Final Meta Post

   My favorite post this quarter was titled "Stuck in Limbo". I chose this blog because I feel that it shows my growth overall as a blogger throughout the year. One reason stems from the fact that it ties in with my junior theme topic, race/class in college admissions, which has become a topic I have been very interested in. It is now a great feeling when new media comes out relating to my junior theme topic, and I get to connect my own research to it. This particular blog was on waitlists for colleges, and I found the article while reading the Chicago Tribune. As I have learned in the past, it is a lot easier to write a blog when you feel connected to the issue at hand.

    The article was packed with great statistics and quotes regarding the purpose of waitlists and also the truth behind your chances of getting in. I feel this is a strong blog because I was able to use part of my junior theme interview to enhance the argument. In this case Mr. Conroy helped explain to me which types of kids get on the waitlists and why. Aside from being able to incorporate his words, I feel I have become a lot better at analyzing the language which is something I struggled with early on. I also add my own ideas instead of just summarizing the article. In this blog for example I bring up the idea of false hope behind waitlists and use that idea to transition from the purpose of waitlists to the actual cold hard facts.

      Lastly, I feel that I chose a picture that applies to the subject area. In this blog, it is a sort of cartoon that emphasizes the depressing truth behind waitlists, that you are just a number and are apart of a group that will not get off the list. In the picture the kid appears to be at the top, but in reality he is just like everyone else trapped in this limbo stage. Overall I have thoroughly enjoyed blogging this year, and feel that it has helped me look at issues through many different lenses.
  

Is College Worth It?

"We have a bubble in education like we had a bubble in housing in the last decade. Everybody believed that you had to have a house and they'd paid whatever it took, today everybody believes that we have to go to college and people will pay whatever it takes"


     These are the words of billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel as stated in an interview on 60 Minutes. Thiel is a co-founder of PayPal and one of the first investors of Facebook (which if you didn't know became quite successful). He now believes that higher education is at its worst due to college debt topping out at an astonishing 1 trillion dollars, and concludes that a degree in today's job market does not necessarily mark success. Thiel compares college administrators to "Con men" and disagrees with this belief that everyone must go to college no matter what the cost. He even goes on to state that in today's job market,"the average plumber makes just as much as the average doctor". So what does Peter Thiel decide to do with his great fortune? Pay a special group of students $100,000 to drop out.

     The Thiel Fellowship was established in 2011 by Peter Thiel, and its main purpose is to find the great entrepreneurs of the future, but theres just one catch: these students must drop out of college first. Thiel selects these fellows through a selection process where students must pitch him their entrepreneurial ideas in hopes of receiving $100,000 in start up funds. A truly interesting concept that has stirred up much controversy in the field of higher education. Vivek Wadhwa, a successful entrepreneur and professor at both Duke and Stanford university, believes that Thiel is a madman, and to be honest I completely agree. Just because someone has a very bright idea, A. doesn't mean they are ready to develop it without completing college, and B. doesn't make it right to spread this message to the rest of America. Vivek Wadhwa had it right when he stated that, "There might be one Mark Zuckerberg out of a million. But there aren't five Mark Zuckerbergs". Wadhwa is trying to stress that these drop out entrepreneurs that go on to be successful without completing college are so remarkably low that it would be ludicrous to buy into that possibility.


      One of the Fellows from the Thiel Fellowship, Alex Kiselev, stated that, "Of course we're destined to fail. That is what entrepreneurship is... [but] whenever all of our friends are graduating college, I think we'll far more likely to succeed then they will be". The interview transcript can be seen here.
What do you think of the Thiel Fellowship? Is it crazy or does it have merit?
Should it be okay for someone with a bright idea to drop out college?
What kind of message is this sending to Americans?

Title IX, Sports, and Magazines

      After discussing the cover of a Newsweek issue (pictured in the right hand corner) during class the other week I was both surprised and happy to see the latest Sports Illustrated cover (pictured top left). Not only are they both depicting gender issues in the United States, but the sports illustrated article also ties in with an important aspect of my Junior theme research, Title IX.

      First I would like to touch on the similarities between the two covers. The first thing that popped out in my mind was the vibrant use of the color red. This is seen in the Newsweek banner and the woman's lipstick on the Newsweek cover, and in the quotation marks as well as an underlined phrase on the Sports Illustrated cover. So what does this color symbolize? I saw the color red as a more feminine color, and also a color that easily catches ones attention. More interestingly, I saw the color as a sort of warning or hazard as seen on stop signs. This would make more sense in the Newsweek cover because it seems like the article is inferring that the working life of women is not as glamorous as many think. Lastly, red seems to connote a sort of lust and sex drive. This is explicitly seen in the woman's lipstick, and the underlining of the phrase "basis of sex".

     For those of you who don't know already (even though the definition is stated on the cover of Sports Illustrated) Title IX is a gender equality act that focuses on women's sports getting its fair share in collegiate athletics. What the article highlights is how far participation in women's athletics has grown in the last 40 years. Here are a few statistics and facts from the article:

• Women's Sports Foundation found that 40 years ago only 294,015 girls participated in high school sports. Last year that number ballooned to 3,173,549 girls, 10x greater than before.
• One study shows that if a girl does not participate in a sport by age 10, then theres only a 10% chance she will at the age of 25.
• Despite the progress of women's sports as a result of Title IX only 45% of collegiate athletics are women's while the make up 55% of the student body.

What similarities/differences do you see between the two magazine covers?

What are your views on the progress of women's athletics due to Title IX?

Stuck in Limbo

        As many seniors eagerly wait to hear back from their colleges of choice the hopeful outcome is either a fulfilling "Congratulations!" or a dreaded rejection. Instead, however, a number of students this year will have received a rather neutral message -- finding out they have been waitlisted. It isn't an outright no, but it surely isn't a yes either. So what does it mean? This response from colleges seems to be becoming more and more popular each year, and has left numerous high schools seniors in a sort of "limbo" stage in the admissions process.

     According to a Tribune article regarding the growth of college waitlists, the purpose of this separate group is due to the fact that, "It has become increasingly difficult for admissions officers to predict who actually will show up in the fall, so schools have countered with an insurance policy: a larger reserve pool to manage their enrollment". What is very interesting about this phenomenon is how rapidly it has grown in the last 10 years. The University of Chicago waitlist for example, according to the school newspaper The Chicago Maroon, grew from 500 names in 2003 to an astonishing 3,000 in 2012. Similarly, at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois the waitlist has grown by 1,300 names in the last six years. The biggest concern is not necessarily the rapid growth of these waitlists, but rather the false hope that some students get from them. 

     

      Bonnie Miller, Tribune reporter and author of the article, found that at Vanderbilt University only 9.4% of students on the waitlist were accepted this year, and that number has remained constant for several years now. Additionally, at Northwestern, according to school officials, only 21 out of 3,204 students were accepted from their waitlist in 2010, and none in 2011. These numbers paint a realistic picture of how many students actually get accepted from these "insurance" applicant pools.

      

        Even more interesting is the type of applicants that are placed on these waitlists. In an interview with James Conroy, head of the college counseling department at New Trier High School, I was told that "99% of the waitlist kids will be from New Trier type zip codes". This overwhelming number is due to the fact that when it comes time for the school to select students from the waitlist, they will not have a lot of money to give in financial aid. Therefore, they need students who will not require much financial assistance. An additional function of waitlists deals with schools wanting to satisfy big donors and legacies. They feel that by not outright denying an applicant, they are essentially easing the pain on the rejection yet to come.

What do you think of the waitlist system? Is it fair?

The Legacy Faction

     "To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, 'Well done'. And to the C students, I say you too can be president of the United States"


    These were the words of former president of the United States, George W. Bush, at a 2001 commencement speech at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut (the entire speech can be seen here). For those of you who did not understand his humor in the first place, President George W. Bush was admitted to Yale because of his legacy status and political connections. Once at Yale George W. Bush received less than stellar grades earning the title as a "C Student". I found it shocking that not only did he get into Yale because of legacy status and political connections, but once there the former president of the United States, he who made the decisions necessary to run our country, received unsatisfactory grades in college. He is not the only famous politician with this type of academic track record, in my Junior Theme book entitled The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden I discovered another shocking quote from Massachusetts senator John Kerry. According to Daniel Golden, John Kerry was also a Yale legacy and when asked by the Boston Globe about his four D's during freshman year Kerry responded, "I always told my dad that D stood for Distinction". I understand that excellent grades in college do not necessarily correspond with excellent political careers, but I find it disturbing that these work ethics are joked about by these politicians. 


   Politicians are only a small portion of those blessed by legacy status. Having large sums of money to donate and simply just being one of many family members also qualifies you as a legacy. What Golden tries to prove is that not only are too many slots in admissions being taken by these legacies, but that, "Legacy preference also provides affluent families with a form of insurance against a decline in educational status from one generation to the next". Golden emphasizes the idea of "Status" and how it is important for wealthy families to maintain that social rank by having their children go to the most prestigious universities. Another key idea Golden emphasizes is "insurance" and how the performance of these legacy students is not what's most important, but rather the fact that just by attending these prestigious universities they are gaining connections and reputation for the future.


    What is most important to note are the students that these legacy cases are replacing. Because highly selective colleges boast such tough standards, nearly all applicants have outstanding credentials, with the exception of a majority of the legacy cases. At The University Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana nearly 1 out of every 4 students is a legacy. At a school where the acceptance rate is between 28-30 percent according to their website, that is a large number of slots set aside for legacies. Similarly, only 1 out of every 10 kids gets accepted into Harvard, one of the nations most prestigious schools. With so many applicants boasting such rigorous academics and extracurriculars, it is a huge sacrifice to the student body to admit a legacy with far less stellar credentials.
To what extent should Legacy preference be limited, if at all?
What truly is the purpose of admitting Legacies?

   

"The Times They are A-Changin'"

     If you have not heard already from the countless advertisements, one of the greatest traditions in golf begins this Thursday, April 5, 2012. The Masters has been around since 1934 when Horton Smith walked away with the first "Green Jacket". This historic event is filled with several cherished traditions that have survived to this day despite Don DeLillo's belief that the so called "real thing" and tradition no longer exist. The tournaments honorary starters, lifetime exemptions for winners, the beautiful Azaleas in full bloom and Magnolia Lane, The Champions Dinner, and of course the most well known of all the Green Jacket given to the winner of the tournament are all examples of these revered traditions. There is, however, one tradition that many fans were oblivious to until now. Every year Augusta Golf Club, host of the Masters and an all men's club, bestows memberships upon the CEO's of the corporate sponsors of the event. This hasn't been a problem up until now, and the reason for this controversy is that the IBM CEO, Ginni Rometty, is a woman.

      It makes perfect sense that this has not been a problem up until now considering only 2.4% of woman make up Fortune 500 CEO's (source), but now that one has attained the CEO position of IBM, a Masters Corporate sponsor, there is great debate over whether this tradition is to be "broken". In an article on the issue from Abc News Martha Burk, former chair of the Nation Council of Women's Organizations, said in response to the debate that IBM has to "draw a line in the sand" saying, "We're either going to pull our sponsorship and membership and any ancillary activities we support with the tournament, or the club is going to have to honor our CEO the way they have in the past". Unfortunately there hasn't been any information on where the debate is headed in terms of where Augusta stands, but clearly this can be seen as discrimination against women. Burk has a point when she notes that Rometty deserves to be treated as every other CEO has been treated in the past.

      Bob Dylan, one of the most influential musicians of all time, said it correctly when he stated in one his songs, "As the present now/ Will later be past... For the times they are a-changin". Although historically the Augusta Golf Club is all male, due to the change in times and gender equality there is no escaping the inevitable alteration of this rule.

Should Augusta Golf Club bestow membership upon Ginni Rometty even though she is a woman?
To what extent should traditions be protected?

Selling College

     Advertisements are everywhere. If theres a surface big enough in a public place then theres most likely a corporate logo plastered on it, and there isn't an event on television that isn's sponsored by several companies. Just the other day I was watching a sporting event on television in which the halftime break was sponsored by Buffalo Wild Wings. I was at the airport not a week ago where I felt ambushed by corporate advertisements, and even the escalator railings were covered with American Express logos. You would think there would be limits on what could be advertised, and given that a Junior theme topic I am exploring is the modernization of higher education, I found an interesting connection between the two.

     In an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled "College Advertising Campaigns" Zanto Peabody explores the Ad Campaigns behind college institutions. A major aspect of Advertising by colleges deals with catchy slogans and inspiring quotes, but Peabody argues that most institutions lack the catchy and inspiring components of their Ad campaigns. According to the article, Berkeley college in New Jersey advertises that, "A better education means a better career". I will agree that this slogan isn't necessarily false advertising, but by no means does it make me want to apply to this school. Like Peabody's argument, it lacks that "catchy" and "inspiring" aspect that sells people on the school. In my opinion the word "better" just seems a little dull and shy of spectacular, which is what most people are looking for in education. Berkeley is not the only higher institution guilty of poor advertising slogans, Prairie View A&M's slogan states, "Prairie View produces productive people" and the list goes on.

        Why is this modern idea of College Marketing becoming so popular? Robert Sevier, general manager of a marketing firm, believes that, "Broad changes in the student demographics and role of colleagues is behind the dramatic increase in the number of schools engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns". Given the recent boom in technology (specifically the world wide web) and advertising, smaller schools feel they can gain an edge on the number of applications by advertising their education. I think that Sevier has a point when he emphasizes the change in demographics of students these days in contrast to the 20th century. I also think it is interesting to view education at the college level as a sort of product that can be sold and marketed.
Why is it important for Colleges and Universities to market aggressively?
Should their be limits on what should be advertised in American Society?