JerryLandis

I'm not saying that some white people's opinions about non-white people should be why affirmative action should or should not be implemented, just that it's a real issue to think about. How is our society ever going to get past racism if certain types of racism (is "reverse racism" a term?") are deemed socially acceptable? I disagree that racism is a permanent part of human nature. As far as Western society is concerned, it's largely a product of the Enlightenment and the scientific community's attempts to justify slavery.

Personally, I am against affirmative action because it is fundamentally racist. Yes, I understand why it is deemed necessary. I am fully aware that the African American majority was never given adequate compensation for what was done in the past. However, anyone who is African American (or just African) can benefit from affirmative action presumably for this reason even if they came to the US long after slavery was abolished, or if their family is wealthy. Maybe that's not the norm, but it's still entirely possible and not really fair. I am white, but my family came to America during the 20th century and had nothing to do with the oppression of American minorities. Why don't I get to benefit from affirmative action, since my ancestors were Eastern European serfs who received just about the same compensation after serfdom was abolished as American slaves did? If affirmative action type policies were based on socio-economic background instead of just race, those people who are underprivileged because of their race would still benefit, alongside poor and underprivileged whites.

Generally speaking, affirmative action doesn't really bother me, because I know that people whose acceptances are aided by it are usually qualified enough to be accepted anyways. But I still disagree with the concept and wish that another way could be implemented to level the playing field for everyone. Just because I haven't read studies and journals about the topic does not mean that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. No matter how much data is collected about it, the fact remains that admissions decisions (in undergrad anyway) are influenced by people's race - not by their personal family history, not by how much money they have or don't have, not by how privileged they may or may not be, but by the checked box on their application denoting their skin color. I don't think it's unreasonable, ignorant, or bigoted for me to be annoyed about admissions decisions being influenced by race.

Thanks for the response p10x, but I don't really think I do need to step on eggshells when giving out my opinion on this. I am an anonymous person on an internet forum, and this is a thread about affirmative action/minority representation. If you're easily offended by people calmly stating an extremely popular and logical opinion, then you shouldn't have opened up this thread in the first place. I never said that affirmative action shouldn't be used for grad school admittance because grad school is too important or that undergraduate studies are irrelevant and childish enough to make it unimportant that affirmative action is used, or for people accepted mostly on a racial basis to be able to succeed. I never said those things, you simply attached those ideas to my statement that grad school, in my opinion, is a bit late for that kind of social engineering. For those who agree with affirmative action, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that it should be implemented in earlier years of people's education, for example for admittance/scholarships to prep schools or for college admissions. Someone who has made it through high school and college has been awarded higher opportunities than most people on this planet ever get. Sure, maybe the people who would benefit from affirmative action at the grad school level have had to work several jobs through college in order to graduate, but considering most of my non-minority friends have had to do this, I don't see why that should be a factor. If people's academic performance is not viewed with consideration of how many hours they routinely had to spend at a job while in college, then why should someone's race or socioeconomic background play any part?

As far as someone's racial identity having a positive impact on the research they're doing, I guess you do have a point, but in my specific field that is pretty much irrelevant. People's attitude to race was completely different in the middle ages, so I don't see why the race of a specific applicant should matter.

Anyways, I do consider the ramifications of what I say, and if you don't agree with it then that's really just your problem. This is my opinion. I don't really agree with affirmative action. I'm not doing anything to stop it, and I recognize that it significantly improves the quality of many people's lives. However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way. I've experienced something similar to this because I'm a non-ugly young female who gets high grades. In high school, the boys in one of my classes tried hard on their essays and tests but I always got higher grades than they did. They would pester me for my grades, and when I told them they'd say "Ugh, I'm so jealous of you, since being a girl you just get handed these higher grades, while we guys hand in work that's just as good and get B's instead of A's." They were convinced that the old male teacher had a soft spot for his female students. Even when I won the departmental award, my male classmates claimed that I didn't deserve it. The whole ordeal made me feel very sorry for qualified college students from minority backgrounds whose qualifications and accomplishments aren't taken seriously because of affirmative action.

So because I am a middle class white person, I can't possibly understand race issues, I have a misguided belief in meritocracy, I am secretly some kind of flaming racist, and my opinion about AA should be discounted as foolish? First of all, I never said that AA is wrong because it could boil down to rejecting a poor white man in favor of a rich black woman. I never brought gender into this so to say that arguments against affirmative action (but only when middle class white people bring it up) are inherently sexist is ridiculous. Also, bringing up that scenario does not mean that I assumed that the other 8 admitted students were qualified because they are wealthy and white. They could be from any combination of racial or economic backgrounds, the point is that they have the best applications so they were selected first for admission, leaving the other 2 in the running against each other, 2 who happen to have similar qualifications but are of different races. The reason I bring up this hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that AA is fundamentally flawed because, in seeking to redress socioeconomic imbalances, it assumes that all black people must be poor and underprivileged, and all white people must be rich and overprivileged, when it could skip that inaccurate assumption by just evaluating its decisions based on socioeconomic status instead of race. Yes, the hypothetical scenario I bring up may be uncommon or, of course, entirely hypothetical, but the fact is that it is made possible by AA, and is being used as an example to explain why the system is fundamentally unjust. The reason I use the example is not that someone taught it to me in some secret meeting about controlling the world that I had in my high school We Love Being White class, but that it makes sense and is entirely applicable to the discussion. I know that what I'm saying about AA isn't going to convince anyone to change their minds (although many of you in favor of it seem to actually agree with me, in saying that you think it should be adjusted to consider socioeconomic factors), but I just really don't like being told that I can't understand the issue because I'm just so freaking white and privileged, I can't possibly fathom all the deep thoughts in my tiny spoiled brat brain. How would any of you like it if I said that as black people, which I guess some of you are, your opinions about AA are typical of your race and should really just be brushed off because you've simply been raised from a standpoint that is biased in favor of it, because it could directly benefit you? Is it okay for people's opinions to be disregarded based on their economic standing and race, as long as the person is white and middle class?

So because I am a middle class white person, I can't possibly understand race issues, I have a misguided belief in meritocracy, I am secretly some kind of flaming racist, and my opinion about AA should be discounted as foolish? First of all, I never said that AA is wrong because it could boil down to rejecting a poor white man in favor of a rich black woman. I never brought gender into this so to say that arguments against affirmative action (but only when middle class white people bring it up) are inherently sexist is ridiculous. Also, bringing up that scenario does not mean that I assumed that the other 8 admitted students were qualified because they are wealthy and white. They could be from any combination of racial or economic backgrounds, the point is that they have the best applications so they were selected first for admission, leaving the other 2 in the running against each other, 2 who happen to have similar qualifications but are of different races. The reason I bring up this hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that AA is fundamentally flawed because, in seeking to redress socioeconomic imbalances, it assumes that all black people must be poor and underprivileged, and all white people must be rich and overprivileged, when it could skip that inaccurate assumption by just evaluating its decisions based on socioeconomic status instead of race. Yes, the hypothetical scenario I bring up may be uncommon or, of course, entirely hypothetical, but the fact is that it is made possible by AA, and is being used as an example to explain why the system is fundamentally unjust. The reason I use the example is not that someone taught it to me in some secret meeting about controlling the world that I had in my high school We Love Being White class, but that it makes sense and is entirely applicable to the discussion. I know that what I'm saying about AA isn't going to convince anyone to change their minds (although many of you in favor of it seem to actually agree with me, in saying that you think it should be adjusted to consider socioeconomic factors), but I just really don't like being told that I can't understand the issue because I'm just so freaking white and privileged, I can't possibly fathom all the deep thoughts in my tiny spoiled brat brain. How would any of you like it if I said that as black people, which I guess some of you are, your opinions about AA are typical of your race and should really just be brushed off because you've simply been raised from a standpoint that is biased in favor of it, because it could directly benefit you? Is it okay for people's opinions to be disregarded based on their economic standing and race, as long as the person is white and middle class?

I'm expecting to maybe hear back from one school in February (Yale), but if I don't hear back from them that early I will just hope it means that I'm still in the running and am not facing outright rejection. Every other place I have applied to seems to release info starting in March, maybe even in late March. I know that, realistically, I'm not going to have much peace of mind about this for at least two months, but some part of my mind keeps thinking that hey, maybe they'll just randomly decide to release decisions much earlier this year. Irrationality seems to be a major symptom of this whole process.

So because I am a middle class white person, I can't possibly understand race issues, I have a misguided belief in meritocracy, I am secretly some kind of flaming racist, and my opinion about AA should be discounted as foolish? First of all, I never said that AA is wrong because it could boil down to rejecting a poor white man in favor of a rich black woman. I never brought gender into this so to say that arguments against affirmative action (but only when middle class white people bring it up) are inherently sexist is ridiculous. Also, bringing up that scenario does not mean that I assumed that the other 8 admitted students were qualified because they are wealthy and white. They could be from any combination of racial or economic backgrounds, the point is that they have the best applications so they were selected first for admission, leaving the other 2 in the running against each other, 2 who happen to have similar qualifications but are of different races. The reason I bring up this hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that AA is fundamentally flawed because, in seeking to redress socioeconomic imbalances, it assumes that all black people must be poor and underprivileged, and all white people must be rich and overprivileged, when it could skip that inaccurate assumption by just evaluating its decisions based on socioeconomic status instead of race. Yes, the hypothetical scenario I bring up may be uncommon or, of course, entirely hypothetical, but the fact is that it is made possible by AA, and is being used as an example to explain why the system is fundamentally unjust. The reason I use the example is not that someone taught it to me in some secret meeting about controlling the world that I had in my high school We Love Being White class, but that it makes sense and is entirely applicable to the discussion. I know that what I'm saying about AA isn't going to convince anyone to change their minds (although many of you in favor of it seem to actually agree with me, in saying that you think it should be adjusted to consider socioeconomic factors), but I just really don't like being told that I can't understand the issue because I'm just so freaking white and privileged, I can't possibly fathom all the deep thoughts in my tiny spoiled brat brain. How would any of you like it if I said that as black people, which I guess some of you are, your opinions about AA are typical of your race and should really just be brushed off because you've simply been raised from a standpoint that is biased in favor of it, because it could directly benefit you? Is it okay for people's opinions to be disregarded based on their economic standing and race, as long as the person is white and middle class?

So because I am a middle class white person, I can't possibly understand race issues, I have a misguided belief in meritocracy, I am secretly some kind of flaming racist, and my opinion about AA should be discounted as foolish? First of all, I never said that AA is wrong because it could boil down to rejecting a poor white man in favor of a rich black woman. I never brought gender into this so to say that arguments against affirmative action (but only when middle class white people bring it up) are inherently sexist is ridiculous. Also, bringing up that scenario does not mean that I assumed that the other 8 admitted students were qualified because they are wealthy and white. They could be from any combination of racial or economic backgrounds, the point is that they have the best applications so they were selected first for admission, leaving the other 2 in the running against each other, 2 who happen to have similar qualifications but are of different races. The reason I bring up this hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that AA is fundamentally flawed because, in seeking to redress socioeconomic imbalances, it assumes that all black people must be poor and underprivileged, and all white people must be rich and overprivileged, when it could skip that inaccurate assumption by just evaluating its decisions based on socioeconomic status instead of race. Yes, the hypothetical scenario I bring up may be uncommon or, of course, entirely hypothetical, but the fact is that it is made possible by AA, and is being used as an example to explain why the system is fundamentally unjust. The reason I use the example is not that someone taught it to me in some secret meeting about controlling the world that I had in my high school We Love Being White class, but that it makes sense and is entirely applicable to the discussion. I know that what I'm saying about AA isn't going to convince anyone to change their minds (although many of you in favor of it seem to actually agree with me, in saying that you think it should be adjusted to consider socioeconomic factors), but I just really don't like being told that I can't understand the issue because I'm just so freaking white and privileged, I can't possibly fathom all the deep thoughts in my tiny spoiled brat brain. How would any of you like it if I said that as black people, which I guess some of you are, your opinions about AA are typical of your race and should really just be brushed off because you've simply been raised from a standpoint that is biased in favor of it, because it could directly benefit you? Is it okay for people's opinions to be disregarded based on their economic standing and race, as long as the person is white and middle class?

Again, the only reason I brought up slavery was that someone else did and I was responding to that. I recognize that racism is a problem today, but I don't think that fighting it with more, inverted institutionalized racism, even just a teensy bit, is really the way to go.

I know they haven't suffered substantially from it because they are my friends and we've talked about it. Sure, they've experienced racism, but that's not the same thing as being disadvantaged. Maybe there have been a few subliminal things they didn't mention, or maybe didn't notice. However, I don't think such subtle disadvantages would be as damaging as coming from a poor background and living in a crappy school district, so I don't think it's right to admit a minority student (who happens to be from a privileged background) over a non-minority student (who happens to be from a disadvantaged background) on the basis of racial difference. Frankly I think a better solution would just be to stop using local property taxes to fund schools, and to fund them all equally based on how many students they have. Not a complete solution, but better I think.

I'm not saying that some white people's opinions about non-white people should be why affirmative action should or should not be implemented, just that it's a real issue to think about. How is our society ever going to get past racism if certain types of racism (is "reverse racism" a term?") are deemed socially acceptable? I disagree that racism is a permanent part of human nature. As far as Western society is concerned, it's largely a product of the Enlightenment and the scientific community's attempts to justify slavery.

Personally, I am against affirmative action because it is fundamentally racist. Yes, I understand why it is deemed necessary. I am fully aware that the African American majority was never given adequate compensation for what was done in the past. However, anyone who is African American (or just African) can benefit from affirmative action presumably for this reason even if they came to the US long after slavery was abolished, or if their family is wealthy. Maybe that's not the norm, but it's still entirely possible and not really fair. I am white, but my family came to America during the 20th century and had nothing to do with the oppression of American minorities. Why don't I get to benefit from affirmative action, since my ancestors were Eastern European serfs who received just about the same compensation after serfdom was abolished as American slaves did? If affirmative action type policies were based on socio-economic background instead of just race, those people who are underprivileged because of their race would still benefit, alongside poor and underprivileged whites.

Generally speaking, affirmative action doesn't really bother me, because I know that people whose acceptances are aided by it are usually qualified enough to be accepted anyways. But I still disagree with the concept and wish that another way could be implemented to level the playing field for everyone. Just because I haven't read studies and journals about the topic does not mean that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. No matter how much data is collected about it, the fact remains that admissions decisions (in undergrad anyway) are influenced by people's race - not by their personal family history, not by how much money they have or don't have, not by how privileged they may or may not be, but by the checked box on their application denoting their skin color. I don't think it's unreasonable, ignorant, or bigoted for me to be annoyed about admissions decisions being influenced by race.

Thanks for the response p10x, but I don't really think I do need to step on eggshells when giving out my opinion on this. I am an anonymous person on an internet forum, and this is a thread about affirmative action/minority representation. If you're easily offended by people calmly stating an extremely popular and logical opinion, then you shouldn't have opened up this thread in the first place. I never said that affirmative action shouldn't be used for grad school admittance because grad school is too important or that undergraduate studies are irrelevant and childish enough to make it unimportant that affirmative action is used, or for people accepted mostly on a racial basis to be able to succeed. I never said those things, you simply attached those ideas to my statement that grad school, in my opinion, is a bit late for that kind of social engineering. For those who agree with affirmative action, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that it should be implemented in earlier years of people's education, for example for admittance/scholarships to prep schools or for college admissions. Someone who has made it through high school and college has been awarded higher opportunities than most people on this planet ever get. Sure, maybe the people who would benefit from affirmative action at the grad school level have had to work several jobs through college in order to graduate, but considering most of my non-minority friends have had to do this, I don't see why that should be a factor. If people's academic performance is not viewed with consideration of how many hours they routinely had to spend at a job while in college, then why should someone's race or socioeconomic background play any part?

As far as someone's racial identity having a positive impact on the research they're doing, I guess you do have a point, but in my specific field that is pretty much irrelevant. People's attitude to race was completely different in the middle ages, so I don't see why the race of a specific applicant should matter.

Anyways, I do consider the ramifications of what I say, and if you don't agree with it then that's really just your problem. This is my opinion. I don't really agree with affirmative action. I'm not doing anything to stop it, and I recognize that it significantly improves the quality of many people's lives. However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way. I've experienced something similar to this because I'm a non-ugly young female who gets high grades. In high school, the boys in one of my classes tried hard on their essays and tests but I always got higher grades than they did. They would pester me for my grades, and when I told them they'd say "Ugh, I'm so jealous of you, since being a girl you just get handed these higher grades, while we guys hand in work that's just as good and get B's instead of A's." They were convinced that the old male teacher had a soft spot for his female students. Even when I won the departmental award, my male classmates claimed that I didn't deserve it. The whole ordeal made me feel very sorry for qualified college students from minority backgrounds whose qualifications and accomplishments aren't taken seriously because of affirmative action.

I'm expecting to maybe hear back from one school in February (Yale), but if I don't hear back from them that early I will just hope it means that I'm still in the running and am not facing outright rejection. Every other place I have applied to seems to release info starting in March, maybe even in late March. I know that, realistically, I'm not going to have much peace of mind about this for at least two months, but some part of my mind keeps thinking that hey, maybe they'll just randomly decide to release decisions much earlier this year. Irrationality seems to be a major symptom of this whole process.

I'm not saying that some white people's opinions about non-white people should be why affirmative action should or should not be implemented, just that it's a real issue to think about. How is our society ever going to get past racism if certain types of racism (is "reverse racism" a term?") are deemed socially acceptable? I disagree that racism is a permanent part of human nature. As far as Western society is concerned, it's largely a product of the Enlightenment and the scientific community's attempts to justify slavery.

Personally, I am against affirmative action because it is fundamentally racist. Yes, I understand why it is deemed necessary. I am fully aware that the African American majority was never given adequate compensation for what was done in the past. However, anyone who is African American (or just African) can benefit from affirmative action presumably for this reason even if they came to the US long after slavery was abolished, or if their family is wealthy. Maybe that's not the norm, but it's still entirely possible and not really fair. I am white, but my family came to America during the 20th century and had nothing to do with the oppression of American minorities. Why don't I get to benefit from affirmative action, since my ancestors were Eastern European serfs who received just about the same compensation after serfdom was abolished as American slaves did? If affirmative action type policies were based on socio-economic background instead of just race, those people who are underprivileged because of their race would still benefit, alongside poor and underprivileged whites.

Generally speaking, affirmative action doesn't really bother me, because I know that people whose acceptances are aided by it are usually qualified enough to be accepted anyways. But I still disagree with the concept and wish that another way could be implemented to level the playing field for everyone. Just because I haven't read studies and journals about the topic does not mean that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. No matter how much data is collected about it, the fact remains that admissions decisions (in undergrad anyway) are influenced by people's race - not by their personal family history, not by how much money they have or don't have, not by how privileged they may or may not be, but by the checked box on their application denoting their skin color. I don't think it's unreasonable, ignorant, or bigoted for me to be annoyed about admissions decisions being influenced by race.

"But, studies (particularly in I/O psych) have repeatedly shown us that if you give an employer the same qualifications in two candidates, the white candidate will get the job over the black candidate. In that case, affirmative action might actually help someone qualified get a job they would not otherwise get."

That's interesting. But what if the person reviewing the applications has no idea what race both applicants are? If you're just reading a paper application with no interview, wouldn't not asking about race at all make it easier to ensure a fair decision?

I don't really see why coming from a poor family shouldn't merit special recognition, but being part of a racial group that is generally disadvantaged should. If it's not about socioeconomic status, then why aren't the privileged, wealthy African American students who went to my prep school suffering from the difficulties attached to their race that are supposedly irrelevant to socioeconomic standing?

"But, studies (particularly in I/O psych) have repeatedly shown us that if you give an employer the same qualifications in two candidates, the white candidate will get the job over the black candidate. In that case, affirmative action might actually help someone qualified get a job they would not otherwise get."

That's interesting. But what if the person reviewing the applications has no idea what race both applicants are? If you're just reading a paper application with no interview, wouldn't not asking about race at all make it easier to ensure a fair decision?

I don't really see why coming from a poor family shouldn't merit special recognition, but being part of a racial group that is generally disadvantaged should. If it's not about socioeconomic status, then why aren't the privileged, wealthy African American students who went to my prep school suffering from the difficulties attached to their race that are supposedly irrelevant to socioeconomic standing?

I just don't see why the whole world needs to know someone's GPA. My friends and family don't even know my GPA. I guess it particularly annoyed me because people would post this stuff up while I was still finishing off my semester and was extremely stressed. To me, grades are like an academic salary, and like salaries, should generally be private. Being excited about doing well is understandable, but generally when I see a post saying "another 4.0 semester, aren't I awesome" it's clearly more intended to rub other people's faces in that person's success.

I think that it just seems rude to some people because some, like me, might be used to certain annoying people constantly putting their GPA or their acceptance stuff in their status updates. When I think of a person announcing an acceptance on Facebook, I automatically think of the conceited people I know who have done so in the least modest ways. But that doesn't mean that putting something about your acceptance up on Facebook is an inherently conceited thing to do. Just try to be polite about it. There's one person in particular who was accepted to an MBA program at a big name university and kept putting up constant irrelevant status updates mentioning that he had been accepted. That was annoying, especially because this happened when I and several other people we both know were still filling out applications. I don't think I'll personally post a status update about what I end up deciding to do next year, or where I get accepted. That's the kind of thing I'd rather tell people directly, instead of just launching it out to the whole world as an impersonal piece of information. But if I see posts by other people saying they are excited to have been accepted at X University, I won't be annoyed unless they go about it particularly tastelessly.

I just don't see why the whole world needs to know someone's GPA. My friends and family don't even know my GPA. I guess it particularly annoyed me because people would post this stuff up while I was still finishing off my semester and was extremely stressed. To me, grades are like an academic salary, and like salaries, should generally be private. Being excited about doing well is understandable, but generally when I see a post saying "another 4.0 semester, aren't I awesome" it's clearly more intended to rub other people's faces in that person's success.

I think that it just seems rude to some people because some, like me, might be used to certain annoying people constantly putting their GPA or their acceptance stuff in their status updates. When I think of a person announcing an acceptance on Facebook, I automatically think of the conceited people I know who have done so in the least modest ways. But that doesn't mean that putting something about your acceptance up on Facebook is an inherently conceited thing to do. Just try to be polite about it. There's one person in particular who was accepted to an MBA program at a big name university and kept putting up constant irrelevant status updates mentioning that he had been accepted. That was annoying, especially because this happened when I and several other people we both know were still filling out applications. I don't think I'll personally post a status update about what I end up deciding to do next year, or where I get accepted. That's the kind of thing I'd rather tell people directly, instead of just launching it out to the whole world as an impersonal piece of information. But if I see posts by other people saying they are excited to have been accepted at X University, I won't be annoyed unless they go about it particularly tastelessly.

It really is annoying when people expect history students to know everything that ever happened in human history. I do medieval history, a period which falls roughly between the years 500 and 1500, however everyone seems to think, mistakenly, that the medieval period was from around 1300-1700. And then they treat me like an idiot for now knowing some small detail of Napoleon's military career despite that not even being part of medieval history at all. I don't know what they think happened between 500 and 1300, I guess just those ever mysterious and exaggerated Dark Ages, which is actually the period I study. When I say that I do medieval history, specifically within the 600s/700s, people say, 'That's not medieval history.' Apparently all that ever happened in the middle ages was the Renaissance (load of bullshit anyway) and the 100 Years War, neither of which I know much about. But even after I clarify my specific interests, people are keen to make me look like an idiot and show off their History Channel knowledge by giving me a lecture about something to do with Agincourt or Da Vinci.

Normally it's fine and I'm not bothered. I know from my own middle and high school experience that people are systematically taught lies about the middle ages in order to instill in young people the illusion that history travels along some progressive and positive path all leading to the awesomeness of the USA being founded. So I don't blame people for believing this. But what does annoy me is when people act all condescendingly about it and try to catch me off guard with some random piece of trivia. I bet those are the same people who blurt out 'Excuse me, YOU'RE WRONG' to teachers and professors in the middle of a lecture. Guess I'll be dealing with these types for the rest of my days!

Other than that a lot of people ask me if I drink mead or am into jousting. I do like mead but that's about as far as it goes. And I don't play World of Warcraft.

Actually, I don't think I will mind the waiting so much. Don't quote me on this, but I am kind of looking forward to when my applications are all in, but it's too early to expect any results. This is because there's very little chance of me getting into the programs I really want, so until I hear back, I can live in my dream world, in which I pretend that next year I'm going to be in some amazing place, participating in some amazing program. And I can think about this without then thinking "shoot, I need to remember to mail this to University X" or "I need to rewrite those couple sentences in my writing sample" and other little things that add up to a giant stressful monster.

Actually, I don't think I will mind the waiting so much. Don't quote me on this, but I am kind of looking forward to when my applications are all in, but it's too early to expect any results. This is because there's very little chance of me getting into the programs I really want, so until I hear back, I can live in my dream world, in which I pretend that next year I'm going to be in some amazing place, participating in some amazing program. And I can think about this without then thinking "shoot, I need to remember to mail this to University X" or "I need to rewrite those couple sentences in my writing sample" and other little things that add up to a giant stressful monster.

I think this needs to be rewritten, but I think it will be very good if you keep reworking it. You are a good writer, and have some interesting tidbits thrown in, but you need to make sure they remain only tidbits and fleeting references. Your sentence about being a mailman is good because it is one brief sentence. Try to limit your anecdotal comments, and to make those you keep brief. I personally took a similar approach to you in my first draft - my initial SOP was very conversational, and showed a lot of my personality. I have since removed the most entertaining parts of my SOP, after holding on to them as long as I could justify, and have edited down the unrelated comments that had me going off on unnecessary tangents. There are still sarcastic and anecdotal comments in it, but they each take up no more than a sentence and are integrated into more relevant points.

Another thing is that you list all the possibilities that come with a career in your field, but you don't say exactly what it is you want to do. The people reading this will know exactly what kind of jobs people with the degree they offer will pursue, but what they don't know, and what they want to know, is what you are planning for yourself.

Also, your mention of your time in the army is kind of awkward, as you bring it up vaguely in the first sentence and leave it there. Maybe you should mention how your army skills would be applicable? As for teaching, you should be careful with your wording about the excessive work. You kind of make it sound like you enjoyed being a student because it was less work than being a teacher. I know that's not what you mean, but you should still try to rephrase that part to avoid sounding work shy.

Overall, I think it's good that you're injecting some personality into your essay. I don't know anything about the field, but I imagine that the average structural engineering SOP is a lot more bland and formulaic than the average humanities SOP, and for that reason the people reading your statement may be a bit more receptive to a less rigid, more conversational essay. You should take it as a real compliment that I actually read the whole thing - with most sample SOPs I've read, I quit somewhere in the first paragraph because they're too pretentious and not very sincere. So while I say you should definitely rewrite this a few times (we can all benefit from doing that), you're off to a good start.