<p>Thanks alh.</p>
<p>I don’t have a WSJ subscription and I was able to read it. But it has been cached by google and should be available here:</p>
<p>[Suzy</a> Lee Weiss: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324000704578390340064578654.html]Suzy”>http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324000704578390340064578654.html)</p>
<p>Speaking for the formerly naive, I can say that my son and I didn’t know the rules of the game. We knew about good grades, test scores, ecs and volunteering. However, the way the game was played, you can mark us as clueless prior to my joining CC in December of this year. Having said that, my son still managed to get accepted to several very good schools. He worked hard, spent time on things about which he was passionate, and still had time to hang out with his friends and play video games. I remember him asking me if it would be okay to put that sometimes he just sits and thinks as an answer to one of his college app questions. I told him to go for it. He talked about taking time to just sit and think. At night, he puts on music and lets his mind wander, thinking. I think this gets lost in the frenetic world in which some of these kids live. The kids are over-scheduled from day one and it doesn’t get any better as they get older. It is a pity, because amazing ideas sometimes come out of taking time to just sit and think. What happened to just having time to be a kid?</p>
<p>Sigh Tigerdad, the Masters argument is SO 2012…</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1318146-will-augusta-invite-ibm-ceo-female-join.html?highlight=masters+to+allow+women[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1318146-will-augusta-invite-ibm-ceo-female-join.html?highlight=masters+to+allow+women</a></p>
<p>^ I was using their pre 2011 arguments. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they apply to elite colleges and prepare for interviews by dressing up and being your average Goth, Hun, Vandal, Viking, or some other “barbarian”…they’ll be able to maintain their childhood and win admission. </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>
I’m a little confused by the analogy. Maybe somjebody can clear it up. Which group exactly is completely locked out of elite school admissions in the same way that women were locked out of the Masters?</p>
<p>Also, AFAIK, the Master’s is an invitational with all sorts of varied criteria for qualification. It isn’t necessarily the top X number of golfers in any given year who are invited to play. It’s almost holistic. (Well, not really, there are criteria).</p>
<p>^ “almost holistic.” (Well not really, there are criteria)." Too funny!</p>
<p>Continuing the sports analogy, maybe we need a system of “Power Rankings” to rank the academic heavyweight students for college admissions to the Ivy League. That should satisfy the posters who keep pointing out that the Ivy League is “just an athletic conference–nothing more, nothing less.”</p>
<p>Your analogy of “if you don’t like back of the bus, just walk” makes zero sense, tiger dad. I don’t know who lied to you, or what cultural influences led you to believe that people who don’t graduate from HYPSM/the Ivies/the top 20 are at some kind of great disadvantage in life, but just because you believe it doesn’t objectively make it true. Look, anyone with two eyes can look around and see that success in America – financial or otherwise – can be had from any number of colleges, including state flagships. I don’t care what it is in Asia or what you’re used to – here, it’s the person, not the school, that makes or breaks success. Why you think not getting into HYPSM means a life of sloppy seconds and menial jobs is beyond me, but you’re incorrect. Completely. </p>
<p>If you don’t like the blue bus, take the yellow bus or the green one. It all gets you to the same place in the end. </p>
<p>You don’t seriously believe a smart kid who goes to (say) U of Illinois isn’t going to get exactly where he wants to go in life? You really honestly think he will be an also-ran, or never make any serious money? I’m sorry you’re naive, but you are.</p>
<p>Here in our large Midwestern city, having an Ivy degree doesn’t matter that much. Reviewing the resumes of civic and business leaders, easily enough done via our local business newspaper feature articles, it’s clear most graduated from local universities and colleges, and not necessarily the two “Top 20”-ranked schools here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s actually the case in much of the US. But don’t tell that to the folks with Ivy stars in their eyes. They truly will never believe it.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl
I went to a large public and I know it can lead to a great career. It’s not the point. Whether a kid can get success elsewhere does not justify at all some schools put extra barrier on them.
If a landlord discriminates certain groups, people of the group can still get perfect appartments elsewhere. That does not justify the discrimination. You can get US Open, British Open and Other championships and be greatly successful. That does not justify Masters block people out.</p>
<p>Bovertine. I was using an extreme example of completely blocking. In some other cases it is partially blocking.</p>
<p>Are we going to get into a tiresome Aff Action thread, replete with definitions of “more qualified” being linked to SAT scores? If so, been there done that.</p>
<p>I never said SAT is the only qualifying criteria. I’m ok with any criteria except race because kids cannot choose their race.</p>
<p>
Then it is not an appropriate analogy IMO. It is way off base since I suspect the group you are concerned about is actually over-represented at the schools you are worried about. </p>
<p>The analogy is not even close. In fact, it would be more appropriate if the complete opposite were happening - men complaining because they let a single woman play at the Masters if there were any male golfers with better performance that year.</p>
<p>BTW, I’m not arguing against the point you are trying to make. I’m ambivalent on it. I just think you weaken your point with weak, sensationalist analogies.</p>
<p>^I am all for Dr. King, judge a person not based on the color of his skin but the character of his content. If you do that you will not categorize different race as over represented and under represented.
Race based admission/hiring/promotion will lead to people claiming they have 1/32 Cherokee heritage.</p>
<p>
Okay, fine with me.
But strange then that you bring up the “back of the bus” and Master’s analogies. Those are race and gender based complaints that you brought up as relevant. Not me.
BTW - Your analogies are still nonsense.</p>
<p>I think you might have misunderstood my point.
I was using these ridiculous race/gender based rules as example of what we should NOT do.
If you still fail to see my point I have nothing more to say.</p>
<p>Loved the part about needing to have 2 moms… HA! I always tell my S I’m waiting for my paycheck for being his Personal Assistant. ;)</p>
<p>Well, feel free to ascertain that a rejection “must have been due to” race as opposed to simply looking the same as everyone else in the admittance pool on other characteristics.</p>