3 ms·

When I was 18 I filled out the section of the form for rural applicants (in the Australian university system), but with the benefit of hindsight I wish I'd left

by strken 4y ago

When I was 18 I filled out the section of the form for rural applicants (in the Australian university system), but with the benefit of hindsight I wish I'd left it blank. I'm 95% sure that I would have made it anyway yet the 5% doubt is unpleasant.

jessaustin 4y ago
Why does this bother you? Do you assume that the system is perfect, except for this particular benefit you believe it provides to rural applicants?
- Akronymus 4y ago
  I assume it's a reocurring thought that maybe the commenter you replied to only got in because of the standards being lowered. Which is something I have heard of from quite a lot of people who may have benefitted from AA. And it's somewhat frequently paired with a huge amount of self doubt.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    I was happy to write an essay about my experiences growing up on a farm for my Harvard admission packet. I couldn't care less about whoever hypothetical NYC chess-playing salutatorian I "beat out". ISTM these "special" circumstances very rarely contribute the bulk of any incoming class. Any "regular" student who really deserved admissions got it, and only marginal strivers with few must-have qualities complain about getting denied in favor of applicants with special circumstances. It's fine for these people to suggest larger class sizes (certainly in the case of Harvard they are correct; I don't know about the Australian system). Their self-interest is showing, however, when they start making lists of people whose test scores they beat by a few points. There's no reason to trust their judgments over those of professional admissions staff. That is doubly the case for those of us who may have been admitted for these reasons and then went on to collegiate success. Why the hell would we worry about the opinions of those marginal strivers? They should do their best at their safety schools.
stubish 4y ago
There are many, many disadvantages to being educated in rural Australia vs. in the capital cities. Even if you got selected by one of the richer schools who pay for the best teachers and better student/teacher ratios, you are still disadvantages by needing to live away from home (lacking family support) or 4 hours of commuting each day. And it isn't even all about you. Because Universities know about these disadvantages, they know that, on average, a student from a rural area will perform better than an urban student with the same scores. It adds context to the scores. Unlike, say, when there was a box to tick if you had enough aboriginal blood in your veins. So many people ticked that box for an unfair advantage, completely disconnected and even scornful of the culture but able to claim enough percentage of the race. But lots of students took the money from Abstudy even if it muddied their ethics.

by strken 4y ago

jessaustin 4y ago

Why does this bother you? Do you assume that the system is perfect, except for this particular benefit you believe it provides to rural applicants?

Akronymus 4y ago
I assume it's a reocurring thought that maybe the commenter you replied to only got in because of the standards being lowered. Which is something I have heard of from quite a lot of people who may have benefitted from AA. And it's somewhat frequently paired with a huge amount of self doubt.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  I was happy to write an essay about my experiences growing up on a farm for my Harvard admission packet. I couldn't care less about whoever hypothetical NYC chess-playing salutatorian I "beat out". ISTM these "special" circumstances very rarely contribute the bulk of any incoming class. Any "regular" student who really deserved admissions got it, and only marginal strivers with few must-have qualities complain about getting denied in favor of applicants with special circumstances. It's fine for these people to suggest larger class sizes (certainly in the case of Harvard they are correct; I don't know about the Australian system). Their self-interest is showing, however, when they start making lists of people whose test scores they beat by a few points. There's no reason to trust their judgments over those of professional admissions staff. That is doubly the case for those of us who may have been admitted for these reasons and then went on to collegiate success. Why the hell would we worry about the opinions of those marginal strivers? They should do their best at their safety schools.

stubish 4y ago

There are many, many disadvantages to being educated in rural Australia vs. in the capital cities. Even if you got selected by one of the richer schools who pay for the best teachers and better student/teacher ratios, you are still disadvantages by needing to live away from home (lacking family support) or 4 hours of commuting each day. And it isn't even all about you. Because Universities know about these disadvantages, they know that, on average, a student from a rural area will perform better than an urban student with the same scores. It adds context to the scores. Unlike, say, when there was a box to tick if you had enough aboriginal blood in your veins. So many people ticked that box for an unfair advantage, completely disconnected and even scornful of the culture but able to claim enough percentage of the race. But lots of students took the money from Abstudy even if it muddied their ethics.