3 ms·
Two points: 1. Most applicants to elite schools lack social capital and have not demonstrated the ability to develop it (imho, this is what "leadership" is the
by csa 10y ago
Two points:
1. Most applicants to elite schools lack social capital and have not demonstrated the ability to develop it (imho, this is what "leadership" is the code word for, at least in part). The so-called Asian clones fit this description perfectly -- so do many whites, blacks, latinos, etc. I personally don't think it's a race thing, I think it's the universities understanding what got them to where they are (hint: it's their social capital). Most of the Asian-Americans I have met at elite schools don't really come across as tiger-mom clones at all. On a personal level, I found some of the prep school folks to be more like clones and much less interesting as a group (although they have their cool and interesting people, too) -- I assume that many of them are bringing substantial social capital to the table.
2. If someone wants to be a doctor who mostly sees patients, they probably shouldn't be going to an elite school. The trajectory for elite med schools is to do great research in medicine. As such, it is unlikely that you will have an appointment with these folks as a patient. There are plenty of schools that let in "smart and work hard" people who will become great practitioners -- please don't waste a valuable elite school slot on those people. Give it to someone who demonstrates a desire to advance the field (yes, even as an 18 year old, this is possible, these people exist, and many of them are incredibly cool people).
Overall, i feel like many of the people who complain about elite school admissions don't really understand what makes these schools tick. While there are certianly parts of the process that could be improved, chalking up rejections to ignorance or racism on the part of the school or the admissions officers just seems very far off the mark.
[edit: spelling]