Interesting letter in the WSJ about a girl left behind from the elite university's. What's you opinion? Suzy Lee Weiss: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me - WSJ.com
Top schools are looking for future superstar (and generous) alumni - not necessarily the good student who graduates and has a merely successful career.
Even if they were fair, which they are not. She still might not have gotten in. Most colleges are getting far more *qualified* applicants than they are willing to enroll. Do notice how it is all someone else's fault. Her parents didn't force her to learn piano. Amy Chua didn't adopt her. She would have done charity work, if only someone had told her that it would help *her*.
As I understand it, it's become easier to apply to many colleges with the electronic forms, etc. My nephew applied to 10 or more colleges. Times have changed but I'm appalled at the sarcastic pity party that was published.
Obviously, some readers detected the sarcasm, some took her literally. This was a frustrated high school student, not an university dean. The WSJ would have helped everyone if they had put in a single editors note that this was an over the top essay with some validity, not an editorial staff viewpoint. I thought it was funny. The line about the "afternoon with Kinto changed my life" cracked me up. She may not have gotten into the school she wanted (on the first try), but in the meantime, the WSJ could use a Dave Barry quality column more routinely. I have just the candidate.
I don't get the premise... I realize it is a satirical rant but come on now. First clue that they have no clue, is that I am not aware of any Ivy League colleges. There are Ivy League universities, but not colleges. Many were founded as colleges, and Dartmouth still has the word college, but they are all universities. I also can't believe how she is complaining that nobody forced her to learn skills or volunteer... If you want to play the piano learn. If you want to volunteer do so. It will help your chances of getting in a better school. It shows that you are well rounded with a good personal life, social life, and humanitarian side and don't just watch Youtube cat videos and drink all day. It is really sad that the WSJ publishes this crap, but they publish 99% crap which just makes it sadder.
First of all, I'd admit this girl. She's observant, intelligent and has a caustic sense of humor. I think that's either fertile ground for future success OR she'll end up middle aged and spending way too much time on the internet discussing,- I don't know- Hybrid cars. Either way, I thought that was a well written piece. She makes a legitimate point as well. The whole admission system is bit of a sham. I think it is designed not so much to allow the admission of the best students, but to create a resume based systematic approach that will exclude those students not raised in an environment that fosters those often very shallow accolades. It's tilted very much to son's and daughters of families with a history of college acceptance. In other words? Those who do know the importance of amassing the "perfect resume". If you're raised in a family where generationally this is expected and common? You will know the buzz words and highlights expected. If you come from a family that has little or no history of college acceptance, knowing what is expected is a far greater hurdle to jump. But in my personal opinion human history has shown that often some of the most succesful, dynamic and creative individuals that humanity has ever produced came not from even keeled backgrounds of perfection but from unbalanced and sometimes even dysfunctional backgrounds. One could argue that men like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein would not of produced resumes worthy of admission into todays top colleges if their worth was to be evaluated by their accomplishments up to admissions age. Give me a young person who can write, is observant, intelligent and motivated. Maybe they didn't for whatever reason have the time to become involved in many of the extracurricular activities most Admission processes seem to value. IMO a young person who does have the skills and intelligence to want to further their academic pursuit really shouldn't have to deal with terms such as "acceptance" or "rejection". Many will point out that I'm being ridiculously idealistic here, but my feeling is that the greatest parameter for college acceptance should be motivation and desire of the applicant...and opportunity offered from colleges.
I never had a problem trying to get into a school... My stellar grades, my work with the charities in 3 States before I got out of HS, my Veteran status, and my admission letters seemed to open doors rather easily... well... plus I am 1/8th Sioux.
I'm interested to know what connection she has, to lead to publication in the WSJ. Now admittedly, the WSJ loves the theme of "white discrimination," but this article only portrayed a whiny girl quick to blame the world + dog for her failure. If her admission essay was written in the same pathetic vein and lack of creativity or substance, then I think the Elites were right not only in denying her admission, but should have culled her admission app early.
My boss who is the CEO graduated from Columbia a Ivy League school. Sharp guy but at 47 years old he still rents an apartment. He problay has a few mill in the bank.
If the WSJ letter is to be taken at face value, the premise of not being told to do certain things in life that would have helped this student get into the college of their choice says a lot about this individual. We all have equal opportunity but not equal talents. To be told to have some initiative in one thing does not mean you will have initiative to do another thing. I can train a dog to do tricks so they become quite well at it, but that does not make it any smarter at doing something very new or unfamiliar until they're trained again. It may pick up the new trick quickly, but it won't learn it on it's own. Sometimes people are like that too, and while they may be very qualified at what they do in life, I doubt many of them will become CEO's of the company they work in, unless it's their own or a family owned company. Of course in government, we all know you can go far on very little talent! LOL
To see the girl's point of view, judge a science fair sometime. You will eventually notice that most of the reviewers are much more impressed by the style of what is presented vs. the substance of the students research effort. The kids are told they will be judged on their investigative skill and discipline. They actually get judged on the visual appeal of one poster board. Who can they complain to? Her situation was extremely similar.
Of course, this is all assuming that we (and she) know why she was rejected. If they've got record numbers of applicants they can be pretty picky. Sort of like the job market the past few years. I was out of work for 15 months, starting in January 2009. I had some guesses about why I wasn't getting the interviews but that's all they were. Guesses.
I live within 5 miles of the Chrysler Tech Center. They had let go 25% of their white collar workforce 2 months earlier, so we had a local supply/demand problem going for a while. Michigan was the only state that lost population between the 2000 and 2010 census surveys.
