<p>I do criticize shallow 10 day trips to hold little Kinto and those essays. Specifically from kids who couldn’t lift a finger at home, to help others in their communities. </p>
<p>That’s separate from some kid pretending her lack of that doomed her. Or her mocking others for legitimate, meaningful charitable efforts by focusing on some silly (asinine)examples. </p>
<p>No she didn’t say boom box. But what do you think is going on when she equates NA to wearing a headdress? I am asking why that caricature is fair game. People argue whether sports teams or mascots should be named after tribes or old stereotypes, but it’s OK to talk about the headdress? </p>
<p>If this much reinterpreting is required to pull some value from her piece, don’t you think that says something?</p>
<p>They are worn solely for ceremonial purposes and as far as I understand, were NEVER daily wear for ANY reason. But the writer appears to have chosen something she knew was over the top-as in who would EVER wear one to school (unless they are a mascot, which is a whole other discussion)? I suppose that’s why some see it as humorous.</p>
<p>Just because someone may be critical of the fact (or perceived fact) that admissions officers give preference to ethnic minorities and other students who bring a desired “diversity” to campus (including those who bring a diversity of sexual preference), does not mean that the individual is critical of the diverse people themselves. I could be pro-gay marriage, and yet still see no reason why someone with two moms should be admitted to a college over an equally qualified student with a traditional family. What does having two moms or being gay oneself or being of x ethnicity or being a star athlete or any of the other stuff joked about have to do with the ACADEMIC abilities of the applicant, such that admissions preference to an ACADEMIC institution is deserved? That is the serious question.</p>
<p>Because it’s not just an academic institution. Or we wouldn’t have football teams. Or college radio stations. Or any number of things that contribute to the life of the college outside the classroom.</p>
<p>I do agree that colleges are getting very selective this days but my son that went to a private competitive HS tells me that a lot of his friends (White, Asian, Latin, AA) got into IVes, some more than one, and more than 40% into top 20 schools. The catch? All had GPAs above 10, on a 12 point scale and a minimum ACT of 31. BTW, some were rich, some were in FA, but ALL were smart.</p>
<p>I’m not the one to consult about the headdress comment, because I don’t understand why wearing one or talking about wearing one is offensive. Just as I don’t understand the offense in naming sports teams after tribes. I always thought it was a compliment, an expression of respect. The extreme political correctness about all things Native American had only led to most traces of them disappearing from our environment and our awareness. At least where I live and grew up.</p>
<p>Obviously, youdon’tsay, but an argument frequently made on here is that if you were to accept the most academically qualified students who applied to your school, you would still likely get a decent representative sample of lots of different talents, interests, and backgrounds. You’d still get the newspaper editors and gay rights activists and kids who wear a head covering.</p>
<p>If you defined “the most academically qualified students” based on SAT’s (racking and stacking and accepting all the 2400’s, then the 2390’s, and so on)? No, I’m not sure that you’d have quite as diverse of a sample of lots of different talents, interests and backgrounds as you do with a more holistic admissions process.</p>
<p>Again, she’s simply suggesting that “being yourself” as an admissions strategy only works if your particular self adds to the diversity of the elite school (which being Caucasian, female, heterosexual, and affluent doesn’t…so that stinks for her because that’s who her self is). Being yourself also only works for elite college admissions if you are a highly energetic leader with many super-special talents who is willing to run around like a chicken with its head cut off 24/7, checking off all the EC boxes for the application. Apparently, she doesn’t think she’s that type of “self” either.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing: lots of students aren’t that type of student. They are the ones who feel rejected as PEOPLE, not just as applicants to a particular school. (BTW, my kids did well in admissions, so no sour grapes here.) But reading the decision threads must be disheartening for many people. You really do have to be highly exceptional and unusual, and even the kid with the 2400 SAT and perfect 800’s on all his subject tests who started a couple of clubs gets rejected.</p>
<p>She specifically says, be yourself works if its 9 ECs, 6 leadership roles, 3 varsity, killer scores, 2 moms.</p>
<p>No, lots of kids don’t have the energy or follow through to be high achievers, all around. Or the vision, in the first place.<br>
So, what’s to be expected from a highly competitive college, meant for that sort of kids and with 10 times the candidates as seats?</p>
<p>PG–I personally don’t agree with that theory, but there’s a long history on CC of discussion of this topic and plenty of posters have expressed that point of view. They tend to be against athletic recruitment in particular.</p>
<p>The two moms comment was ill-advised–I agree.</p>
<p>^If a kid feels rejected as a PERSON because he or she didn’t win the admissions lottery, there’s something else going on with self-esteem or other issues. In many cases, I would guess it’s the parents having set the expectation that the kid is “so special” and “deserves” admission to our most selective universities–so after 18 years of hearing this, a kid who is rejected is being told by an impartial third party that his/her parents were lying all this time.</p>
<p>I will never understand why people confer so much power to a handful of universities that, while wonderful, do not have a lock on wonderfulness or on helping students achieve their full potential in life. The flip side of looking to the Ivies and other similar schools as the be-all, end-all for their offspring is the implied weakness these people see in them–with the implication being that if not for an elite college education, they do not have faith in their kids’ ability to succeed.</p>
<p>Funny. If look at history Harvard first started with holistic admissions to reduce the number of people of certain ethnicity (Jews). Now schools use holistic admissions to increase the numbers of people with “desirable” characteristics. They are very subjective ways to control admissions.</p>
<p>One problem with “holistic admissions” is that it strongly favors extroverts, who are far more likely to talk their way into getting key leadership positions in multiple ECs. The introverts tend to make their contributions more quietly and are in any case unlikely to volunteer their names to any position which requires a vote.</p>
<p>Am I the only one who is curious where she did get in? I didn’t read the other 28 pages as I’ve decided a lot of this is a crap shoot and kids who are going to do amazing things will do them wherever they land for college</p>