[The following diary, my first, began as a comment to Booman’s Princeton post, where I began with the following lines. The conclusion follows after the jump.]
First I’d like to say that George W. Bush was not a Princeton legacy!!!!! To be sure, Princeton has beyond its unfair share of awful alums — Alito, Frist, Rumsfeld — so we can leave the Bushes to Yale!
I attended Princeton starting in 1990. If I had not been accepted it would not have occurred to me to think that someone else “took my place”!
As it was I benefitted by my father having attended Princeton and by being from Florida. I was aware of these factors — Freshman year we students loved to talk about “the odds” / where we came from / how we were fitting in — but I did not question my being there. There are always some who do: usually those accustomed to being #1 suddenly finding themselves in a sea of “#1’s”!
The legacy issue is worth reconsidering, always. But so are the other factors taken into consideration. (A few years prior to my entry Brooke Shields had attended and much was made over whether she “earned” it.) I am sympathetic to the notion that children of alumni contribute the LEAST to the school’s goals when compared to other factors (racial/ geographical diversity, a student body of many talents). Probably the only valid reason is that it causes alumni to give more money, not a completely unreasonable concern, even if a bit tacky.
I had one friend from Long Island who constantly spoke of how much more qualified he had to be to get in than those from elsewhere, like me. (New York applicants endured the same stiff competition as those from New Jersey.) But that friend was also a jerk. Most students had a philosophical view and felt lucky to be there.
I think that progressives in general have a vastly different view of these types of things than others. As I said, were I to have been rejected it wouldn’t have occurred to me to think of someone else taking my place. Of all the things which occur in our lives, so many are beyond control. We work hard at those things which are in our control. The odds of success, whether applying to Princeton (or Harvard or Berkeley or Georgetown or …) or in life are such a dizzying combination of factors that it’s best not to put all your hopes in one single outcome. And it is best not to blame one person or one reason for not attaining a desired outcome.
Seeing Buchanan railing against all the phantom “more qualified whites” who should have taken Sotomayor’s spot at Princeton, then on the bench, and who should be running all fire departments everywhere, and god-knows-what-else… It’s exhausting! I honestly cannot imagine living that way.
I would say most of my fellow Princeton students looked at our admission as part hard work and part luck. We all knew that some of us had some “wild cards” — but once we were there we viewed one another more or less as equals. We were all students at a great institution. The task then was to make the most of it, to prove ourselves to ourselves and each other and the university as a whole. Sonia Sotomayor certainly did.
As to Buchanan’s comment about all Ivy Leaguers graduating cum laude, that is certainly not true (I can personally testify!). While I was enrolled there were some who felt that there was an unwillingness on the part of professors to hand out truly bad grades, that there was a tendency to stack the grades towards the high side. (My attitude towards this debate was, “Shut up! Shut up! Are you people CRAZY?! Shhhh!”) Knowing the high stakes, high cost of education, and high self-regard of most Princeton students, many professors allegedly placed a floor on grades (except in the most egregious circumstances). But to argue that all students graduate cum laude — much less summa cum laude — is ridiculous!
Finally, I believe that what Buchanan illustrates is the vast difference between the conservative and progressive mind. As he talks he sounds afraid, like all the whites in the world are squirrels hoarding this one nut. And that nut represents whatever it is they cherish control over: the Supreme Court, hiring and firing, college admissions, the whole country. It is a zero sum game. While progressives see so much more nuance, and value in the nuance.
I did not always see things this way. I am a white male who grew up privileged in the “Southern” part of Florida (which is the Northern part). One of the factors in expanding my mind to include diverse viewpoints was attending a university which valued students from every state and as many foreign cultures as possible, almost all of whom contributed greatly and excelled. (It would not surprise me if the most under-performing demographic at Princeton were legacied, wealthy white males — what would they have to prove?)
I close with a quote from Harvard’s current rejection letter: “Past experience suggests that the particular college a student attends is far less important than what the student does to develop his or her strengths and talents over the next four years.”
