The Current Harvard Crimson has a report on the new short essay prompts Harvard will give applicants. The very first of these prompts reads as follows:
"1. Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?"
This a not very subtle invitation to do exactly what Jay Caspian Kang is talking about here. It is done in a completely deceitful way in this question, which does not ask about trauma per se, but telegraphs it with its reference to a "diverse student body/" A not very subtle invitation to go in the direction of harm endured. It seems clear to me that Harvard has every intention of pushing Chief Justice Robert's comments about such essays to the limit. And since Roberts himself reined in what he meant about that, Harvard will be courting a lot more court attention yet.
As with so many US products, the idea of victimhood as a form of social capital has taken hold here in Australia too.
It’s a tough one, because it’s obviously arisen in response to a (now old-fashioned, and perhaps flawed) idea that people should maintain a ‘stiff upper lip’ in response to hardship. That is, they shouldn’t talk about it, they should process it, and get on with their lives. While this approach probably works for many, for others it doesn’t.
That said, we now have a situation in both our countries where, notwithstanding genuine cases of ‘trauma’, many (often middle class) people cynically use claims of hardship as a way of gaining status and prestige.
I think about whether there’s a middle ground and I’m not sure there is. For example, if we were to consider ‘trauma’ or ‘hardship’ as part of a suite of other considerations in (say) an admissions process, we inevitably end up with situations in which people ‘miss out’ despite their ‘trauma’, which to many, would be to essentially disregard it.
Ultimately, the problem I think is the idea of ‘equity’, which is at the heart of the matter. I’m totally on board with something like ‘equality of opportunity’, but the more I think about it, the more I realise that the pursuit of equity is doomed and dangerous.
So now the plan is to award entry to the best sob stories? Creative writing, or plagiarism, awards. Just great; the student starts academic life as a liar. I wonder how that story ends.
There is a social psychology here that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been developed as much as it should. We’re talking about a moral masquerade where the challenge is to pretend to a status that you don’t have. What are its consequences, but also what are its sources, that is the question. Shelby Steele first wrestled with these issues over 30 years ago, and it was made clear in progressive circles that considering these questions invited the most severe ostracism!
Oppression that is required to be rehearsed is hard on the psyche and WILL (not could) do more damage than any elite degree could ever benefit someone.
So this is where the smartest people in the country teach and write and where the most talented students in the country go to university, maybe not?
The Current Harvard Crimson has a report on the new short essay prompts Harvard will give applicants. The very first of these prompts reads as follows:
"1. Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?"
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/8/3/harvard-admission-essay-change/
This a not very subtle invitation to do exactly what Jay Caspian Kang is talking about here. It is done in a completely deceitful way in this question, which does not ask about trauma per se, but telegraphs it with its reference to a "diverse student body/" A not very subtle invitation to go in the direction of harm endured. It seems clear to me that Harvard has every intention of pushing Chief Justice Robert's comments about such essays to the limit. And since Roberts himself reined in what he meant about that, Harvard will be courting a lot more court attention yet.
As with so many US products, the idea of victimhood as a form of social capital has taken hold here in Australia too.
It’s a tough one, because it’s obviously arisen in response to a (now old-fashioned, and perhaps flawed) idea that people should maintain a ‘stiff upper lip’ in response to hardship. That is, they shouldn’t talk about it, they should process it, and get on with their lives. While this approach probably works for many, for others it doesn’t.
That said, we now have a situation in both our countries where, notwithstanding genuine cases of ‘trauma’, many (often middle class) people cynically use claims of hardship as a way of gaining status and prestige.
I think about whether there’s a middle ground and I’m not sure there is. For example, if we were to consider ‘trauma’ or ‘hardship’ as part of a suite of other considerations in (say) an admissions process, we inevitably end up with situations in which people ‘miss out’ despite their ‘trauma’, which to many, would be to essentially disregard it.
Ultimately, the problem I think is the idea of ‘equity’, which is at the heart of the matter. I’m totally on board with something like ‘equality of opportunity’, but the more I think about it, the more I realise that the pursuit of equity is doomed and dangerous.
So now the plan is to award entry to the best sob stories? Creative writing, or plagiarism, awards. Just great; the student starts academic life as a liar. I wonder how that story ends.
Love it when Glenn gives us these conversations with a twist.
There is a social psychology here that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been developed as much as it should. We’re talking about a moral masquerade where the challenge is to pretend to a status that you don’t have. What are its consequences, but also what are its sources, that is the question. Shelby Steele first wrestled with these issues over 30 years ago, and it was made clear in progressive circles that considering these questions invited the most severe ostracism!
Oppression that is required to be rehearsed is hard on the psyche and WILL (not could) do more damage than any elite degree could ever benefit someone.
Victim mentality is not a good idea.