<p>Based on USATODAY, she was already rejected by Yale. Wonder if there are any waitlists which can turn based on all this attention.</p>
<p>I found her to be moderately funny and she has a point. However, on the WSJ site where I read it and then looked at comments/posts from the public, someone claims that she is a relative of a former WSJ editorial page writer and hence an “insider.” IS there some sort of inside story to all this?!</p>
<p>But Bay, beyond the relative merits of individual candidates, it is just a simple question of supply and demand, right? Parents “lie to” their kids all the time with broad platitudes and promises–“you can be anything you want when you grow up!” “you are so smart, there’s no way you won’t be successful!” They can’t deliver on that promise the way they can with a car or a trip to Paris for graduation. It’s simply not in their control. </p>
<p>Someone who has the time and inclination could add up the number of freshman spots at the desired colleges, and cross reference that against the number of valedictorians, 2400 SAT scorers, USAMO finalists, piano competition winners and so on–and that’s not counting the big-donor legacies, recruited athletes, international students who are going to get in. It would become apparent pretty quickly that there are far more fantastic students than there are openings for them. It just isn’t that complicated.</p>
<p>Wait.
So a bratty, privileged teenager writes an article in which she whines about not having made it into some lottery school and gets jobs and internships thrown her way?</p>
<p>What in god’s name IS this?</p>
<p>Alexissss, it’s- sorry, folks- the lemmings rush toward a celebrity, absent any reflection.</p>
<p>Sally,
I don’t think most high school kids, even the smart ones, spend time calculating their chances of admission at each respective college, using all sorts of detailed criteria, and neither do their parents unless they read CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, she thinks there was a formula and she didn’t follow the right one but the “winners” did. Don’t these people understand that if there were any magic formula, it wouldn’t be a formula for long as lemmings would seek to turn themselves into the formulaic flavor-of-the-day?</p>
<p>I don’t know if she thinks there’s a formula. But she surrre does think she’s "all that. "</p>
<p>The 2160, my guess, is not what held her back.</p>
<p>I actually do think there is a formula, but it is next to impossible to achieve. If you are a 2400/Val, URM from South Dakota, nationally ranked athlete, who has won high awards in music and science, and you are low-income with one parent and worked to put food on your family’s table, you are almost assured of getting in everywhere. </p>
<p>The closer an applicant can come to matching that profile, the better chance he has of getting in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The deal is that she is correct that it was a joke. She is, however, totally incorrect in describing her op-ed as satire. Satire is more than poking puerile fun at things that are politically correct.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that nobody is commenting on the fact that the Ivies are admitting more men than women, as a percentage.</p>
<p>No, Bay, lots don’t do any research. They can’t even answer a Why Us? question. They explain their match in terms of opportunities that don’t exist. We should feel sorry for them? Blame the colleges? </p>
<p>The insight isn’t dressing like a NA or pretending to be gay or holding an orphan baby. Har har.</p>
<p>Based on the interview, which I now watched from the link, the piece came out of a temper tantrum she was having about admissions which was making her sister laugh, after her mother didn’t want to hear about it anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beliavsky, I hope you will appreciate the difference between “smearing” people who play a role in the public eye and lobbing cheap ad hominems in the direction of members of this forum.</p>
<p>poetgrl, she declines to mention the sister works at the WSJ. How convenient. And disingenuous.</p>
<p>Lookingforward,
You come across as so harshly judgmental of 17 year olds, that I find myself thankful that you obviously did not read my kids’ cliche but heartfelt essays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did she? I didn’t notice.</p>
<p>I thought she was fine. I mean, she clearly admires Tina Fey, and I certainly caught that in the piece she wrote… Though I don’t think she is going to be considered one of our future “deep thinkers” she captured a temper tantrum that was going on that weekend all across America. Not in my house, certainly, but even her mother didn’t want to listen to it.</p>
<p>She’s a kid.</p>
<p>To attach too much importance to her rant is the idiotic thing our media tends to do.</p>
<p>youdon’tsay - the references put her sister’s connection in the past to wsj or is she still employed?</p>
<p>I am sure she still has contacts even if it was in the past.</p>
<p>Someone upthread said her sister used to work there.</p>
<p>ETA: I see I mistyped upthread.</p>
<p>And I will say she does demonstrate the lack of awareness, in that interview, of the priveledged upper middle class kid, in that she says, “I just think they are evaluating us on things outside of our control these days instead of things in our control.” (paraphrase)</p>
<p>I mean, this has ALWAYS been the case. It’s just that now it is an equal opportunity evaluation of things outside of “our” control. </p>
<p>But, I really think she has it kind of wrong, frankly, in that every single kid, for the most part, is being evaluated this way, and I genuinely do not believe that being a URM is the hook it once was. I think it is merely a tip, like anything else, besides being famous or having the president for a mom or dad.</p>