<p>I see how you see it, but to me it read like the typical–insult, insult, insult --just joking! of a mediocre comedian. I don’t think you get a pass for that because you add the “kidding!” at the end.</p>
<p>And as far as an adult answering–if you can get yourself a byline in WSJ, you can take it.</p>
<p>I’m sure her psyche is just fine!</p>
<p>garland: I agree with everything you have posted here. Thank you.</p>
<p>I understand the concept of using satire and ridicule to criticize prejudice. I rarely see examples that seem successful to me. If unsuccessful, it sometimes just feeds into a prejudicial outlook. imho If successful it is frequently “mean” to those skewered. Even if they deserve it, I am not sure it advances the common good.</p>
<p>What I see here is, perhaps, a disagreement over whether the author of the humor piece really means what she is saying, or doesn’t really mean it but is just joking about it. In other words, what’s the subtext? Is this a person who really is annoyed that less-qualified URMs took “her” spot, or somebody who realizes that such annoyance is an unattractive selfish attitude? Since we bring our own views to the subtext, it makes it hard for us to agree.</p>
<p>To answer your question Hunt, I think the author does believe that the system can and is gamed. That doesn’t mean the author opposes affirmative action or thinks that all community service projects are “fake” or worthless. If you remember, in her comment on affirmative action, she used lilly-white Elizabeth Warren (1/32 Native American) as her example of a minority. Obviously, she is attempting to find the most absurd consequences of admissions policies.</p>
<p>Agree with you, Alh. IRL, I don’t mind a good skewer. But am surprised how Suzy’s words yielded comic release for some. And, following Hunt, it seems to hang on our reinterpreting for Suzy. If she weren’t 17 and coming from disappointment, would we be do quick to lay out the sympathy rug? </p>
<p>It seems fine to some that she takes on NAs and would have worn a headdress. What if she’d said “carry a boom box?” Or, not just “come out of the closet,” but some equally caricaturing of gays? Faking a charity feeds into fears, she dismisses kids who work in a pizza joint or aren’t fast runners. Or who legitimately try to do good for others. Etc. Notice how she doesn’t take on her own interest group- no cracks about empty headed hs mean girls or dumb jocks. Or smug thinking.</p>
<p>Sure, no surprise diversity has a place in admissions. As does having the vision and energy to go out and accomplish something, hold a job…and write well.</p>
<p>We do get essays that have the tone Suzy uses. They usually fall flat. In short, because in certain circumstances, a college essay, a national media outlet, etc, you are what you write.</p>
<p>She should have submitted to the Onion.</p>
<p>I think we also may disagree over whether motives matter. For service and charity work, I believe they do. Perhaps that comes from my Christian heritage, given that the Bible teaches that motives for doing good works need to stem from genuine love and concern, and not from the desire to call attention to ourselves and how great we are, and nor should they be done for personal gain. Some people seem to think that as long as a “good” act was done by a student, that’s better than if the student had sat home and watched TV. Possibly, but not if the human beings who were the supposed beneficiaries of the service and charity felt insulted, demeaned, burdensome or as if they were just a “project” for someone to complete for their resume.</p>
<p>Good point. But how does the outside world determine that? If A does zip because her heart’s not in it while B does some good, which one shows better? If B did it for show, he still did it. The reconciliation is between him and his faith. Not for adcoms to postmortem.</p>
<p>And since adcoms want kids who can get off the couch, even show efforts represent well. A lot of real life is about doing what needs to be done. Kids who can recognize that can look good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Why?</p>
<p>Because you say so? </p>
<p>So a kid with over 600 positive comments in the WSJ “should have submitted to the onion” because… six posters on CC don’t think she’s funny.</p>
<p>Sigh.</p>
<p>Maybe it seems funnier if you’re a regular reader of the WSJ.</p>
<p>you might have something there, Hunt.</p>
<p>Or if you don’t really think college admissions is some kind of defensible fortress of objective standards.</p>
<p>We will say, “Elite school admissions is a lottery. You just get lucky if you happen to get in.”</p>
<p>Then, we will say to a kid going through this for the first time, using her sense of humor, moving on, who clearly sees herself as humorous, as well, “That’s NOT funny!” :(</p>
<p>We had over a thousand pages arguing the indefensible or defensible holistic admissions practices of MIT on this board recently. People kept saying, “get over it, get over it.”</p>
<p>Seems like she did.</p>
<p>People spend all year on this board arguing this very same thing, but she’s not funny. Poor dear. She is sooooo misguided.</p>
<p>tempest in a teapot, y’all…</p>
<p>Poetgrl–you’ll never find me on these boards arguing that. I don’t think it’s a lottery. and if there’s inequity, which there is, it’s definitely tilted to the well off and the well connected. And not for the ability to fake charities, but for the plain advantage of growing up in a family where just being your (best) self actually can be what will or won’t get you in (not fake charities.)</p>
<p>Plus, total agreement with a person’s point of view, or disagreement, is not what makes them funny. that seems elemental to me, but, I guess it’s not.</p>
<p>Pg, I recall the old thread about thigh slapping films- and didn’t find the list all that great. I really do have a sense of humor. The whole point running here is that we don’t agree whether she’s a snowflake. Does it matter if there are 600 who do? Maybe some large proportion of whom really to think kids get a bum deal? </p>
<p>My point was, in the Onion, perhaps I could have seen the, uh, humor. I haven’t knocked you. Don’t knock me. K?</p>
<p>Btw, admissions is not about objective standards. It IS about perceptions.</p>
<p>It’s funny to me how posters critical of her humor, turn aound and mock her as a “special snowflake” who is “white whining” in seriousness. Takes one to know one?</p>
<p>I’m not knocking you, Lookingforward.</p>
<p>But, the Wall Street Journal is the highest circulating newspaper in the country. So, it seems a bit insulting to suggest that she submit to the onion.</p>
<p>Look, I don’t think the girl is soooo hillarious, but I think she is funny. I worry if we can’t be funny.</p>
<p>I think, Garland, when you get to the point where you are at 5-9% acceptance rates, even subtracting for those who are not actually qualified to apply, you are working with some luck if you get into any of those schools. </p>
<p>At all.</p>
<p>Those who get in are clearly qualified to be in, but so many who are not in are also qualified to be in, as well. The girl will be fine in the B1G, where she will go. She knows this, and you and I know this. </p>
<p>But, yes, anybody can believe she is funny or not. It doesn’t make me think one thing or the other about them.</p>
<p>Bay, maybe it takes “resilience” to spot whatever it is. Some sense hard work, smart choices, do matter. More than mocking.</p>
<p>I think the author is mildly amusing. I prefer Dave Chappelle. </p>
<p>But then I think “No Country for Old Men” is one of the funniest movies ever made, so maybe I’m not the best judge of hilarity.</p>
<p>I also don’t think she made “bad choices,” or that she didn’t “work hard.” She will do just fine in college.</p>
<p>Sometimes, when we discuss admissions, it is like it is this super special thing, but it’s not. It’s just an application for scarce resources where all sorts of special interest groups are competing between themselves, not each other.</p>