Is being low income at a top private an advantage this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. . .

TL/DR the obsession with social engineering and the guidelines for it have gone completely overboard and aren't doing what they are meant to do.

Exactly, and I agree with you. We need to abandon DEI and DEIA entirely, even if these concepts might sound nice on paper. Like many well-intentioned philosophies, DEI ultimately is divisive and ends up harming everyone; especially the folks we intend to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

The poors should know their place? And stay in it? Or at least not climb up faster than you? Because if their children do better than yours then they'll still be "fish out of water" and "not belong" right?

. . . Setting a kid up to fail to meet quotas is not doing them any favors. There are many who will succeed and that is incredible. But a lot of them don't. And lots of rich kids fail miserably also.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. . .

TL/DR the obsession with social engineering and the guidelines for it have gone completely overboard and aren't doing what they are meant to do.

Exactly, and I agree with you. We need to abandon DEI and DEIA entirely, even if these concepts might sound nice on paper. Like many well-intentioned philosophies, DEI ultimately is divisive and ends up harming everyone; especially the folks we intend to help.

All things being equal the I would take a kid who is truly a minority and/or from a less privileged background (i.e. not the kid of Ivy alum minority Goldman/Wachtell partners who is at Dalton/Trinity/Horace Mann/Exeter). And within reason, schools should be making some effort to reach out to kids who might not normally have had the school on their radar - they don't need countless people canvassing the streets. But it should be a tie breaker and not obsessively tracked by the schools and other entities.

That being said, the obsessive hatred of DEI by Trump and his people is also not healthy. It is not destroying the world. It is not a justification for not funding otherwise upstanding universities and programs. Unfortunately, his followers are too simplistic and too insistent on blaming others for their problems to make that connection.