The New Discrimination
Being disadvantaged has become an advantage. Naomi Schaefer Riley writes for (the free section of) The Wall Street Journal about the kind of kid who has a tough time getting into college these days:
Given that, with the arrival of the new year, college applications are now flooding into admissions offices all over the country, it might be a good time to reflect on the absurdity of the whole college-admissions process. Take this passage from Michele Hernández's "Acing the College Application," where she assesses the chances of a high-school student getting into a college of his choice. "Best case: Neither of your parents attended college at all, your father is a factory worker, and your mom is on disability. . . . Worst case: Your father went to Yale as an undergraduate and then Harvard Business School and is now an investment banker and your mom went to Brown, holds a Ph.D. in chemistry and works as a research chemist."We all understand that being a rich white kid puts one at a disadvantage in the college-admissions process. But it is worth pausing to savor the irony of an institution that charges as much as $45,000 a year asking its applicants to demonstrate their proletarian credentials.
What's a privileged kid to do? Ms. Hernández, a former admissions officer at Dartmouth, offers a couple of options. "Be vague" about your parents' occupations: "If your mom is the chief neurosurgeon for a New York hospital, try 'medical.' " Or you could get yourself a job, "the less exalted the better," Ms. Hernández advises, citing one boarding-school student who improved his admissions chances by baling hay every summer (on his family's farm).
But making your collar seem blue may not be enough. What colleges are looking for these days, according to Ms. Hernández, is passion. "Since the late 1990s," she writes, "the focus has shifted away from well-rounded students to the idea of a well-rounded freshman class." A high-school student who gets good grades, serves as student body president and plays varsity football may be a remarkable person, but to an admissions officer his excellence may look rather conventional and diffuse. Better to cultivate a particular skill or enthusiasm. The ideal admissions-candidate is thus a prize-winning gymnast, a fluent reader of both Greek and Latin, a math champion, a successful entrepreneur or a violin virtuoso (all, ideally, with working-class parents, of course). And remember, Ms. Hernández warns, "passion cannot be faked."
But so much else can. Elizabeth Wissner-Gross's "What High Schools Don't Tell You" provides, as its subtitle has it, "300+ Secrets to Make Your Kid Irresistible to Colleges by Senior Year." Ms. Wissner-Gross is an "educational strategist" and proud of it. "When people ask me what I do exactly," she explains, "I'm sometimes tempted to tell them that I make kids' dreams come true."
"What colleges are looking for these days, according to Ms. Hern�¡ndez, is passion."
What a load of horsepussy! What colleges look for today is numbers, groups, filling up the racial pigeonholes and that's about it. Gradepoint averages, extra-circular activities, all of that other crap takes a back seat to, 'We want this percent of blacks, this percent of foreign students because they pay the highest tuition, women, this percent of latinos, and don't get too heavy on the asians again, and jesus christ! A white guy, what the hell are you thinking??!!!
To paraphrase Orwell, In a world were so much emphasis is put on equality, some people are more equal than others.
Bikerken at January 6, 2008 10:51 AM
Amy, you use the wrong word to describe some college applicants at the beging of this piece. No one born in this country is "disadvantaged." They may be poor or needy, but with the freedoms we enjoy in the area of education and personal choice we are all "advantaged" when compared to other areas of the world.
If a person decides to blow off the free education provided thrrough high school, or fails to develop a work ethic or any type of initiative they are not disadvantaged they are irresponsible. If someone decides to spend their money on a big screen TV, fancy car, multiuse high tech cell phones or other bling instead of putting money towards an advanced education (or health insurance for that matter) they are not disadvantaged. They are simply making choices for which they must be responsible; not me or you or some expensive college.
truman at January 7, 2008 6:29 AM
Well, truman, I can see you've never been poor. It's not the poor that are buying bling and big screens and cars. They can't. We're the ones that keep the bus lines running. Sort of.
I see college admissions are realistic these days. People without means should have violin lessons???
Donna at January 8, 2008 9:01 AM
Leave a comment