He's a know-it-all and ignores his white male privilege

Easy not to be a sheep at Chicago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the book but read some reviews. Makes sense to me, but it could be self-serving because my own kid, 16 and looking at colleges, is not a sheep/refuses to be a sheep, and thus probably won't get in the top tier places that interest her. She is academically qualified (super high GPA, curriculum choices that can't get any harder, and high standardized test scores) but she's an introvert, wants to relax with her friends when she's not working, and has only minor sports credentials and extracurriculars.

On the one hand, I'm sad for her that she won't be able to compete in admissions with the kids who have "demonstrated passions" by age 16, but on the other hand, she is who she is, she's happy, she has lots of minor interests and friends, she has several real talents that she just hasn't "monetized" yet (at her age = figured out how to make admissions hay out of them), and she'll be FINE.

Sounds like a UChicago kid!

Sheep are flocking to Chicago too.

As for Deresiewicz, I read the book, and agree to some extent, but, as others have noted, he takes his argument to such extremes that it starts to sound like nothing more than cavil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the book but read some reviews. Makes sense to me, but it could be self-serving because my own kid, 16 and looking at colleges, is not a sheep/refuses to be a sheep, and thus probably won't get in the top tier places that interest her. She is academically qualified (super high GPA, curriculum choices that can't get any harder, and high standardized test scores) but she's an introvert, wants to relax with her friends when she's not working, and has only minor sports credentials and extracurriculars.

On the one hand, I'm sad for her that she won't be able to compete in admissions with the kids who have "demonstrated passions" by age 16, but on the other hand, she is who she is, she's happy, she has lots of minor interests and friends, she has several real talents that she just hasn't "monetized" yet (at her age = figured out how to make admissions hay out of them), and she'll be FINE.

Sounds like a UChicago kid!

Agree. But it's she's not URM, then she may have to apply ED

ED2 would give her a shot at HYPSM as well, if she prefers one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the book but read some reviews. Makes sense to me, but it could be self-serving because my own kid, 16 and looking at colleges, is not a sheep/refuses to be a sheep, and thus probably won't get in the top tier places that interest her. She is academically qualified (super high GPA, curriculum choices that can't get any harder, and high standardized test scores) but she's an introvert, wants to relax with her friends when she's not working, and has only minor sports credentials and extracurriculars.

On the one hand, I'm sad for her that she won't be able to compete in admissions with the kids who have "demonstrated passions" by age 16, but on the other hand, she is who she is, she's happy, she has lots of minor interests and friends, she has several real talents that she just hasn't "monetized" yet (at her age = figured out how to make admissions hay out of them), and she'll be FINE.

Sounds like a UChicago kid!

Agree. But it's she's not URM, then she may have to apply ED

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the book but read some reviews. Makes sense to me, but it could be self-serving because my own kid, 16 and looking at colleges, is not a sheep/refuses to be a sheep, and thus probably won't get in the top tier places that interest her. She is academically qualified (super high GPA, curriculum choices that can't get any harder, and high standardized test scores) but she's an introvert, wants to relax with her friends when she's not working, and has only minor sports credentials and extracurriculars.

On the one hand, I'm sad for her that she won't be able to compete in admissions with the kids who have "demonstrated passions" by age 16, but on the other hand, she is who she is, she's happy, she has lots of minor interests and friends, she has several real talents that she just hasn't "monetized" yet (at her age = figured out how to make admissions hay out of them), and she'll be FINE.

Sounds like a UChicago kid!

Haven't read the book but read some reviews. Makes sense to me, but it could be self-serving because my own kid, 16 and looking at colleges, is not a sheep/refuses to be a sheep, and thus probably won't get in the top tier places that interest her. She is academically qualified (super high GPA, curriculum choices that can't get any harder, and high standardized test scores) but she's an introvert, wants to relax with her friends when she's not working, and has only minor sports credentials and extracurriculars.

On the one hand, I'm sad for her that she won't be able to compete in admissions with the kids who have "demonstrated passions" by age 16, but on the other hand, she is who she is, she's happy, she has lots of minor interests and friends, she has several real talents that she just hasn't "monetized" yet (at her age = figured out how to make admissions hay out of them), and she'll be FINE.

To an extent, it is true. There are elements of what he describes in every ivy and elite. But he makes some really broad generalizations.

I think his premise that "schools can teach people to think for themselves" is ironic. I also think that he's tapped into a booming market for books that say what he's saying (live your truth and don't be another rat in the rat race!) that people working in rat race jobs read to placate themselves.

But I also do agree with him, to a certain extent. There's too much pushing of computer science and testing and "practicality," which is unfortunate. In college, there's more and more orientation around getting a job, and then making that job your life, which is unfortunate. Pre-college, there's a lot of "striving" for outdated modes of validation (you have to do Mrs. Simpson's because it's"prestigious" [to who?], you have to do X and Y because it "looks good" [who says?]) and that puts too much pressure on kids and parents. But there are also kids who realize this and look to work as police officers, social workers, and professors. Or kids with a pre-professional bent who take time to read classic books, enjoy art museums, and feed their mind outside of the straight-and-narrow "practicality" track. And parents like 11:34 and 11:47 PP who are taking a more zen approach.

So the problem is there, but those who want to solve it on their own are doing just fine. Meanwhile, Bill Deresiewicz makes a pretty penny for his hand-wringing and tapping into a growing book market. I applaud him for that.

I haven't read it, but I've read things about it.

Excellent Sheep is a perfect phrase.

My son is not one. Sometimes it kills me because I want him to have "the elite college education I had" but then I realize I want him to go to an ivy league school in the 80s when things were less sheep-like and there was more space for creativity.

Anonymous wrote:I did, and I do. That said, my kid is only 11 so I'm seeing the rat race he describes only in its early stages. But as someone who went to a fancy school and married someone who went to a not very "good" state school, I can say that it makes not one whit of a difference in our life happiness. I no longer see a point in aiming my child toward the kind of college I went to. If that is what he wants and drives toward it, fine. But we'll be sure he understands he will have an equally good life going to any one of 300 other colleges in the country, and that we'll be equally proud of him.

I completely agree. I went to a fancy prep school for high school, and fancy schools for undergrad and grad school. DH went to a strong public HS (which he despised, and graduated a year early to escape it), a strong public university (think the "public ivies") for undergrad, and state schools for both his MAs. He makes 4 times what I do and has better street smarts/ability to navigate workplace politics. I probably have a deeper knowledge of literature and the nitpick parts of grammar than he does, but is that worth massive amounts of money and stress? Probably not.

We have a similar view as PP on this. If our daughter (who is still very young) wants to go to the HS I went to, we won't stop her from applying. Luckily the school has need-blind admissions, so they'll meet all demonstrated financial aid needs. But I'll make it very clear to her that going to my HS (or something like it) is not an expectation, and that she can succeed regardless.

Anonymous wrote:if you outline his main points, we might be better positioned to respond.

Here is the synopsis

I did, and I do. That said, my kid is only 11 so I'm seeing the rat race he describes only in its early stages. But as someone who went to a fancy school and married someone who went to a not very "good" state school, I can say that it makes not one whit of a difference in our life happiness. I no longer see a point in aiming my child toward the kind of college I went to. If that is what he wants and drives toward it, fine. But we'll be sure he understands he will have an equally good life going to any one of 300 other colleges in the country, and that we'll be equally proud of him.

if you outline his main points, we might be better positioned to respond.

He asks a lot of questions about the state of our higher education at elite colleges