The only evidence the guy had that the kid at Harvard is overly-bothered by his classmates' circumstances and insufficiently grateful for the opportunity Harvar

The only evidence the guy had that the kid at Harvard is overly-bothered by his classmates' circumstances and insufficiently grateful for the opportunity Harvard has given him is that the article included too many quotes about feeling left out and too few about gratitude. The point of editing the guys stuff in a journalistic fashion was to point out the flimsiness of that basis for judgment: cut a sentence or two, reorder some independent quotes, and you wind up with a very different impression than the one he was trying to convey; he also had the advantage of just saying what he wanted, instead of responding to leading questions from a journalist. Which was kind of my point: it sounds like the kid's had a rough time adjusting, but is adapting to his circumstances (got a room change, gets his books from the library, has an on-campus job, etc.) and doesn't seem to be seeking attention; anything you know about the kid is thirdhand (filtered once through the journalist and again through an editor), and if you've ever dealt with the media you'd know exactly how far you ought to trust them for accurate reportage (hint: not very far). A simple response along the lines of: "eh, well, look at the bright side: he's still getting a free ride at an awesome school at an awesome time in history." wouldn't have set me off the same way: it's pointing out the obvious, and avoiding making character judgments about our man at Harvard. Instead what we get is: (1) an opening shot of mockery "BOO HOO" (2) a reminder that the kid gets a full ride @ harvard (good point) and that 20% of the class makes is from familes earning < 60k; the latter observation isn't much help without a better picture of the kid's specific situation and some more-detailed understanding of the internal structure of the <60k cohort (how many are <20k? <30k? <40k? etc. -- huge differences at each step) (3) a pretty insulting mischaracterization of what the kid is quoted saying in the story's opening paragraphs. We went from: (A) He was valedictorian of his senior class, and had been accepted at all 13 colleges to which he applied. But when Miguel Garcia entered Harvard University last fall, he felt he didn't belong. As classmates moved into Harvard Yard that first day with parents - and in some cases, chauffeurs - driving fancy vehicles packed with boxes, Garcia arrived alone. His belongings fit into two suitcases and a backpack. His mother, a worker at an industrial laundry, and father, a janitor at a Detroit casino, could not afford the trip. "Everyone else seemed so polished and entitled and seamlessly adapting," Garcia recalled. "It just felt like they'd been here their whole lives. I was really intimidated. I didn't feel like I had anything in common." ...to: (B) because some of the other students get driven to campus in fancy cars, you feel left out Making the leap from (A) to (B) makes me worry for tjic's reading comprehension. Here's why: first paragraph has kid claim he doesn't belong. Third paragraph has kid quoted explaining the feeling of not-belonging in more detail -- other students are more polished, seem to him to fit in better, he's intimidated and doesn't feel he fits in. The stuff about cars? That's in paragraph two. Paragraph two has no quotes, and isn't directly attributed to anyone. It's a poetic flourish from the author, and it's using one of the oldest tricks in the journalists' book: you sneak a paragraph of unattributed, "raw facts" between two quotes, and the unsavvy, uncritical reader will usually mentally assign some relationship between the facts and the quotes. In this case tjic fell for it: he collapses (A) to (B) "some kids show up in fancy cars and you whine? loser!" But there's nothing in the article text to make such a judgment airtight: his stuff in the third paragraph is very generic (other ppl seemed to fit in better than I did), making no mention at all of cars (or any other specifics -- who knows what this quote was said in response to). (4) some rambles that're supposed to convince me tjic had it hard and worked hard and that whatever the kid's complaining about isn't that bad This is treading dangerous ground: - it's supposed to be a list of how hard tjic had it that'd make you go "oh wow that's rough" and then conclude "and he's not a whiner about his hard times" - if on the other hand it's not that hard, the fact that tjic thinks it's a reasonable comparison is going to be amusing When I read (4) I wasn't that impressed: - he had a car to take to college (which is still enough to show you weren't in the lowest socioeconomic rungs) - only mentions summer jobs before college (if he had to also work during the school year, no mention of it) - no mention of eg having to support other family members factoring into his decisions (compare to, eg, the mention of the kid's concerns for his parents' situation) I have a lot of respect for the military in general and additionally do consider the ROTC thing to be an honorable way to pay for college but calling it busting ass is perhaps pushing it: in some ways it's harder than raising money in the private sector (eg via a job), but in a lot of other ways it's a lot easier. When I think of someone really busting ass I think of immigrants working 3 jobs (eg 1 fulltime weekdays, than a second part-time job nights and a third part-time weekends"; ROTC's no cakewalk but it's just not comparable. This is of course pot/kettle, but it points out the risk inherent in complaining: there's always some other asshole who's not that impressed and will call you a whiner, no? (5) a final fuck-you in the kid's general direction, in the form of a complaint about complainers and whiners and moaners, a sermon about how awesome the kid's situation actually is, and a send-off expressing tjic's lack of sympathy for the kid. And this was what set me off: the point of a send-off with "cry me a river" type things is trying to claim some kind of superiority-of-character-or-morals: you might want to whine about something but I am not impressed. It's one thing to slag someone you're talking to directly; it's quite another to slag someone about whom all you really know is deduced from third-hand quotes collected by a journalist with an agenda...and there you have it. One thing's definitely weird: of the people I know who've worked through actual adversity (eg: swam their way from north to south korea), very few get their back up about other people's whining; if kids today have it easier, great (that's why you made the swim in the first place; why should things be hard?) and if the whining's justified, it's easy to relate to adversity, b/c you know what it's like. On the other hand, people who have a strong investment in a personal identity of "wow I really had a rough time and had to work hard to get where I am and I hate all these whiners" tend to be quick to go off the handle whenever someone bitches or whines or moans. Very most most definitely pot/kettle (eg: takes one to know one).