1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's this op-ed missing?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Apr 3, 2013.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    The writing makes it sound like she has spent a lot of time watching "Girls."
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I had that same exact thought.

    I don't know whether to weep for America or to kick myself for having become the grumpy old guy who hates today's entitled youth.
     
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    One thing lots of these types of kids (and their parents) have a hard time accepting is that, for those upper-shelf schools, it's hard as hell to get into any one of them. In the research article re: better colleges not recruiting poor kids that's being hashed over on the Sports/News thread, the authors note that applying to one elite school is basically a strategy of not going to an elite school, simply because the probability of gaining acceptance (even for a very strong candidate) is ridiculously small. I guess it must be hard to convey this in straight journalism, because this message always seems to be lacking in such pieces.
     
  4. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Is there enough sexuality in Girls to overcome that dialogue issue? I've never watched.
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This girl had a 4.5 GPA, 2120 on her SAT and had done an internship as a U.S. Senate page. She was clearly sophisticated enough to know the game and to have tried to play it (and sophisticated enough to write this for the WSJ). As you said, it's just really difficult to get into those schools now. She didn't do anything wrong. They get a ridiculous number of applicants for very few spots. I am assuming she will end up at Michigan (one of the Big Ten schools she got into), and I agree with everyone on here, boo fucking hoo. There are a gazillion kids who would have given a body organ to get into Michigan (which has gotten more competitive, too, just as the schools she wanted have).

    The strategy now, is to decide on your top choice and apply early decision. When you apply early decision, you have to go to the school if you are accepted. If you have the credentials, your chances go by making it your early decision choice. You just get one chance, though.

    Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, all know that they are getting the same applicants and that those kids can only pick one school. They each like to boast about how selective they are, so they don't want to admit kids who then decide to go elsewhere (which makes you have to admit more kids, period). So you boost your chances a great deal (you still need the credentials) with your early decision application. The kid I mentioned that I helped this year got into the school he applied to early decision. If he hadn't, I expect he would have seen a bunch of rejection letters. He had the credentials, but so did a gazillion other kids.

    It's a much tougher game to be a part of than it was 20 to 30 years ago. I think a lot of parents who went to some of these schools have gotten hit hard with that reality. Which is the overall topic fits the WSJ demographic perfectly, even if the op ed is lame / a bad attempt a satire / whiny, or whatever it is.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I have only watched bits and pieces. I can't take it. There is a lot of sexuality, I think, it's just not sexuality I really want to be watching.
     
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Was it Outliers or Freakonomics, or did I read it somewhere else, that made the case that Harvard could make another freshman class out of the kids they reject and there would be no discernible difference in the academic profile or achievement level. It's so competitive and yet it's so random once you get to that high level.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I believe that. I have heard people throw out the (unrealistic) experimental idea of one of the Ivy's putting together their pool of their qualified applicants. ... and rather than picking kids subjectively from that group of applicants, using random straws to decide who gets in.

    You could then go back in 10 year increments and see if those kids do any better or worse than the kids they are currently admitting because they decided that subjectively one kid with stellar grades and perfect SAT scores had something another one didn't.
     
  9. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Even in a high school newspaper that would be mediocre, smarmy, and racist.

    As for the 'Why publish this?' question, I'll go with the 1000 comments theory. There's no viable editorial comment here; someone at WSJ read it and thought, 'Heh. Heheheheh. This should be fun.'

    Parents failed her, school failed her, camp failed her. But if you can't learn life lessons from Real Housewives, you're just not paying attention.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It's very difficult to get into a lot of schools, so you can do everything right and still not get into your choice.

    At the same time, you can certainly do a lot to hurt your chances.

    Without knowing anything, I wonder if that was the case with the girl who wrote that op ed. From the tone of her piece, I could imagine her writing essays that missed the mark somehow (thinking she was being cute or irreverent) or showing up for an interview and thinking she was being "candid," when she was really demonstrating a lack of tact.

    I don't know if that is true, but it's a possibility.

    When I was an undergrad, I knew a guy who was brilliant, but way too full of himself. Cocky as all hell. He wanted to go to medical school, and he had great credentials. I am pretty sure he had a 4.3 GPA in a life sciences major and he had perfect MCAT scores. Kt was a good university. He was a superbright guy. Just arrogant, especially if you didn't know him, he could rub you the wrong way.

    He put together a list of the top medical schools in the country and sent his applications, and he was sure they would all be banging down his door. The first hurdle with medical school is getting the interview. He got all the interviews.

    But after he started going for interviews, rejection letters started trickling in. We all wondered just how big of a dick he was at the interviews. I could totally see him interviewing them, making them try to convince him why he should grace them with his presence.

    He is a guy who took a can't miss application and turned it into rejections from a couple of schools he would have liked to go to.
     
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    There was a study published a few years ago in which they looked at elite-school-profile kids who, for whatever reason, didn't do the elite-school route and found, not so surprisingly, that those kids nevertheless soared.

    And, yes, it is almost completely random once you get into the pool of the legitimately qualified. There's a statistical term for that ... range restriction. If you did a scatter plot of qualifications vs. expected admission, if you looked at the entire pool of college applicants you'd see a very strong correlation. It would look something like this ...


    P(Admit)
    | + +
    | + + +
    | + + + +
    | + + + +
    | + + +
    | +
    ______________________________ Qual. Cred.

    But, in practice, the whole pool of college applicants doesn't apply to elite schools. Only those on the far right tail of the distribution actually apply, so this is what we see:

    P(Admit)
    | + +
    | + +
    | + +
    |
    |
    |
    ______________________________ Qual. Cred.

    There's some correlation there, but it's so weak as to look like randomness (and sometimes you get some really squirrelly results, such as a negative correlation).
     
  12. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    The glib trivialization of "coming out of the closet" is the worst...

    "Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it."

    Oh yes, all those advantages of being gay! Other than the general societal discrimination and stigma.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page