DontHate

Keely, it wasn't you who turned the thread into an argument. It was me. And I'm not sorry!

Fox News don't have nearly as many gifs - let's give credit where credit is due.

I feel like the desire to be politically-correct and inoffensive hinders productive discussion. Why must we infantilize "underrepresented groups" and protect their feelings for them, as if they can't speak for themselves? If I say something you don't like, we can debate the point. We don't have to default to "you're being so offensive wa wa wa."

None of us "know" each other on here, but that doesn't stop us from discussing other elements of our applications. Affirmative Action is particularly sensitive for some people (like you, Davidm) but that doesn't mean it should be barred from discussion. Keely is obviously cool with talking about it. It can be part of how you market yourself to a potential PhD program, just like how you choose to frame your interests in your SoP or which scholars you mention as being potential thesis advisors. They don't just let in sub-par candidates because of AA. I think that an AA recruitment consideration could tip the scales in an applicant's favor sometimes, and it might explain why Keely got no rejections this season. By which I mean that her application stood out from the rest because not only was she an incredible scholar with a 4.0 GPA, but she also had a truly unusual background. Why am I judging her by saying that? I'm just making an educated guess about admissions, which is all we ever do on gradcafe.

Read further down on my post that you are quoting from

If you really feel shitty about being a "diversity applicant" then you don't have to apply as one. But I don't think you should feel shitty about it. Being underrepresented is as good an edge as any other in this largely random process. I was commenting on it because AA is a factor in the application process and I wanted us to be able to fearlessly discuss it. Nobody else would probably have brought it up if I hadn't.

^ I explicitly said in my post that I wasn't knocking her other qualifications in any way. It's just a fact that sometimes AA is the difference between an acceptance and a waitlist/rejection. I personally think it's a good thing that we have AA, even though it's not a perfect system. I think Keely is an ideal benefactor of AA.

Honestly, I don't think you should feel ashamed or guilty AT ALL for having benefitted from affirmative action. Almost everyone (even affirmative action's harshest critics) agree that THIS is exactly the kind of background that SHOULD be given special consideration. Because financial background is a hindrance to people of all races, and assuming that a black person has suffered just for being black is no longer an accurate model for the way our society functions. I think you should feel very proud of your background and where you have gotten. Or don't think twice about it. But certainly don't feel guilty.

Yeah, totally. If I were black I would have absolutely NO compunction about putting that all over my application. I don't see why everyone is so squeamish about acknowledging that affirmative action is a thing. It exists. Like I said above, it doesn't mean that an applicant doesn't deserve to get in WITHOUT affirmative action.

No offense to Keely, but the diversity scholarship reference tips me off to what may have been so desirable in her application... LOOK I SAID IT I'M SORRY IT WAS THERE I'm sure you're also a very wonderful and hardworking scholar. But let's be frank. This is a hyper-competitive process and any sliver of an inch that gets you ahead can be the deciding factor. So yes, sometimes that sliver is affirmative action. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I love watching a thread blow up

Programs notify at all times of day, since it's really just a question of a professor sending out an email. And profs often do their emailing at night.

I was merely pointing out that if we are going to be outing the privileged on this thread, that implicates all of us. I'm not denying that I'm privileged. It just feels like people often do point fingers without much introspection attached to the act of pointing. I mentioned my grandparents in order to contrast the idea of the landed aristocracy (which shaped the class structure in England) with the ascendant middle class in the US. Class isn't something we are raised to believe is in our bloodlines, in the US. It's much more of a self-designation that can change at any moment. So many people describe themselves as "middle class" in this country that the term is almost meaningless.

Rems, I was replying to the specific post I quoted in my response. Not to what you said, which I agree with and think is perfectly reasonable.

Being angry at rich people is kind of silly and not particularly analytical. "Rich people" as a unit are an incredibly diverse group. One might be better-served by getting angry about certain poorly-designed or inherently corrupt systems. But generic rage directed upwards on the socio-economic scale is just as pointless and unproductive as hating all black people or hating all immigrants. What I'm saying is, think harder. Don't just hate what you [are trying to pretend you] don't understand. If we are all successful in finding tenure-track positions in academia, we will BE "rich people" someday. So think about that for a moment.

Speaking of "brazen lack of awareness of class privilege," y'all seem to have some pretty sweet internet access and free time enough to read and participate on forums irrelevant to your jobs (whatever they may be. I assume you work in salt mines, or other arduous manual labors without much associated prestige). BE AWARE OF THE PRIVILEGE YOU ARE DISPLAYING.

Ok, this is going a little far now. "I ended up in a situation that was actually life-threatening because of the biases of my institution" -- so now we're painting a picture of gangs of Upper-class thugs patrolling elite campuses threatening lives? I'm not trying to dismiss whatever experience this is alluding to, but it certainly isn't indicative of the vast majority of campus dynamics at the top programs. This sounds like a strange scenario that should have been dealt with by the police, not used as fodder for indiscriminate classist resentment. Edit: Girl with glasses's post that had the quote I was referring to above was deleted. So, for future reference, I'm responding to her post #31.

^ I'm not saying that the American Dream is a real or feasible thing for most people. I'm aware that I'm privileged in a million different ways. But I think primary among my privileges is not an Upper-Class lifestyle (which I don't have). The kind of privilege that most people associate with the Ivy-league is gleaned from movies about the Skull & Bones society, and while that thing does exist, it's not at all central to graduate academic life. I think being educated is a huge privilege. People in the very bottom of the poverty scale have much more serious problems than choosing a grad school, sadly. I don't think they're the ones who are asking questions about the Ivy-league on this forum. More likely, it's people from the midwest, or people from lower-tier undergrad programs: middle class people who just haven't been around Ivies enough to know what they're all about. The fact is, if you can work hard enough to get into an amazing school, then you are smart enough to be anybody's peer, no matter what your background may be. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't look down on poor people. I look down on weak minds. I respect intelligence, no matter where it may have originated from.

^ that's nice

5 whole views on my academia.edu page today. This is indicative of something! P.S. My page is pretty much blank.

This is always true, school is difficult and there are going to be problems. I'm sorry if I sound dismissive. I just find it a bit frustrating that everyone wants to accuse Ivy league schools and the people who attend them of being snobs/elitists/privileged. Some people are, sure. A lot of people just attend Ivies for the excellent education they provide. Believing that Ivies are bastions of snobbery makes them into that. Graduate programs are very different from undergrad, also. They are much more diverse (in terms of nationality, as well as undergrad background). They are much more focused and serious. If you find a great program and it happens to be Ivy-league I think it's ignorant to believe everyone in it will be "snobby."

It would be truly insane if I actually get to go...

^ agreed

You probably went to dartmouth. That's the closest you can get to Eton

I think the class differences are much more pronounced in ENGLAND where Oxford is located. I mean they still have a ROYAL FAMILY for christ's sake. American has no aristocracy. If we did, it would include Kanye and Kim Kardashian and it would be a total joke. I personally believe that a lot of "class" in this country is about education, so if you prevent yourself from getting an Ivy-league education because you're afraid of feeling left out by class difference, then you're really screwing yourself over and reinforcing class difference. Self-segregation is a terrible, terrible thing. I am not from the "upper class" by any stretch, my great-grandparents were running from pogroms when they came to this country and my grandparents lived in poverty on the lower-east side. My parents became professionals through good old-fashioned education and I am currently in that middle-class gap which doesn't benefit from financial aid. So I'm on a loan right now. I went to an Ivy-league undergrad and an Ivy-equivalent Master's program. I'm not a snob. I am a bit of a picky mofo, and I don't put up with weak-mindedness. But that has nothing to do with my educational "pedigree," that's just who I am. I'm an intellectual bitch. And I appreciate other people being hard on me because I think it makes me smarter.