I've been waiting for a response to my last post for a day. Since there hasn't been one, I've decided to leave/stop watching the discussion. I'm not a regular slashdot poster (I found this discussion while looking for a link to send someone about the ninja incident). I am posting this so that people (including the original poster) won't expect that me to reply to any more posts on the issue.
Well, no, I'd say that the other 91% aren't spoiled rich kids in their entirety, but your own source says that 46% came from 'independent, parochial, and other schools,' again not indicating that they all came from elite prep schools, but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of that 46% did.
I hope you realize that prep schools give financial aid (particularly the "elite prep schools"). Not every prep school student here pays his or her own way, or did in high school. In fact, prep school scholarship programs like A Better Chance create many inspiring stories "success in spite of adversity" every year.
Have you met anyone at Yale who appeared to have been average at best in high shcool, but still got in by logically explaining the hindrances that few meet up with that they were fated to encounter, and were granted admission, not by achieving the near perfection of their fortunate peers, but by doing extremely well with what fate had dealt them and still retaining the will to succeed, lacking only the proper conditions to do so? I highly, highly doubt it.
No, I haven't met "average" people who've had to deal with adversity...I've met amazing, stunningly impressive, and yes, highly intelligent people who excelled in spite of adversity. I've met people met people from poor single-parent homes who went to crappy schools and excelled there. I've met people from disadvantaged backgrounds who tested into magnet schools or won scholarships to prep schools and excelled there.
Is it still a meritocracy if someone coming from a crappy school with apathetic, incompetent teachers is ranked against someone coming from an elite prep school, or even a significantly better public one? No, it remains, for the most part at least, an educational plutocracy.
Do you think that admissions officers are so stupid as to think that a 2300 on the SAT coming out of Exeter is as impressive as a 2300 coming out of an under-funded inner-city school? A student from a disadvantaged background who is applying to Yale (or any college) doesn't have to "explain" what they've had to face; the admissions office takes it into account from the get-go. Evaluation of students in college admissions is very much contextual (see the excellent book The Gatekeepers if you're interested). The Exeter applicant will need to have excellent grades and scores just to get his foot in the door, and then will need something to make him stand out from the large crowd of over-polished prep school applicants. Conversely, the admissions office will not penalize the inner city kid if she does not have an absolutely impeccable transcript or for wasn't involved in "extracurricular activities" during high school (especially since the high school may not have offered such activities or the student may have needed to work).
Look, I don't try to pretend that the system is perfect. Colleges still recruit for sports. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a harder time even graduating from high school, let alone getting into college, than their privileged peers. Yet this does make the majority of Yale students (or college students generally) "spoiled rich kids" or "idiots."
I will make note that I'm not accusing these people of being millionaires or anything; I consider anyone with an income over 75 grand to be quitee privileged.
It is one thing to be privileged. It is another to be a "spoiled rich kids." Yes, the majority of college students (at Yale and in America) probably come from above average family circumstances. The majority of Americans are "privileged" by comparison to their peers in the developing world. So yes, perhaps the majority of Yale students are "privileged." It does not follow that they are
a) spoiled
b) "rich"
or c) idiots
Only 9% were even eligible for a Pell Grant. They're not all spoiled rich kids, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority are. It's pretty sad how unimportant the mental aspects of students are in higher education highest colleges, but in the battle between brains and blood, education and plutocracy, bet on the bad guys:(
Full disclosure: Like kid_izzy, I go to Yale. My family is paying some (although not all) of my tuition, but I'm still kind of insulted by the "spoiled rich kid" label.
From the quoted source:
Pell grants...are most often given to undergrads with family incomes under $20,000
I don't know about you, but I don't think students with, say $20,000-$50,000 of family income qualify as spoiled rich kids. Furthermore, these students could well have siblings who are also in college. If you think their families are going to be able to pay full freight for one kid, let alone 2 or 3, you're sorely mistaken. 9% of Yale students may come from families with incomes of under $20,000, but it does not follow that the other 91% must be "spoiled rich kids." As long as we're bandying about statistics, I'd like to point out that 63% of Yale students receive some financial aid, and 49% do work-study (source)
Moreover, it's not as if every Yale student from a rich family is an idiot. SAT scores are a shitty metric, but they're an available one (and yes, I know the SAT is coachable, but there's a major-league law of diminishing returns with SAT coaching, which in practice means that you can coach a raw 500 kid to a 600, but it's a lot harder to coach a raw 600 kid to a 700, and no one ever coached a rich kid of average ability from a 500 to an 800):
Test score ranges (25th to 75th percentiles) for enrolled freshmen:
o SAT-Verbal: 700-790
o SAT-Math: 690-790
o SAT-Writing: 690-790
Perhaps you still believe that there's a "spoiled rich majority," at Yale, but this majority (spoiled and rich or not) certainly doesn't lack for brains (unless blue blood can get you 2400 on the SAT...I suppose you could bribe the college board). I would hope, though, that you're now willing to admit that no student body is a stereotype. One Yale student (who is apparently on a full scholarship) may have designed a website that does not render perfectly in Firefox, but that does not make all Yale students spoiled rich kids.
Then again... Yale? Perhaps he should save his energy for people who haven't already sold their souls to big business. Though I suppose I can see the benefit in getting to the minds of the Oligarchy's children during their suggestible stoner years...
And once again I am reminded (to my embarrassment) that my side of the political spectrum has as many under-informed, stereotype-spewing fools as the right wing...
the Oligarchy's children? I suppose you mean the 63% of Yale students who attend on some form of scholarship (and remember that Ivies give no "merit" or "athletic" scholarships). Perhaps you mean the 49% of students who do work-study programs. Seriously, this isn't the 1930s. What's more, I was at the debate in question and didn't encounter any student who minded Stallman's choice of clothing. I don't know if the people on this thread criticizing Stallman are from Yale, but as someone pointed out, his dress certainly didn't affect the way his speech was received...his side won the debate.
By the way, my understanding of the Political Union's dress code is that its stated goal precisely to ensure that speakers will be judged not on their looks but on the quality of their ideas...
Slashdot Mirror
I've been waiting for a response to my last post for a day. Since there hasn't been one, I've decided to leave/stop watching the discussion. I'm not a regular slashdot poster (I found this discussion while looking for a link to send someone about the ninja incident). I am posting this so that people (including the original poster) won't expect that me to reply to any more posts on the issue.
I hope you realize that prep schools give financial aid (particularly the "elite prep schools"). Not every prep school student here pays his or her own way, or did in high school. In fact, prep school scholarship programs like A Better Chance create many inspiring stories "success in spite of adversity" every year.
No, I haven't met "average" people who've had to deal with adversity...I've met amazing, stunningly impressive, and yes, highly intelligent people who excelled in spite of adversity. I've met people met people from poor single-parent homes who went to crappy schools and excelled there. I've met people from disadvantaged backgrounds who tested into magnet schools or won scholarships to prep schools and excelled there.
Do you think that admissions officers are so stupid as to think that a 2300 on the SAT coming out of Exeter is as impressive as a 2300 coming out of an under-funded inner-city school? A student from a disadvantaged background who is applying to Yale (or any college) doesn't have to "explain" what they've had to face; the admissions office takes it into account from the get-go. Evaluation of students in college admissions is very much contextual (see the excellent book The Gatekeepers if you're interested). The Exeter applicant will need to have excellent grades and scores just to get his foot in the door, and then will need something to make him stand out from the large crowd of over-polished prep school applicants. Conversely, the admissions office will not penalize the inner city kid if she does not have an absolutely impeccable transcript or for wasn't involved in "extracurricular activities" during high school (especially since the high school may not have offered such activities or the student may have needed to work).
Look, I don't try to pretend that the system is perfect. Colleges still recruit for sports. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a harder time even graduating from high school, let alone getting into college, than their privileged peers. Yet this does make the majority of Yale students (or college students generally) "spoiled rich kids" or "idiots."
It is one thing to be privileged. It is another to be a "spoiled rich kids." Yes, the majority of college students (at Yale and in America) probably come from above average family circumstances. The majority of Americans are "privileged" by comparison to their peers in the developing world. So yes, perhaps the majority of Yale students are "privileged." It does not follow that they are
a) spoiled
b) "rich"
or c) idiots
Full disclosure: Like kid_izzy, I go to Yale. My family is paying some (although not all) of my tuition, but I'm still kind of insulted by the "spoiled rich kid" label. From the quoted source:
I don't know about you, but I don't think students with, say $20,000-$50,000 of family income qualify as spoiled rich kids. Furthermore, these students could well have siblings who are also in college. If you think their families are going to be able to pay full freight for one kid, let alone 2 or 3, you're sorely mistaken. 9% of Yale students may come from families with incomes of under $20,000, but it does not follow that the other 91% must be "spoiled rich kids." As long as we're bandying about statistics, I'd like to point out that 63% of Yale students receive some financial aid, and 49% do work-study (source)
Moreover, it's not as if every Yale student from a rich family is an idiot. SAT scores are a shitty metric, but they're an available one (and yes, I know the SAT is coachable, but there's a major-league law of diminishing returns with SAT coaching, which in practice means that you can coach a raw 500 kid to a 600, but it's a lot harder to coach a raw 600 kid to a 700, and no one ever coached a rich kid of average ability from a 500 to an 800):
Perhaps you still believe that there's a "spoiled rich majority," at Yale, but this majority (spoiled and rich or not) certainly doesn't lack for brains (unless blue blood can get you 2400 on the SAT...I suppose you could bribe the college board). I would hope, though, that you're now willing to admit that no student body is a stereotype. One Yale student (who is apparently on a full scholarship) may have designed a website that does not render perfectly in Firefox, but that does not make all Yale students spoiled rich kids.
Then again... Yale? Perhaps he should save his energy for people who haven't already sold their souls to big business. Though I suppose I can see the benefit in getting to the minds of the Oligarchy's children during their suggestible stoner years... And once again I am reminded (to my embarrassment) that my side of the political spectrum has as many under-informed, stereotype-spewing fools as the right wing... the Oligarchy's children? I suppose you mean the 63% of Yale students who attend on some form of scholarship (and remember that Ivies give no "merit" or "athletic" scholarships). Perhaps you mean the 49% of students who do work-study programs. Seriously, this isn't the 1930s. What's more, I was at the debate in question and didn't encounter any student who minded Stallman's choice of clothing. I don't know if the people on this thread criticizing Stallman are from Yale, but as someone pointed out, his dress certainly didn't affect the way his speech was received...his side won the debate. By the way, my understanding of the Political Union's dress code is that its stated goal precisely to ensure that speakers will be judged not on their looks but on the quality of their ideas...