Google the title to find an article on WSJ written by some entitled brat. What's your take on it?
Mod note: here's a small snippet:
Like me, millions of high-school seniors with sour grapes are asking themselves this week how they failed to get into the colleges of their dreams. It's simple: For years, they—we—were lied to.Colleges tell you, "Just be yourself." That is great advice, as long as yourself has nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores and two moms. Then by all means, be yourself! If you work at a local pizza shop and are the slowest person on the cross-country team, consider taking your business elsewhere.
What could I have done differently over the past years?
For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.I also probably should have started a fake charity. Providing veterinary services for homeless people's pets. Collecting donations for the underprivileged chimpanzees of the Congo. Raising awareness for Chapped-Lips-in-the-Winter Syndrome. Fun-runs, dance-a-thons, bake sales—as long as you're using someone else's misfortunes to try to propel yourself into the Ivy League, you're golden.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873240007045783903400645786…
good response article:
http://gawker.com/5993140/attention-students-just-being-yourself-isnt-a…
I had the same reaction as you: what entitled little baby. I expect a lot of mediocrity.
Same. I was annoyed reading the comments in the journal with everyone encouraging her and how talented she was. All she did was complain.
If you watch her interview she does not come off as the whiny baby I was expecting. Gotta admit some of her comments are true in today's admissions
i liked this response http://gawker.com/5993140/attention-students-just-being-yourself-isnt-a…
[quote=AndyLouis]i liked this response http://gawker.com/5993140/attention-students-just-being-yourself-isnt-a…] "In fact, the one notorious aspect of college admissions that virtually no one ever praises openly—the preferential treatment given to legacy applicants who are admitted to schools because of familial connections—Suzy Lee Weiss doesn't touch in her Wall Street Journal piece.
Perhaps her sister Bari Weiss, a former Wall Street Journal editorial features editor, talked her out of it." BOOM.
Her sister is a former editorial features editor? Just fucking WOW! I'm absolutely speechless.
When I read this part at the end I couldn't stop laughing. Glad someone looked into that. I was wondering how this girl's bitching and moaning somehow snagged a spot in the Journal to begin with.
Yea she didn't seem too whiny. Definitely needs to work on her writing so she doesn't come off that way.
Agreed with the above comments, but she does have some good points. My real issue with her rant is that she doesn't offer any solutions.
When is your next album coming?
soon...
When I first read what she had wrote, I was disgusted. The gawker response summed up what I felt perfectly.
However, after watching the WSJ interview (Whose existence was pointed out by a member here), I do feel that she's much less whiny than her op-ed implies. She was probably just extremely bitter after getting rejected and wrote an emotional response. I think the issues being pointed out are important; unfortunately, her satirical examples are much better than pissing people off than shedding any light.
It is difficult to properly interpret what she's trying to say through the piece she wrote; it isn't with a sense of entitlement that she's saying that, rather she wants to convey the message that some students (herself) take literally what is said about "being yourself."
If you read the end of the article, she admits that she's bitter and, relative to what she wants to do, has been underachieving. I completely understand her POV - it's not a matter of the colleges being "wrong" or "unfair," but instead she finds it stupid that certain kids with a thinly-veiled disinterest in their activities make it into college simply by virtue of what they write on a piece of paper. The fact is - and I'm sure that this is what she meant to illustrate - most of these kids will dissolve their charity, stop traveling, not make it all the way to varsity sports, not maintain those high grades through college, and overall wind up sucking at a lot of what they did just to make it into college.
It's a critique of her peers more than the schools, and I'm sure she doesn't even see it that way just yet. To be honest, her article is like something I'd have written myself when I left high school. The over-achievers in honors classes all suck at life right now, despite their admission to great schools. Only the top 5 or 6 of those "star" students are doing anything other than being unemployed or generally doing the same thing the rest of us are.
What she will eventually realize (and this is something that only came to me with age, as well) is that life isn't a store that you enter, pick what you want and grab it; life is like a giant map to various places, and to get to any of them, you must travel the rocky road leading there. The further the destination, the more arduous the journey and the more worthwhile the trip will have been.
So while she does sound spoiled in her writing, let's be thankful that she's an honest kid with her head in the right place: getting into college and doing something she actually finds useful. It could have been much worse, after all... at least she isn't an OWS supporter.
SB for you sir. That was very well thought out.
reading it makes the author sound like a whiny baby, but even remembering when i was applying - and even just worrying about applying and figuring out what colleges i had a shot at attending - makes a lot of what this person is saying ring true. it's one of those things where if you're white or east asian, tough shit - you aren't gonna get to fill in the diversity bubble on your application. it sucks, but i remember feeling like some kids had an advantage. not gonna comment on whether or not it was fair or unfair, deserved or undeserved, but i think for an 18 year old, with limited perspective and world view (and even some people who are older), these thoughts aren't unjustified.
The only thing more insane than the article is the sheer number of comments supporting her. It's almost seems as if the parents told all of their family friends to post about her "great writing skills" and ignore the fact that she is a moron.
i'm pretty sure most people who have applied to competitive finance - or any kind of - jobs know this, but what they mean by "be yourself" is: "don't stretch your bullshit about your accomplishments so far that it's clear you a) have no idea what you're talking about and b) have no actual interest in what you're talking about"
sounds like the first time i drafted my resume in college
boom. you, sir, need to be the man in charge of revising all college info pamphlets. would save a lot of mediocre kids from a lot of mediocre heartbreak
It's all about the increasing applications for top schools, overly entitled asshole kids who think they're special, mediocre parents who don't know shit about raising kids, easier access to federal loans, the idea that we NEED a higher education. This graph says it all:
Given the opportunity to go back 4 years, I wouldn't trade my state school education for anything. I did awful in high school, got average SAT scores, the got to a college with the best sports/girls/greek life/academics in the world. The average Harvard grad won't make anywhere near what I'm making, and for what- just so they can say they went to Harvard and be 100k in debt? I'm amazed at how many people still don't get it. I'm only here to make $150k as a 22 year old. That's it.
Ok. I'm glad you're doing well for yourself, but you sound like you have a chip on your shoulders.
Top colleges, especially harvard, have very generous need-based financial aid. Also, you may be making more than the average harvard grad at age 22, but the value of harvard really pays off in the long-term. You are an anomaly among the people from your state school, and as I said props to you for doing well. But don't come across as a bitter person by denigrating harvard.
Couldn't agree more BT. I didn't have a hope in hell at making it into an ivy, went to a state school very similar to the one you described, and wouldn't change it for anything. I'm doing just fine, perhaps it would've been easier to get into banking from a more prestigious school, but I'll never know, nor do I care to. A high income is just a nice side product of being willing to bust your ass, it's really not that difficult.
Yo that's Mac Miller's and Wiz's school.
As an incoming college freshman who finished applying to colleges, my response is simple: no shit Sherlock. How dim-witted are you to be gleefully unaware of the archaic discrimination commonly referred to as "affirmative action?" How ignorant must you be to believe the hyperbolic BS that these colleges peddle on their websites, on brochures, in every high school they set foot in, in every "information session" they provide?
College admissions is a game, nothing more, nothing less, and the author of this article lost miserably (and publicly). If the OP understood basic strategy and time management, she wouldn't need fake charities and an exotic ethnic background to seem like a moderately attractive candidate to top colleges. Some of the rules are ridiculous and some contestants have unfair advantages, but that's just how the game is; deal with it. You can win the game if you just put your mind to it (even if you're an Asian male applying for engineering).
I can't wait for April 1st, 2017
"To (All) the Banks that Rejected Me"
This girl wants to pursue writing. She is from a supportive upper middle class family, born in a country where people can actually make $$$ by writing, and her sister used to work for WSJ... she is really in no position to chant "this world is unfair durrr hurrr"
Ok. So this is from the perspective of someone who was fortunate enough to get into every college he applied to coming from a very mediocre public high school and has been doing alumni interviews since graduating.
I agree with the girl in that adcom is a bit too obsessed with diversity (this is something mba adcom has a problem with as well). Her editorial though reeks of bitterness. First, adcoom at top colleges are VERY good at sniffing out extracurriculars with little depth and accomplishments. They know who's a pretender and who's the real deal. A student who just joins a bunch of random clubs and gets empty titles but has displayed little substantive results is not going to impress anyone. Adcom does not care about the quantity of extracurricular activities but the quality. Second, this girl clearly lost this highly competitive game. It's telling that she doesn't mention where she applied to or what her actual credentials were. Without knowing them, my only conclusion is that she's not that special and is whining because for the first time in her life she did not get what she wanted. Third, I think a lot of people just underestimate how competitive it has gotten. You guys think M7 mba admissions is tough? Lol. Try getting into harvard, stanford, yale, princeton, mit, as a non-urm/athlete/legacy from a public high school. In the past 4 years I have interviewed a total of 25 high school seniors, most of whom were VERY impressive both on paper and in person. A few of them had credentials that were simply mind boggling. And yet, during that time only ONE actually got in. So yes, it's tough, and girls like her need to suck it up, excel at whatever college they go to, and try to get into their dream school for grad studies.
I thought it was pretty tongue-and-cheek and a good article. She even says she is bitter and making excuses, which displayed she was well adjusted.
All in all the article is hilariously true. Are people really that dense or is it insecurity and self justification in feeling better about yourselves for going to good school and the insane road of silly activities it took to get there.
Honestly, I really don't understand all the hate for something written in jest.
Agreed. I don't make much of it really.
I completely agree with most of what she said.
The fact that on weekends I sit on my ass and play video games instead of tutoring orphans or saving whales says absolutely nothing about the value I can bring to an employer. This is especially true in the context of employers of interest to WSO, where regardless of your major your degree becomes a B.A. in "making money and not giving a fuck". I work plenty hard on the things I choose to pursue. During my senior year of high school and freshman year of college there were a few hundred people in the world playing World of Warcraft at the level I was, meanwhile the soup kitchen will hand a ladle to any asshole who walks through the door. I'm not pretending my WoW expertise makes me some kind of rockstar who should have GS and McK begging me to work for them, nor am I actually belittling people who do contribute to charity. But I do consider it a superior achievement to generic volunteer work, while the latter actually gets you somewhere.
I'll never get into a M7 b-school, nor will I try. But my undergrad grades would be competitive at any of them, and my GMAT blows their averages out of the water. The conventional WSO response to this is "well you don't have to be that smart to do the work in finance, so what does that tell us?" It tells you I'll only need to be told how to do something once, and in theory the guy with lower numbers may need to hear twice occasionally. Yeah, it's a really marginal benefit. I don't see how the prototypical do-gooder resume is any better though.
The whole diversity thing is an even bigger crock of shit and everyone knows it.
She loses me when she refers to "those kids who by age 14 got their doctorate, cured a disease, or discovered a guilt-free brownie recipe", because those kids have actually accomplished something relevant and I'm all for them being rewarded.
Yeah I ranted. Let the monkey shit torrent commence.
Agree, especially with the raiding part.
... I'm not sure if this is a troll post, but that verbal diarrhea was the stupidest shit I ever read mate.
YOU really think that you mashing your fingers on your Cheeto-encrusted keyboard long enough to "achieve" a high rank in a silly game meant for introverted pimply men is SUPERIOR to the asshole going out and helping people even if it is just to cross off an item on the list..? Please tell me what effect you've had on the world thus far by "having a rank not many people in the world have", all you're really showing is that your dumbass is hooked on the game and blew your time away.
Dear lord, help this man. Dude, whatever you do, please don't spawn children.
He's not your mate, friend.
If you're ever in doubt that WoW is useless, look at this: http://www.nextnature.net/2010/05/norwegian-boy-saves-sister-from-moose…
No shit. Try getting into an ivy saying "I want to be an investment banker." My essays were, "I want to go into public service" liberal nonsense. They want a certain type of student.
My college would host middle managers from non-profits on a regular basis. But a banker or businessman? Never. My college even has alumni who founded top banks and hedge funds. Those guys would be awesome speakers. They should be featured prominently on the college's website, as shining examples for current students. The college barely acknowledges them, instead highlighting unsuccessful artists and such.
There is some sanity in the extra-curricular bullshit loop. It shows that you will jump through whatever hoops you must to reach your goal. And that's a life skill.
There is a ton of bullshit we all do. Even interview preparation - memorizing frameworks for consulting interviews has very little to do with your value as an employee. There was just a thread about doing charity solely for bschool applications - same thing. This is exactly what the college admission process trains us to do.
She acts like getting into a good school as a white girl is hard. It is... if your grades and SATs suck.
I blame the parents.
In the end, College is a business. This girl shouldn't complain someone who valuably packaged their time and achieved "nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores" and apparently also has two moms as a bonus got into her dream school instead of her.
My guess is she was the type to receive a low SAT, a 3.9 GPA, joined one club and a sport freshman year, and graduated believing she's completed Harvard 6.9% acceptance worthy material. When Ivy league colleges accept you, they take a gamble you'll be successful, uphold the name, spread their influence in affluent ranks, and maybe one day make a substantial donation or two. That's why it's so damn selective.
If her identity is exposed she'll be dinged out everywhere, no one likes a complainer.
I'm a graduate of a top end state university. First job out of college was in investment banking. Most of my colleagues were Ivy Leaguers. They were all quite smart, but when you get to know them, however, you'll realize that they're just normal people who were just a lot more mature at the age of 15 or 16 than the average bear. With males in particular, a person may not hit their intellectual stride until their late 20s or early 30s. My father flunked out of the University of Missouri - Columbia his first go around in the 1950s. Went back after 17 months in Korea, got straight "As" at UM - Columbia, graduated in 1960 and was the CFO of the wealthiest privately owned insurance company of the 1960s by his mid-30s. This was an effing state university dropout at the age of 20.
I've pretty much accepted that my children's reach schools will be UVa, UNC or George Washington or something along those lines if they follow the maturity pattern of their ancestors. There's just no way my children will hit their intellectual stride at the age of 15 in order to master the SAT and the high school GPA.
I can honestly relate a lot to this (not to the same degree), but I too have noticed a huge change in myself now in my early 20s compared to my teens. As a teenager, I was always one of the smarter kids (though I went to a public school, so that's not saying a whole lot) in my class but I was never as intellectually curious as I am now. For example, when I was a teenager, all I did was do my schoolwork, study for tests, do my ECs for fun and to pad my college app (lol), and then watch sports/hang out with friends. I knew that I was smart enough to get into a decent state school (even though I ended up choosing the cheaper, instate option) and I knew that getting into an ivy was going to be tough because my SAT/ACT were abysmal for that level, so I just dicked around after doing the minimum to get into a upper-tier state school.
Now that I'm in my 20s, have worked for a year, etc., I literally enjoy reading non-fiction books about all sorts of topics for fun, taking classes on coursera to learn more, and actually have legitimate interest in volunteering/doing activities that are meaningful and not just to pad applications for jobs, etc. If I had the same curiosity at this age as I did when I was in high school, I think I could have at least gone to a "lower-tiered" ivy or maybe a good private like Northwestern, UChicago, etc which is a huge bummer as it would have made my life so much easier.
My question is, why does this usually happen that males hit their "intellectual stride" later on in life? Looking back, I'm ashamed at how much potential I wasted back in high school and I'm paying for it now in this job search. Is it just maturity or is there another reason why this trend tends to occur?
Young, dumb, and full of cum.
I don't necessarily have the credentials to be commenting on biology, but I have read that many males do not reach their full intellectual maturity level until around the age of 30 as the brain is still developing. I think it's why you'll often see a radical difference between a 36-year-old male and the absolute d-bag of a person he described as himself as a teenager or college student. I don't think women typically have such a radical change from 18 to 36.
When I was applying for college admissions in 2002, I was told by some on-campus recruiters that adcoms weight more heavily a female's full 4 years of high school than a male's full 4 years of high school as they noticed that males tend to get better grades as they mature into their junior and senior years. They told us that for a high school male applicant, their junior year and first semester of senior year would be the most critical. So I think there's both biological and observational evidence that males' brains literally do not reach maturity for many years after females, in general.
Thank god we have WSO to save us from all those lousy "career advisers" and related fools who try to put us on the wrong path. Otherwise we would have someone writing a piece called "To (All) the Firms that Rejected Me"
Oh wait.
WoW raiding a superior achievement to doing charity work? Giving up your own time to help someone else, no matter if "any asshole" could do it, is much more of an achievement than learning a routine of hitting buttons on your keyboard to a pre-scripted virtual fight. The author (and others in this thread) is/are completely downplaying peoples charitable contributions as being completely contrived. Also, she is basically saying because others use charity solely as a means to help their college resumes that by not doing it she is somehow taking the high road? How about just doing it and not listing it on your resume? That's always an option.
Maybe she didn't get in because her persuasive writing skills are atrocious?
I would happily post a reply why college is NOT fair, but i think an idiot would also do it, so i better not.
Cry me a river. It's funny when people are average in every way and then blame minorities for their lack of success. As if she would have been admitted if she was "Navajo" and had exactly the same accomplishments. It must be comforting to be able to blame others for your ineptitude, but it won't help her do anything about it.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged yet?
I blame my parents for not filling me with all the knowledge I acquired on my own too late in life. Now I've graduated and trying to make the most of it.
The article seems like a wind-up. She doesn't seem serious.
"Before the law sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in sometime later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” The gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard, he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside. The gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down at the side in front of the gate. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests. The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things, but they are indifferent questions, the kind great men put, and at the end he always tells him once more that he cannot let him inside yet. The man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper. The latter takes it all but, as he does so, says, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” During the many years the man observes the gatekeeper almost continuously. He forgets the other gatekeepers, and this first one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law. He curses the unlucky circumstance, in the first years thoughtlessly and out loud; later, as he grows old, he only mumbles to himself. He becomes childish and, since in the long years studying the gatekeeper he has also come to know the fleas in his fur collar, he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper. Finally his eyesight grows weak, and he does not know whether things are really darker around him or whether his eyes are merely deceiving him. But he recognizes now in the darkness an illumination which breaks inextinguishably out of the gateway to the law. Now he no longer has much time to live. Before his death he gathers in his head all his experiences of the entire time up into one question which he has not yet put to the gatekeeper. He waves to him, since he can no longer lift up his stiffening body. The gatekeeper has to bend way down to him, for the great difference has changed things considerably to the disadvantage of the man. “What do you still want to know now?” asks the gatekeeper. “You are insatiable.” “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.”" -kafka
I never did all that shit just good (but not perfect) grades and a couple sports in school and I still got in multiple ivies. On top of it all, I'm asian. Sometimes I really believe admissions are 50% random, 50% qualifications.
Best way to get your kids into an Ivy League (or comparable) school? Move to a nice suburb of NYC and put lacrosse sticks in their hands at age 4.
Another good strategy is to marry someone who's African, Hispanic, or Native American and send your kids to private school. URM Status+Private School = Ivy league admission.
This to all my hatin' folks seeing me getting guap right now, hell yeah I won't stop right now
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702043239045770383011460225…
WSJ feature on her house. Love this line:
"While the couple had admired Mr. Jacobsen's work for years, they also have college tuitions looming for their four daughters."
You could make it only 3 tuitions to pay for now...
Fuck. I knew it was too much to hope that you guys would let this slide till Thursday.
I liked the tongue in cheek nature of the article. I went to an ivy a decade ago an I recall the many silly activities that I had to join to pad my high school resume. I did some activities I enjoyed but others were purely to game the system. I suppose that is life, but I do think that some top tier colleges do penalize a super smart kid that works in a pizza shop because his parents don't have money for a fake service trip to Africa.
My old man worked three jobs to keep me the fuck out of Africa (ultimately failed - thank you Sierra Leone rebels. Dicks.).
Is anybody else hung up on the title of this article? Why the fuck does she need the "All" in parentheses? In fact, why does she need the "All" at all? She's addressing the same group of colleges (the ones who rejected her) whether the "All" is included or not.
Her article doesn't really warrant a visceral response, either for or against. I remember getting rejected from colleges -- it wasn't fun, and if someone had given 17-year old me a chance to embarrass myself in the Journal, I suppose I might have taken them up on it.
I even agree with some of what she says. A great deal of the admissions process might seem like bullshit. If you're a non-URM, non-legacy, non-athlete applicant, and didn't have parents who knew how to raise you properly -- i.e., who knew to encourage the sorts of things that elite colleges like to see -- then you're probably getting an Ivy League-level rejection.
That said, you eventually realize (or hopefully realize) that where you go to school doesn't really matter*. It's what you do while you're there that counts. Many of the most impressive kids I knew coming out of high school, the ones who went to Stanford and Yale, are doing precisely nothing right now. The most impressive kid I know? A University of Arizona grad, who went from being a classic screw-up to a PhD candidate doing extremely cool research.
*within reason -- a Harvard grad, at least early in his or her career, is going to have far more opportunities to choose from than an ASU grad
EDIT: Didn't mean to suggest, by way of example, that attending an elite-level school is negatively correlated with success (that would, of course, be quite silly). A great deal of the folks I know who attended Ivy League schools continued to be very impressive, as one might expect. I just wanted to illustrate my broader point -- that while 16-year old you can set up 22-year old you for success, you're not necessarily handicapped by that high-ass fuck's crappy decision-making.
Agreed. So much angst on this board at all times, across so many topics. People here need to get out and have a bit more fun, get laid more too.
...
Finally a topic I know things about! Out of the 7 schools I applied to, I was rejected by 3, waitlisted by 2, and accepted by 2. I absolutely hate my school. People have said college is the best 4 years of your life, but I really hope not. If I could go back in time I would just slap my 17 year old self for the way I went about applying to colleges. The author of the article should just transfer to Cornell if it upsets her that badly. Get over it.
Coming from a graduating high school senior:
The way she wrote the article was very whiny/im an entitled bitch, however, I thought she did raise a good point: That the college admissions process is screwed up. At my high school, (public, top 10 in state) there are kids who participate in activities like business club because they are genuinely interested in it. They put effort into it and they plan on majoring in it in college. Then, there are other kids, who become "leaders" in clubs solely for college. One kid was something like VP of the business club and didn't know shit about finance. The person also took a "service" trip to China to teach kids. That's a great thing, going to teach underprivileged kids. But you did it for college. Another example is National Honor Society, which is a joke. Half my fucking grade is in the damn society because you only need a 3.5 gpa. I look around and see several very smart kids not in it because their not interested in it so they didn't join. Also, every fucking kid is in Key Club.
There's many kids at my school who I look at who don't have 4.5 gpa's and aren't the "president" of four clubs, but they will be very successful. I also look at the top 10 in my class who are going to very good schools, and see how fake they are. Then again, 3 of them were caught cheating multiple times.
I guess my point is that the, smart, above average kid who does two sports and two clubs is now almost looked down upon by colleges because they aren't the leader of some dumb shit. I was accepted to my first choice so I'm not whining about not getting in btw. Also, when the common app for colleges lists the LGBT as an activity, but not the Boy Scouts of America, something is fucked up.
Final thing: "Leadership" in high school is complete bull shit. Very few kids have the ability to lead effectively in high school, and being Spanish Club president doesn't add to your ability.
To (All) The Banks That Rejected Me Based on a true story
Coming in Spring 2017
She should take a year off to get a MFin, boost her stats, and reapply next year.
This thread is outstanding, especially the WoW discussion.
We can bring that up again - anyone else agree w/ the proven fact that WoW saves lives? Please refer to the following link for scientific proof:
http://www.nextnature.net/2010/05/norwegian-boy-saves-sister-from-moose…
Can someone tell this DaisukiDaYo guy that a story about WoW saving a child from a fucking MOOSE doesn't mean it saves lives? AND before this you said that it's superior getting a "hard to get" rank the game then it is to go out and help in the soup kitchen, thus you wished not to be discriminated against in admissions for not doing it. You're spinning your story, at least stick to your guns.
You're beyond retarded, I've never seen idiocy similar. I'm throwing monkey shit at you.
We can bring that up again - anyone else agree w/ the proven fact that WoW saves lives? Please refer to the following link for scientific proof:
http://www.nextnature.net/2010/05/norwegian-boy-saves-sister-from-moose…]
Nihil in dolor sit sed et. Non nisi vero architecto quia. Et et non pariatur dolor blanditiis modi. Neque aliquid et mollitia reprehenderit quis maxime.
Alias quaerat laborum sequi quidem neque non mollitia. Mollitia eum animi placeat sed ea optio suscipit et. Error est magni excepturi voluptate aperiam consequatur ut.
Quis minima consequatur eligendi. Doloremque iure recusandae ad accusamus saepe. Consectetur aperiam ea hic animi quis sit. Minima dolor unde adipisci qui sed reprehenderit ducimus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sit voluptas velit quia ipsum saepe beatae. Consequuntur sequi quis fugit sed molestiae. Quia quas voluptatem culpa excepturi velit.
Et qui cum a minima et. Totam et voluptatem consequatur possimus sapiente quam est. Facilis autem enim pariatur porro tempore doloremque. Iure esse similique quidem debitis recusandae ex. Blanditiis nemo quia deleniti veniam. Accusantium est et quam placeat.
Vel rerum incidunt qui beatae eum. Repellat rerum deserunt ad ratione sequi quibusdam. Consequatur ut numquam officia atque. Debitis nulla dolor sint ipsum voluptatem reiciendis omnis. Excepturi perspiciatis eos molestiae. Et dolor sed minus quis quam fugiat maiores voluptatem.
Vel et est tempora et doloribus consectetur. Qui ut harum illum voluptatem. Sapiente quas autem nulla. Et velit est consequatur.
Dolores cupiditate earum quo qui incidunt. Facilis voluptatem autem laboriosam pariatur. Aliquam ea et in suscipit. Odit aut velit molestiae dolorem nam omnis iusto. Sed cum ullam nobis ducimus eum consequatur mollitia.
Iste veritatis saepe consectetur sunt sit sit nam. A consequatur rerum non beatae ratione. Voluptatibus animi quae nihil ratione. Id aut sapiente natus occaecati veritatis. Omnis quos ipsa non voluptas corrupti dolor. Error omnis assumenda aliquid quos est mollitia dolorum. Quod sunt harum velit sed qui qui quis.
Porro cupiditate commodi rerum voluptatem possimus dolorem incidunt. Officia est laudantium possimus beatae accusamus. Rerum expedita natus ut. Saepe iste fuga aut aut et aut commodi.
Veniam pariatur recusandae ratione esse tempora et reiciendis quo. Assumenda rem inventore natus libero.
Quae et quod laudantium itaque blanditiis. Ratione dolorum laboriosam exercitationem quia et et.
Quam in non et illo. Et natus omnis quas ut voluptas aut sit. Adipisci ut quas sit amet.
Doloremque cupiditate asperiores autem perspiciatis. Soluta illum quaerat voluptatum vel sint vero illo consequuntur. Deleniti aut repudiandae labore officiis iste suscipit. Neque facilis quisquam deserunt voluptatem.