshoot, I’d say that this could be the perfect example that the adcoms know what they are doing, is by admitting the targets of the cheap shots over a self-absorbed and underachieving brat with a penchant for fabrication and sandbox humor. </p>
<p>You see it is not hard to attack others with … cheap shots.</p>
<p>I think the fact that so many on cc are taking this lighthearted letter (and the teenager who wrote it) so seriously says a lot more about the posters than it does about the girl who wrote it. There are plenty of tempests in teapots on cc but none are more entertaining than those in response to anyone daring to deal with Ivy admissions or lack thereof, in anything less than a deadly serious manner.</p>
<p>I may be wrong but IMO it has been firmly established in thread after thread for years that admission to the precious few “top” schools is a total crapshoot after an applicant has exceeded a certain level which has never been truly established by either the schools or the posters here. The schools themselves have said for years that they could build freshmen classes equal in merit to the ones admitted from the reject pile but of course, there are only a very few places in proportion to the applicant pool. I thought that everyone accepted this as fact apart from the students admitted and their parents who perhaps understandably, want to believe that they really are superior in every way to the unsuccessful applicants.</p>
<p>Honestly, I thought it was funny in a usual clever teenager-ish way and took it as intended. Sure she’s well connected to be able to have gotten into a well-respected national publication but so what? Why be so upset when it’s just another version of the angst that always shows up this time of year, and is forgotten in a few months by most well adjusted students?</p>
<p>Sorry, I have to agree wi some of her statements. My freshmen honors english teacher used to say to our class that if you were Hispanic or black, then you had a better chance of getting in to a good school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh yes, you are correct. Some of us saw that piece as a tidbit of juvenile humor. A bit funny, more than a bit offensive, mostly based on distortions, and also utterly trivial and non-important. All in all, a little tantrum … in a teapot, if you wish. I, for one, was more than happy to dismiss it with a shrug. At least until some pushed a different point amd the proverbial envelope. </p>
<p>On the other hand, other tried to elevate the piece to a lot more than it was, and give it an importance along the lines “oh yes, it is true.” And, fwiw, that is what caused the greatest commotion in the other thread. </p>
<p>So, indeed, it speaks volume about the folks who tacitly or openly agreed that the essay was not only satirical but pretty accurate. And why it was part of the WSJ!</p>
<p>The Mail mentions Vanderbilt as one of the four Ivy League schools that rejected her.</p>
<p>Oops!</p>