More about Ivy admissions and privilege

As a corollary to last week's post about the social roots of Ivy League elitism, here's an interesting article from the New York Post about how some ultra-privileged Manhattan parents are upset that their kids aren't getting into Harvard, Yale and Princeton as much these days. This is the heartwarming part:

it seems private schools are feeling the heat more than their public counterparts. “The Ivies are reaching out for a diverse economic background—even home-schooled students are becoming more of a thing,” says one guidance counselor at a private school in Manhattan. “They are interested in first-generation college kids, and few privates have that. The Ivies are still good to legacies [children of alumni] if their alums have been good to them. But it’s getting harder for private school students because it’s getting fairer for the rest of the world.”

“Our low-income initiative has repositioned us,” agrees Marlyn McGrath, Harvard’s director of undergraduate admissions. Harvard, Princeton, Yale and other top-tier schools have replaced loans with grants in financial aid packages, which has encouraged students who wouldn’t have been able to afford the schools in the past to apply. “A lot of people are starting to think about Harvard when otherwise their state university might have been on the top of their list.”

One local example of this brave new world is public school student Lukasz Zbylut, who just graduated from Brooklyn’s New Utrecht High School. After rejecting offers from 18 top colleges, including Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Dartmouth, he plans to attend Harvard University come fall. Lukasz’s parents are Polish immigrants, and his father works in construction in Brooklyn to support his wife and three children.

Now, one working-class student from Brooklyn does not a fair admissions policy make -- especially when we're still accepting (per this article) six from the Trinity School and eight from Horace Mann, which have graduating classes of 107 and 173 respectively, and which both cost around $30,000/yr. (Here's something that will blow your mind -- at Horace Mann, which costs $29,000/yr, only 18% of students get financial aid. Everyone else, one assumes, pays it out of pocket. My God.) The economic elite is still way, WAY overrepresented at places like Harvard.

But, even if it's not a substantial change, it's at least satisfying to read that people who spend $46,000 on admissions counseling -- I'm not making that up, it's in the article -- aren't automatically guaranteed a seat at the nation's best universities. (Don't expect me to have any sympathy for these people, either. They get into Johns Hopkins and they're disappointed? Fuck them.) Education is supposed to be the great equalizer in America, and any increase in meritocracy at these places is a good thing.

Worried About Trans Fat? Here's a Suggestion...

New York City recently got a lot of press about banning artificial trans fat from restaurant food by 2008. The media, in general, has made a lot of hay about the dangers posed by trans fat, almost like the killer bees or the flesh-eating virus were back to attack but in our food this time. This campaign is good, to a degree. Trans fat is bad for your health, increasing your chance of heart disease. Not only does it raise "bad" cholesterol, like saturated fat does, but it also lowers "good" cholesterol.

Since the biggest (and only agreed upon) risk of consuming trans fat is coronary heart disease, I find it interesting that all these bans only affect artificial trans fat. What I mean is that we consume plenty of natural trans fat in other foods. Artificial trans fat comes from partially hydrogenated oils used in some fast food, snack food, fried food, and baked goods. Natural trans fat comes from the milk and body fat of ruminants (cows, among others)- dairy and beef.

Moreover, not eating meat reduces your overall chance of coronary heart disease by 24% (not eating meat is the #1 best way to reduce your risk of this #1 killer in human beings 65 and older- and since 75 is the average lifespan of Americans, coronary heart disease is kinda your #1 best chance of death). So, if you are concerned about trans fat (or coronary heart disease, as that's the only agreed upon risk of trans fat), you might want to consider reducing your consumption of meat and dairy products. (Reduction being the key, you don't have to be vegetarian or vegan; reduction of bad habits is the best way to go with anything, right?)

Anyway, the political point of this post is about the bans that are popping up around the country (especially in liberal places). I am generally a person who prefers not to ban things that cause harm to the person who is using that thing only (although, there is a point that the bans are on restaurants, not on individuals from making foods with trans fat). For example, I am against banning cigarettes for individual use (as long as you minimize harm to others not consenting to the second-hand smoke). Therefore, I think it might be a tad overbearing to ban artificial trans fat. BUT, if you are going to ban artificial trans fat because it is a health hazard (meaning it causes coronary heart disease), you should instead ban meat since it is a much larger hazard.