s/o college- where was your kid denied acceptance that surprised you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

Here's are some facts about Mrs. Obama:

By sixth grade, Michelle joined a gifted class at Bryn Mawr Elementary School (later renamed Bouchet Academy).

She attended Whitney Young High School,Chicago's first magnet high school. The round trip commute from the Robinsons' South Side home to the Near West Side, where the school was located, took three hours. She was on the honor roll for four years, took advanced placement classes, a member of the National Honor Society and served as student council treasurer. Michelle graduated in 1981 as the salutatorian of her class.

[Anonymous]

Of course it grates me that white men got to go to Ivies for generations when women were excluded. And, I don't like legacy status either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

And how about the white men who FOR GENERATIONS didn't have to check a box, but were given entrees to education and careers by virtue of their gender, race and the good old boy network? Does that grate you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

Thats a lie based on . . . race? Both women were top students in high school. Sotomayor did come from a disadvantaged high school so she did have a hump to get over when she arrived at Princeton, but the fact that she received the Pyne Prize means she very quickly leapt to the very top of her class. I knew students at Princeton who came from disadvantaged high schools (white/AA/Latino) and they absolutely the kind of students who belonged because their success in high school indicated a determination that they channeled once they got to Princeton. One friend of mine in that category is now a doctor serving the community in which she grew up, a poor community that now has the benefit of her expert medical care.

You really need to get a handle on your white resentment. Its ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

And how about the white men who FOR GENERATIONS didn't have to check a box, but were given entrees to education and careers by virtue of their gender, race and the good old boy network? Does that grate you?

Or the white women who receive the vast majority of the set aside contracts. Does that grate you. Well it should. Most of the businesses are listed as 51% in the woman's name, but her husband or father is really running the business. In name only, but recipient of minority/women loans and contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

Yes, because a Black or Latino are not qualified to attend Princeton. Do you also think they were given that grades and class rank at Princeton based on affirmative action quotas. Go wash your hood, it's dirty.

[Anonymous]

Also "grate" lady. Learn to use the word before you pick on others' academic credentials. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

Thanks for wrecking the thread, douchebag.

[Anonymous]

Obama was a legacy for Harvaaaard.
This helps in admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama was a legacy for Harvaaaard.
This helps in admissions

At least Obama is smart. Unlike Bush Jr who also pulled the legacy card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama was a legacy for Harvaaaard.
This helps in admissions

At least Obama is smart. Unlike Bush Jr who also pulled the legacy card.

Bush Jr had the legacy and the money, (endowment baby)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For instance Sonia Sotomayor and Michelle Obama to name two! They didn't come into Princeton with strong academic backgrounds but clearly had enormous potential.
And to the PP who thinks that "white males" are the ones that are being disadvantaged by attempts to have a more heterogenous class, totally wrong, male applicants have an advantage at all the top schools, because if used grades and scores alone (particularly grades), and even taking into account extracurriculars, they would be admitting probably 70% female applicants, so they specifically need to work hard to have a class more or less balanced by sex, except at places that are 100% technical/engineering ie MIT

Just curious, what makes you think they did not have strong academic backgrounds prior to college entrance? Is this published somewhere? I was under the impression that MO attended a private highschool on partial scholarship.

Exactly. Sotomayor was valedictorian of her high school. Granted she didn't have high test sores but she showed that she made the most of what was available to her at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama was a legacy for Harvaaaard.
This helps in admissions

His father got an M.A. there; that's not worth anything in terms of admissions leverage.

[Anonymous]

DC was waitlisted at Washington University in St. Louis after showing a ton of interest. Luckily it was near the bottom of her list so she's not that torn up. Her specific decision didn't surprise me that much because the school has 30,000+ applicants and no one is a shoe-in. However, after she and I did more research we were very surprised to learn that Wash U frequently puts huge numbers of students onto their waitlist in order to increase yield, they have a simple application with no supplement to encourage applicants and therefore appear more selective, and they review all of their thousands of applications in less than 1 month (Feb. 15-March 10). Seems sketchy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC was waitlisted at Washington University in St. Louis after showing a ton of interest. Luckily it was near the bottom of her list so she's not that torn up. Her specific decision didn't surprise me that much because the school has 30,000+ applicants and no one is a shoe-in. However, after she and I did more research we were very surprised to learn that Wash U frequently puts huge numbers of students onto their waitlist in order to increase yield, they have a simple application with no supplement to encourage applicants and therefore appear more selective, and they review all of their thousands of applications in less than 1 month (Feb. 15-March 10). Seems sketchy to me.

Wash U is one of the best universities in the country. Period. It doesn't have to appear more selective, it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC was waitlisted at Washington University in St. Louis after showing a ton of interest. Luckily it was near the bottom of her list so she's not that torn up. Her specific decision didn't surprise me that much because the school has 30,000+ applicants and no one is a shoe-in. However, after she and I did more research we were very surprised to learn that Wash U frequently puts huge numbers of students onto their waitlist in order to increase yield, they have a simple application with no supplement to encourage applicants and therefore appear more selective, and they review all of their thousands of applications in less than 1 month (Feb. 15-March 10). Seems sketchy to me.

Wash U is one of the best universities in the country. Period. It doesn't have to appear more selective, it is.

Agree with both of you. It's a great university. But these are some pretty obvious ploys designed to boost USA rankings with no obvious benefit to applicants.