What are “Lived Experiences” vs “Exeriences”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For applicants with unarguably privileged backgrounds, this essay is a minefield. Maybe there was someone in your life who had an outsized influence that you can focus on. But it seems like a no-win proposition for children of privilege.

This is why so many of you are so fired up about this question. Because your children are privileged and yes, this specific question is "no-win" for a privileged child, but here's the thing. Your privileged child has been winning in many other categories up until this exact point. You are angry that now at this point, you do not get to continue using that privilege to guarantee this particular success (admission to an elite college) for your child and you CAN buy this thing (paying full freight for a private college). About 45% of students at Ivy schools are full pay. The stats on how many Americans are rich are nebulous depending on what you consider rich, but if we use a basic number - how many households have a net worth over $2 million. That works out to right under 10% of households. What that number means is that rich kids are already incredibly overrepresented in those places. It is what it is.

I have yet to meet a parent of a child who is not privileged that has a problem with this question. Privileged children were overrepresented before in top colleges and they will continue to be. Pick another essay prompt and remember that 45% of the slots are going to 10% of the population. If your child doesn't get one of those slots, they will still have a decent life with whatever college they end up going to.

Being a child of normal middle class is not a privilege
It's a normal thing. It should not be penalized.

Under-privileged kids will still have a decent life with whatever college they end up going to.

Merit should be the major measure.
I can understand social status as a tiebreaker.
That much I can understand, but middle class normal kids should not be penalized.

You have to read the thread in conjunction with other threads about elite schools losing their luster.

It’s vexing if you think a small handful of elite universities are the ticket to a successful life, and then see how a certain cohort of high-achieving kids from well-off families are systematically denied access to those institutions because, on the one hand, they don’t have “hooks,” yet on the other hand they don’t check the diversity boxes (which essays about “lived experiences” are intended to surface) that give them an edge with liberal admissions officers.

However, if you recognize that some of the elite schools increasingly see themselves as in the business of promoting social change and mobility, and less interested in rewarding academic merit than in the 70s to 00s, you can move on. An ever-increasing percentage of the young adults who make valuable contributions to society will come from less “selective” state schools, and the Ivies and “top” SLACs will be seen as increasingly twee - a nice lottery to have won, but not necessarily indicative of exceptional smarts or intellectual strength.

So, sure, when some schools demand essays about kids’ “lived experiences,” they can try to write an honest, introspective essay, but it seems there’s also every reason to believe they are now used by left-leaning admissions officers as a tool to toss applications from kids deemed to have enjoyed too many “unearned privileges.”

LMAO, you are contradicting yourself.

Small handful of elite universities are not the ticket to a successful life, however it's a ticket for the poor people.

make up your mind.

No contradiction, pea brain.

One the one hand, the elite institutions have an exalted sense of their own worth and think they can effect social change by spreading their magic pixie dust far more widely.

Yet they ultimately undermine their own standing by increasingly being seen as politically driven rather than academically elite.

This is already happening and the demands for applicants to manufacture narratives of hardship and deprivation under the guise of writing essays about their “lived experiences” seems but another step in the same direction.

-1

Obvious you didn't go to college at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For applicants with unarguably privileged backgrounds, this essay is a minefield. Maybe there was someone in your life who had an outsized influence that you can focus on. But it seems like a no-win proposition for children of privilege.

This is why so many of you are so fired up about this question. Because your children are privileged and yes, this specific question is "no-win" for a privileged child, but here's the thing. Your privileged child has been winning in many other categories up until this exact point. You are angry that now at this point, you do not get to continue using that privilege to guarantee this particular success (admission to an elite college) for your child and you CAN buy this thing (paying full freight for a private college). About 45% of students at Ivy schools are full pay. The stats on how many Americans are rich are nebulous depending on what you consider rich, but if we use a basic number - how many households have a net worth over $2 million. That works out to right under 10% of households. What that number means is that rich kids are already incredibly overrepresented in those places. It is what it is.

I have yet to meet a parent of a child who is not privileged that has a problem with this question. Privileged children were overrepresented before in top colleges and they will continue to be. Pick another essay prompt and remember that 45% of the slots are going to 10% of the population. If your child doesn't get one of those slots, they will still have a decent life with whatever college they end up going to.

Being a child of normal middle class is not a privilege
It's a normal thing. It should not be penalized.

Under-privileged kids will still have a decent life with whatever college they end up going to.

Merit should be the major measure.
I can understand social status as a tiebreaker.
That much I can understand, but middle class normal kids should not be penalized.

You have to read the thread in conjunction with other threads about elite schools losing their luster.

It’s vexing if you think a small handful of elite universities are the ticket to a successful life, and then see how a certain cohort of high-achieving kids from well-off families are systematically denied access to those institutions because, on the one hand, they don’t have “hooks,” yet on the other hand they don’t check the diversity boxes (which essays about “lived experiences” are intended to surface) that give them an edge with liberal admissions officers.

However, if you recognize that some of the elite schools increasingly see themselves as in the business of promoting social change and mobility, and less interested in rewarding academic merit than in the 70s to 00s, you can move on. An ever-increasing percentage of the young adults who make valuable contributions to society will come from less “selective” state schools, and the Ivies and “top” SLACs will be seen as increasingly twee - a nice lottery to have won, but not necessarily indicative of exceptional smarts or intellectual strength.

So, sure, when some schools demand essays about kids’ “lived experiences,” they can try to write an honest, introspective essay, but it seems there’s also every reason to believe they are now used by left-leaning admissions officers as a tool to toss applications from kids deemed to have enjoyed too many “unearned privileges.”

LMAO, you are contradicting yourself.

Small handful of elite universities are not the ticket to a successful life, however it's a ticket for the poor people.

make up your mind.

No contradiction, pea brain.

One the one hand, the elite institutions have an exalted sense of their own worth and think they can effect social change by spreading their magic pixie dust far more widely.

Yet they ultimately undermine their own standing by increasingly being seen as politically driven rather than academically elite.

This is already happening and the demands for applicants to manufacture narratives of hardship and deprivation under the guise of writing essays about their “lived experiences” seems but another step in the same direction.

Of all the hills to die on this is your hamburger hill??? I have read this whole thread and seen several examples / ideas for "lived experience" essays that have nothing to do with hardship or deprivation.

Seems but another step...

What a vexingly twee palaver

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but you still had the experience. Was it a meaningful one? At five, no. Did you live through the experience? Yes. The phrase "lived experience" makes no sense and is silly. I understand what the phrase is trying to convey, but that doesn't make the phrase any less redundant.

Why do they insist on calling the toilets "rest rooms?" I find them rather stressful. Especially in public. Not that "water closet" makes that much more sense.

A toilet is in a room. With a sink. Do you know wash your hands after using the toilet?

Not all of them

You can still test while sitting on a toilet in a room.

Rest. But nobody calls that a restroom anyway, its a portapotty.

Buddy... if you can rest while sitting on that thing then I am certain you have some "lived experiences" worth writing about!

You mentioned rest rooms but then posted a pic of something else. Is it your lived experience to constantly be in a state of confusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but you still had the experience. Was it a meaningful one? At five, no. Did you live through the experience? Yes. The phrase "lived experience" makes no sense and is silly. I understand what the phrase is trying to convey, but that doesn't make the phrase any less redundant.

Why do they insist on calling the toilets "rest rooms?" I find them rather stressful. Especially in public. Not that "water closet" makes that much more sense.

A toilet is in a room. With a sink. Do you know wash your hands after using the toilet?

Not all of them

You can still test while sitting on a toilet in a room.

Rest. But nobody calls that a restroom anyway, its a portapotty.

Buddy... if you can rest while sitting on that thing then I am certain you have some "lived experiences" worth writing about!

You mentioned rest rooms but then posted a pic of something else. Is it your lived experience to constantly be in a state of confusion?

You can't use a vocabulary word in the sentence after being schooled. Why are you on the college forum? -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but you still had the experience. Was it a meaningful one? At five, no. Did you live through the experience? Yes. The phrase "lived experience" makes no sense and is silly. I understand what the phrase is trying to convey, but that doesn't make the phrase any less redundant.

Why do they insist on calling the toilets "rest rooms?" I find them rather stressful. Especially in public. Not that "water closet" makes that much more sense.

A toilet is in a room. With a sink. Do you know wash your hands after using the toilet?

Not all of them

You can still test while sitting on a toilet in a room.

Rest. But nobody calls that a restroom anyway, its a portapotty.

Buddy... if you can rest while sitting on that thing then I am certain you have some "lived experiences" worth writing about!

You mentioned rest rooms but then posted a pic of something else. Is it your lived experience to constantly be in a state of confusion?

You can't use a vocabulary word in the sentence after being schooled. Why are you on the college forum? -DP

Bless your heart, it must be hard being you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:isn't lived experiences redundant? Colleges should be encouraging students to be clear, concise writers by avoiding such phrases.

No, it’s not redundant. Read the thread. Plenty of explanations.

Do you have an example of a personal experience that is not a lived experience?

Lived experience refers to experiencing something yourself rather than obtaining knowledge about something passively, ie through media or secondhand.

Writing about a non-lived experience in a college essay would be ridiculous. Agree with the person above who said the word "lived" is redundant.

An "experience" is going on a mission trip to "help" people in poorer countries. Lived experience is actually growing up in those conditions. You're welcome.

The meaning is exactly the same if you take out the word lived. It’s unnecessary to make the point.

The meaning of "exactly the same" is the same if you take out the word "exactly" . It's unnecessary to make the point. Look who's the snowflake lib now!

lol!

Snowflake and lib are redundant. Keep trying.

Nothing left of your argument. Nothing left but word games.

But you like word games. Which is why some of you are so desperately trying to split hairs here. If you actually had an interesting story to tell you wouldn't need to call it a lived experience. The experience would speak for itself.

"Lived experience" is a defined term, distinct from experience.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100109997

"Personal knowledge about the world gained through direct, first-hand involvement in everyday events rather than through representations constructed by other people." Also "In phenomenology, our situated, immediate, activities and encounters in everyday experience, prereflexively taken for granted as reality rather than as something perceived or represented;" and also "From Althusser's structuralist Marxist perspective, all human activity, which he emphasized is not a given or pure ‘reality’, but a ‘peculiar relationship to the real’ which is ‘identical with’ ideology."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:isn't lived experiences redundant? Colleges should be encouraging students to be clear, concise writers by avoiding such phrases.

No, it’s not redundant. Read the thread. Plenty of explanations.

Do you have an example of a personal experience that is not a lived experience?

Lived experience refers to experiencing something yourself rather than obtaining knowledge about something passively, ie through media or secondhand.

Writing about a non-lived experience in a college essay would be ridiculous. Agree with the person above who said the word "lived" is redundant.

An "experience" is going on a mission trip to "help" people in poorer countries. Lived experience is actually growing up in those conditions. You're welcome.

The meaning is exactly the same if you take out the word lived. It’s unnecessary to make the point.

The meaning of "exactly the same" is the same if you take out the word "exactly" . It's unnecessary to make the point. Look who's the snowflake lib now!

lol!

Snowflake and lib are redundant. Keep trying.

Nothing left of your argument. Nothing left but word games.

But you like word games. Which is why some of you are so desperately trying to split hairs here. If you actually had an interesting story to tell you wouldn't need to call it a lived experience. The experience would speak for itself.

"Lived experience" is a defined term, distinct from experience.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100109997

"Personal knowledge about the world gained through direct, first-hand involvement in everyday events rather than through representations constructed by other people." Also "In phenomenology, our situated, immediate, activities and encounters in everyday experience, prereflexively taken for granted as reality rather than as something perceived or represented;" and also "From Althusser's structuralist Marxist perspective, all human activity, which he emphasized is not a given or pure ‘reality’, but a ‘peculiar relationship to the real’ which is ‘identical with’ ideology."

What type of experience involves representations constructed by other people? Wouldn't that be something other than an experience such as an understanding?

[Anonymous]

I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

Oh my goodness!!! I missed a whole day of this? What a goldmine of projection and paranoia...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For applicants with unarguably privileged backgrounds, this essay is a minefield. Maybe there was someone in your life who had an outsized influence that you can focus on. But it seems like a no-win proposition for children of privilege.

This is why so many of you are so fired up about this question. Because your children are privileged and yes, this specific question is "no-win" for a privileged child, but here's the thing. Your privileged child has been winning in many other categories up until this exact point. You are angry that now at this point, you do not get to continue using that privilege to guarantee this particular success (admission to an elite college) for your child and you CAN buy this thing (paying full freight for a private college). About 45% of students at Ivy schools are full pay. The stats on how many Americans are rich are nebulous depending on what you consider rich, but if we use a basic number - how many households have a net worth over $2 million. That works out to right under 10% of households. What that number means is that rich kids are already incredibly overrepresented in those places. It is what it is.

I have yet to meet a parent of a child who is not privileged that has a problem with this question. Privileged children were overrepresented before in top colleges and they will continue to be. Pick another essay prompt and remember that 45% of the slots are going to 10% of the population. If your child doesn't get one of those slots, they will still have a decent life with whatever college they end up going to.

Being a child of normal middle class is not a privilege
It's a normal thing. It should not be penalized.

Under-privileged kids will still have a decent life with whatever college they end up going to.

Merit should be the major measure.
I can understand social status as a tiebreaker.
That much I can understand, but middle class normal kids should not be penalized.

You have to read the thread in conjunction with other threads about elite schools losing their luster.

It’s vexing if you think a small handful of elite universities are the ticket to a successful life, and then see how a certain cohort of high-achieving kids from well-off families are systematically denied access to those institutions because, on the one hand, they don’t have “hooks,” yet on the other hand they don’t check the diversity boxes (which essays about “lived experiences” are intended to surface) that give them an edge with liberal admissions officers.

However, if you recognize that some of the elite schools increasingly see themselves as in the business of promoting social change and mobility, and less interested in rewarding academic merit than in the 70s to 00s, you can move on. An ever-increasing percentage of the young adults who make valuable contributions to society will come from less “selective” state schools, and the Ivies and “top” SLACs will be seen as increasingly twee - a nice lottery to have won, but not necessarily indicative of exceptional smarts or intellectual strength.

So, sure, when some schools demand essays about kids’ “lived experiences,” they can try to write an honest, introspective essay, but it seems there’s also every reason to believe they are now used by left-leaning admissions officers as a tool to toss applications from kids deemed to have enjoyed too many “unearned privileges.”

LMAO, you are contradicting yourself.

Small handful of elite universities are not the ticket to a successful life, however it's a ticket for the poor people.

make up your mind.

No contradiction, pea brain.

One the one hand, the elite institutions have an exalted sense of their own worth and think they can effect social change by spreading their magic pixie dust far more widely.

Yet they ultimately undermine their own standing by increasingly being seen as politically driven rather than academically elite.

This is already happening and the demands for applicants to manufacture narratives of hardship and deprivation under the guise of writing essays about their “lived experiences” seems but another step in the same direction.

-1

Obvious you didn't go to college at all.

You only wish you or your kids could attend the schools I attended, although they are doing everything they can now to render themselves less relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

Bingo. It’s unnecessary and exhausting to ask high-achieving kids to try and decode these demands for “authenticity” that often call for anything but.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

Oh my goodness!!! I missed a whole day of this? What a goldmine of projection and paranoia...

NP but you seem quite upset by what a few posters have succinctly pointed out regarding elite college admissions and what they're looking for in their applicants. It's very obvious what the beau ideal is and it's basically two types of kids:

Kid 1: first generation minority, ideally black but Latino ok, who struggled against pervasive systematic racism and is dedicating his/her life via activism to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be)

Kid 2: Double legacy, parent 1 is a senior honcho at the World bank, parent 2 is a senior finance investment guru in clean energy, spent good part of childhood living overseas, attended elite private schools, has a creative name like Arturo Sanchez-Fitzwilliam, been to 50+ countries already, plays squash, and talks about using activism through professional or finance career to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be).

Both types of applicants get significant advantages in the admissions process. If you follow the Harvard President controversy and her background, it's very easy to see exactly what the elite colleges are trying to do through admissions.

Regarding long term outcomes, it's definitely up for debate because the public perception of the elite schools will change if the perception is no longer one of excellence but something else and ideologically driven. We're already seeing some of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

Oh my goodness!!! I missed a whole day of this? What a goldmine of projection and paranoia...

NP but you seem quite upset by what a few posters have succinctly pointed out regarding elite college admissions and what they're looking for in their applicants. It's very obvious what the beau ideal is and it's basically two types of kids:

Kid 1: first generation minority, ideally black but Latino ok, who struggled against pervasive systematic racism and is dedicating his/her life via activism to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be)

Kid 2: Double legacy, parent 1 is a senior honcho at the World bank, parent 2 is a senior finance investment guru in clean energy, spent good part of childhood living overseas, attended elite private schools, has a creative name like Arturo Sanchez-Fitzwilliam, been to 50+ countries already, plays squash, and talks about using activism through professional or finance career to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be).

Both types of applicants get significant advantages in the admissions process. If you follow the Harvard President controversy and her background, it's very easy to see exactly what the elite colleges are trying to do through admissions.

Regarding long term outcomes, it's definitely up for debate because the public perception of the elite schools will change if the perception is no longer one of excellence but something else and ideologically driven. We're already seeing some of this.

Do you wrote for television? Your exposition is so, so hackneyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

Oh my goodness!!! I missed a whole day of this? What a goldmine of projection and paranoia...

NP but you seem quite upset by what a few posters have succinctly pointed out regarding elite college admissions and what they're looking for in their applicants. It's very obvious what the beau ideal is and it's basically two types of kids:

Kid 1: first generation minority, ideally black but Latino ok, who struggled against pervasive systematic racism and is dedicating his/her life via activism to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be)

Kid 2: Double legacy, parent 1 is a senior honcho at the World bank, parent 2 is a senior finance investment guru in clean energy, spent good part of childhood living overseas, attended elite private schools, has a creative name like Arturo Sanchez-Fitzwilliam, been to 50+ countries already, plays squash, and talks about using activism through professional or finance career to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be).

Both types of applicants get significant advantages in the admissions process. If you follow the Harvard President controversy and her background, it's very easy to see exactly what the elite colleges are trying to do through admissions.

Regarding long term outcomes, it's definitely up for debate because the public perception of the elite schools will change if the perception is no longer one of excellence but something else and ideologically driven. We're already seeing some of this.

Do you wrote for television? Your exposition is so, so hackneyed.

DP it captured an essential truth, which is that the type of kid the elite schools want is… not your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the "minefield" part comes in precisely because these essays have explicitly been touted as work-arounds for affirmative action. For example, an Asian-American applicant may be reluctant to write about very significant lived experience out of concern that there are "too many" qualified Asians and that they'll be held to a higher standard if too much of their "Asian-ness" shines through. Everyone knows there are some lived experiences that are more desirable to admissions officers than others. So applicants have to balance authenticity with what colleges have signaled they want.

Oh my goodness!!! I missed a whole day of this? What a goldmine of projection and paranoia...

NP but you seem quite upset by what a few posters have succinctly pointed out regarding elite college admissions and what they're looking for in their applicants. It's very obvious what the beau ideal is and it's basically two types of kids:

Kid 1: first generation minority, ideally black but Latino ok, who struggled against pervasive systematic racism and is dedicating his/her life via activism to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be)

Kid 2: Double legacy, parent 1 is a senior honcho at the World bank, parent 2 is a senior finance investment guru in clean energy, spent good part of childhood living overseas, attended elite private schools, has a creative name like Arturo Sanchez-Fitzwilliam, been to 50+ countries already, plays squash, and talks about using activism through professional or finance career to achieve a more equitable and just world (whatever that may be).

Both types of applicants get significant advantages in the admissions process. If you follow the Harvard President controversy and her background, it's very easy to see exactly what the elite colleges are trying to do through admissions.

Regarding long term outcomes, it's definitely up for debate because the public perception of the elite schools will change if the perception is no longer one of excellence but something else and ideologically driven. We're already seeing some of this.

Do you wrote for television? Your exposition is so, so hackneyed.

DP it captured an essential truth, which is that the type of kid the elite schools want is… not your kid.

One essential truth I learned from television in the 60s and 70s was that absolutely anything could be accomplished (or explained away) over the course of a two minute commercial break.

Growing up was so disappointing. Real people and television people are different.