Am I a Weak Objectivist?

[Mimpy]

Something happened today and my reaction to it made me feel conflicted. Maybe you guys can help me out.

I'm a senior in high school, and I applied early decision to the University of Pennsylvania. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the term "early decision," it means that I'd be notified earlier than usual if I were admitted and if I did get in, I'd be obligated to go there. Penn was my first choice because it's an excellent school and close to my home.

I didn't get in. They sent me a letter saying, "We don't need you. We don't want you. Love, Penn."

I'm not going to tell you guys every reason I should have gotten in, but I can say this much: I am a competent individual who would have excelled at Penn. I even took a class there this summer and got an A.

I didn't even get deferred. I got rejected.

I tried not to be upset. I tried not to cry. But I failed. I cried for over an hour. I couldn't help myself. I was so upset.

Then I wondered to myself what I was doing. I realized that by crying over my rejection, I was allowing myself to believe that I needed Penn, that without it I could not be successful in life. I have always thought that my pride was within me...that I didn't need others to corroborate my achievements, that that they stand alone.

Yet, I cried very hard tonight. And I know that's a contradiction. I think that the Objectivist would say that I shouldn't bother about my rejection...that I can succeed on my own and shouldn't let a college affect who I am. But I couldn't help it: I cried.

Am I a weak Objectivist?

[Myself]

Yet, I cried very hard tonight. And I know that's a contradiction. I think that the Objectivist would say that I shouldn't bother about my rejection...that I can succeed on my own and shouldn't let a college affect who I am. But I couldn't help it: I cried.

Am I a weak Objectivist?

Mimpy -

Don't beat yourself up - really. I'm a freshmen in college now and I remember the horrible application process last year. I ended up being rejected by many of the colleges I applied to. It's demoralizing, and I was depressed for a time, but - it's a completely normal reaction. It may be hard to realize this now, but this rejection means absolutely nothing. Forget about Penn - there are plenty of other colleges out there that are just as good or better. Focus on your RD applications, your schoolwork, and identifying other options. I guarantee you that come June you will be happily enrolled in a great college - maybe one you aren't even considering now. I didn't even plan to apply to my college until a week before the application was due - and I can tell you in all sincerity that I love it now. Best of luck and cheer up

Edited December 15, 2006 by Myself

[BrassDragon]

You're absolutely not a weak Objectivist. You set a goal for yourself, you failed to reach it, and it hurts. There is no way out of that. You'd be a weak Objectivist if you said "Well, it doesn't really matter anyway (i.e. 'my goals aren't important')" or if you hadn't set strong goals for yourself in the first place.

Objectivism is not about repressing your emotions, which is dangerous. You've suffered a defeat, and now you have to suffer a little bit. Doing that will make you feel better. Feeling a full range of emotions is normal and healthy. Understanding that Penn is not that much better than a myriad of other colleges, and that if you're truly an excellent student, they probably rejected you by accident or due to the inherent chance factor that goes along with college admissions, will help you feel better - and you should understand that, right now. Fully rational people often have "negative" emotions (in the sense that they feel bad, but will eventually make you feel better and deal with issues that come up - not "negative" as in, bad emotions to have.) What would be bad is if your emotions were founded on irrational premises, such as "I will not succeed in life unless I get into Penn."

Oh, and by the way: you probably do need some college in order to succeed these days the way you probably want to, but almost any decent college will do, and if you're really a good student, you can get into lots of good colleges. Just apply to a whole lot of 'em and you'll be fine.

[khaight]

Absolutely not.

Your emotions are a product of your thinking; they are not under your direct volitional control. You cannot be morally judged on the basis of having a particular emotional reaction in response to an event.

Your emotions are based on evaluations of events relative to values you previously internalized. In your case, you had obviously internalized the idea that there were certain values that were important to you that required being admitted to Penn. That may even have been true -- every university has unique strengths and weaknesses and provides its own experience to students. Not getting in will naturally and properly make you feel sad. A value that you anticipated achieving and had grounds for thinking you deserved has been taken from you. I would expect sadness from the loss, and anger from the injustice. Feeling these things is normal. Don't repress them. Experience them honestly and fully, and then start to think about what to do next.

You are correct that not getting into Penn is not a life-destroying event. There are other schools, with other values to offer you. Try to figure out if there were any factors under your control that contributed to your failure to get in to Penn, so that you can correct them and not be damaged by them in the future in other contexts. (For example, did you write an essay as part of your application? Could it stand revision to make it stronger? Could you contact the admissions office at Penn and get more details as to why you were rejected? Back when I applied to college, one university actually screwed up my application and barely admitted me; after some prodding they discovered the error and wound up offering me a merit scholarship. Incompetence is possible, and sometimes it can be fixed.)

Going forward, focus on what you can achieve in the future with the opportunities that remain open to you.

The very last thing you should do is compound the pain of your loss by beating yourself up over what you're feeling as a result.

Edited December 15, 2006 by khaight

[softwareNerd]

What everyone else said.

Happiness is not causeless. If you got into U Penn, you'd be happy; therefore, if you didn't you're sad. You cannot have it one way and not the other. The underlying cause is in the value you see in getting into U Penn. You can train yourself to not be sad, but you'll find that the way to do that is to train yourself not to let anything matter and not to have any really deep values. The consequence is that nothing will matter enough to make you happy. Buddha understood this link. He saw unhappiness and wondered what to do about it. His solution was not to let anything matter, never to be happy or sad, just to sit under a banyan tree and meditate, like a vegetable. That's not the Objectivist remedy. Ayn Rand herself was a passionate valuer. With valuing comes emotions.

Give yourself the time to say to yourself that you really wanted it, and are unhappy about not getting it. Then, get past it and focus on the next value to be achieved. In this case, perhaps you can reflect on your application and whether you can do something better with your next set of applications. Is there someone who can give you practical advice on preparing the next set of applications? Also, do not let a setback make you aim lower, not unless you independently judge that you're not aiming right. This is not about colleges corroborating your achievements or saying you're worthy; this is about finding a college that meets your criteria, and then demonstrating that you meet theirs.

I wish you well.

[DarkWaters]

I agree with everyone else on this thread -- what you have described is not indicative of a weak Objectivist; you are just rationally passionate about your admirable goals. Have you decided on what other universities you will apply to? I always enjoy hearing about these things.

[coronavita]

How is an education from any particular college going to help you anyways? And is there really that big of a difference between any universities, other than it's reputation and environment? If you are really motivated to learn about something thats meaningful, then use all your time learning it, instead of wasting time thinking about why you got rejected, if you have not yet found something, then spend all your time looking for it, correct me if i'm wrong. And may I add, you are weak, and so is every objectivist I know, including myself, but I'm trying to become strong and stay strong, I know it's tough, but so what.

[BrassDragon]

How is an education from any particular college going to help you anyways? And is there really that big of a difference between any universities, other than it's reputation and environment?

Yes, there is a pretty big difference between universities in terms of course offerings, academic rigor, quality of professors, etc. But there are lots of universities on the level of Penn, which is probably pretty high up there. In fact, there's lots of universities (or colleges) on every level.

If you are really motivated to learn about something thats meaningful, then use all your time learning it, instead of wasting time thinking about why you got rejected, if you have not yet found something, then spend all your time looking for it, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong - it's important to think about why you get rejected from something, so you can do better next time.

And may I add, you are weak, and so is every objectivist I know, including myself, but I'm trying to become strong and stay strong, I know it's tough, but so what.

I beg to differ - this sounds exactly like something out of Sunday school. Objectivists (capital O there) are not necessarily "weak", and having emotions is certainly not a sign of weakness.

[Myself]

How is an education from any particular college going to help you anyways? And is there really that big of a difference between any universities, other than it's reputation and environment? If you are really motivated to learn about something thats meaningful, then use all your time learning it, instead of wasting time thinking about why you got rejected, if you have not yet found something, then spend all your time looking for it, correct me if i'm wrong. And may I add, you are weak, and so is every objectivist I know, including myself, but I'm trying to become strong and stay strong, I know it's tough, but so what.

Welcome to the Forum.

What do you consider weak? What do you consider strong?

Academics vary from college to college. The types of students, atmosphere, location, size, financial aid, and resources also contribute to the quality of your education. In some cases a student may wish to study with a particular professor or researcher, unique to only one university. There are plenty of reasons why one would want an education "from any particular college" as opposed to "any college."

How many "objectivists" do you know?

Edited December 15, 2006 by Myself

[LaszloWalrus]

I pretty much agree with what everyone else said.

Also, realize that college admissions (especially at the best of the best) are totally arbitrary. Most everyone applying to them has the best grades, the best test scores, the best essays, and the best extracurricular activities. It comes down to subjective factors. Also, if you are female and Asian, there are two strikes against you from the beginning.

[coronavita]

okay let me ask you guys something, if you really want to be the best engineer there is, would university of california, berkeley be any different than university of nevada, las vegas? and the reason you didn't get into berkeley is because you didn't want to waste your time doing community services and play sports. instead of relying on your own effort to go to the library, read the books, then ask the prof. the stuff you didn't understand, your going to sit in a class room waiting to be taught. From my own experience, I go to UCSD, and I can learn the math that is taught in one class in 30 min. by myself and if I didn't understand something I could go to the prof. and understand it in another 10 mins, but if I went to class it would of cost me 65 mins to learn it, so I would say my way is more better. And do you really think the "quality of professors" makes that big of a difference in the undergraduate level which is like elementry stuff to the all the prof. anyways/

I consider strong as doing things that you believe that is neccessary, the guy knew it was unneccessary to cry over it, but he did anyways, you can say he couldn't control himself, but he could of if he was strong enough.

"How many "objectivists" do you know? "

17, why does that matter though? I did not make a generalization saying all objectivist are weak, i merely said that all the ones I know are

"having emotions is certainly not a sign of weakness. "

I never said having emotions is a sign of weakness, but if you can not control your emotion then that's a sign of weakness.

[coronavita]

"The types of students, atmosphere, location, size"

how can you let those factors affect how well you learn? and if you do, I would consider that weak.

"I beg to differ - this sounds exactly like something out of Sunday school. "

by sunday school do you mean from a church? and if you do, please tell me which church preaches that, I would love to check it out.

[Myself]

And do you really think the "quality of professors" makes that big of a difference in the undergraduate level which is like elementry stuff to the all the prof. anyways/

Yes

I consider strong as doing things that you believe that is neccessary, the guy knew it was unneccessary to cry over it, but he did anyways, you can say he couldn't control himself, but he could of if he was strong enough.

Just so you know, I'm pretty sure that guy is a girl. Regardless, how is "not crying," "doing thing you believe that is necessary" (your words)?

"How many "objectivists" do you know? "

17, why does that matter though? I did not make a generalization saying all objectivist are weak, i merely said that all the ones I know are

Here's another question: how much do you know about Objectivism?

"having emotions is certainly not a sign of weakness. "

I never said having emotions is a sign of weakness, but if you can not control your emotion then that's a sign of weakness.

Do you believe in repressing your emotions?

"The types of students, atmosphere, location, size"

how can you let those factors affect how well you learn? and if you do, I would consider that weak.

Part of being in college is living there, being able to pay for it, interacting with people, doing internships, undergraduate research, etc. If you only want to learn from a textbook you might as well do online courses instead. You have a very incomplete outlook on the purpose of attending college.

Also, please watch your grammar and spelling.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Myself

[coronavita]

i would think that the main purpose of going to college is to learn the stuff that is neccessary for your career, and nothing else should affect that, and I am saying that going to college or which college you go to doesn't make that big of a difference, and my grammar isn't perfect because I came to the US three years ago, I want to see how good your chinese will be if you came to china for three years, and why do ask me how much do i know about objectivism, are you implying that you know more? how do you measure that? we all have different interpretation of ayn rand's objectivism, and yes I do believe in repressing emotions that are unnesscessary, did you think hank reardon was just letting out his every single one of his emotions when he was feeling down?

[LaszloWalrus]

Emotions should not be repressed (Hank Rearden's emotional repression was bad; when he was fully integrated, he had no emotional repression, as one can see in his changing evaluation of his feelings towards Dagny).

I do agree that it doesn't make that big of a difference (if any difference at all) what college one attends.

[DavidOdden]

i would think that the main purpose of going to college is to learn the stuff that is neccessary for your career, and nothing else should affect that, and I am saying that going to college or which college you go to doesn't make that big of a difference, and my grammar isn't perfect because I came to the US three years ago, I want to see how good your chinese will be if you came to china for three years, and why do ask me how much do i know about objectivism, are you implying that you know more?

Some slack is cut for people who are not native speakers of English, if they make errors in their English, especially if they attempt to correct their errors. Nevertheless, I suspect that some of what you're doing isn't even possible in Chinese. You may wish to remind yourself of the rules for capitalization, and please note that since Objectivism is a proper name, it too is capitalized (as is Chinese). Try to limit your run-on sentences, so that each sentence makes a specific statement, rather than stringing together every feeling that you had at the moment. I would bet that this is even a requirement of Chinese prose. Now as for the content, it may be that you are only interested in job training, which is quite fine. You may want to take note of the difference between trade school and a university. A trade school focuses on training for a particular job, whereas a university focuses on giving a broader education. If you want an education, you should attend a university, and if you want job training, you should attend the appropriate kind of trade school. It would be silly for a person wanting to master the cello to go to MIT or the DeVry Institute, and it would be silly for a person hankering to be a cell-phone repairman to (attempt to) attend The Juilliard. So it does matter where you go. You have to have in mind a purpose. I would conjecture (without a huge amount of substantive evidence to go on, I admit) that Mimpy has education as her purpose.

we all have different interpretation of ayn rand's objectivism, and yes I do believe in repressing emotions that are unnesscessary, did you think hank reardon was just letting out his every single one of his emotions when he was feeling down?

The latter statement would suggest that you don't understand the Objectivist theory of emotions, but in reading some of the posts here (in this thread), you can actually see what that theory is, and how it applies to Mimpy's situation. The former statement suggests that you don't understand that Objectivism is a specific philosophy, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you mean that people are capable of being wrong in their understanding and application of Objectivism, that is quite clearly so. Of course, we'll have to see what more you contribute here to understand what level of understanding of Objectivism you do have.

[BrassDragon]

I wrote this before DavidOdden made his last post, but I'll post it anyway since it fleshes out his point about the purpose of college...

I do agree that it doesn't make that big of a difference (if any difference at all) what college one attends.

I think that depends on what you want out of it. If you just want a degree and to learn material that you can learn from a textbook (and these 2 factors are probably most important for any subsequent career, at least in most people's view), it probably doesn't matter too much where you go. If you want to have professors that are more well-established in their fields, more individual attention from professors, more extracurricular activities, better sports teams, to go to college in a different state or country, or any of a number of other things, it certainly matters where you go - every college or university has different attributes.

[Mimpy]

Thank you, everyone, for your input and your defense. I was so upset yesterday, and so today I stayed home from school and thought about my future and the plans I have to re-adjust. I have to get used to the fact that I'm not going to the university I've wanted to go to for such a long time. But it was kind of like what happened in "The Fountainhead" after a while. It only hurt down to a certain point. After that it didn't matter. After that I was too busy writing my college essays and planning for my future to be sad anymore. I guess it's just a process that I had to go through. All of your words did help, though. I wanted to analyze the situation objectively, and I could have only done that via this forum.

And because DarkWaters wanted to know, I am also applying to Boston College, Duke, Cornell, Swarthmore, Georgetown, and Penn State Honors.

Thanks again.

[softwareNerd]

Great! Keep us posted.

[DarkWaters]

Also, realize that college admissions (especially at the best of the best) are totally arbitrary. Most everyone applying to them has the best grades, the best test scores, the best essays, and the best extracurricular activities. It comes down to subjective factors. Also, if you are female and Asian, there are two strikes against you from the beginning.

Let's also not forget that universities are businesses. Qualified students whose parents can afford to pay the tuition in full are much more likely to get accepted than an equally qualified student who would need financial aid from the institution. Of course, this is the rational prerogative of the university.

Also, if you are female and Asian, there are two strikes against you from the beginning.

Not necessarily! A lot of engineering schools are yearning for bright young females. There are rational reasons for this too, as having a more balanced gender ratio improves the quality of student life at an institution. It would have been great if there were more girls at Carnegie Mellon when I was there or if there were more at Georgia Tech now.

I agree with you that Affirmative Action discriminates against students of asian descent.

I do agree that it doesn't make that big of a difference (if any difference at all) what college one attends.

Clearly the quintessential factors to getting a great education are who you are and your level of self-motivation. However, other factors that might enhance an education, as already stated on this thread, are quality of instructions, your peers, availability of challenging courses, structure of the curriculum and the like. As far as choosing an institution for undergraduate study, I believe the opportunities available to you at a university are probably comparable to those that will be available at any other university that is about plus-or-minus ten positions in a reliable system of college rankings. ( To this effect, I saw tee shirts being dispensed on my campus that read "MIT is the Georgia Tech of the North." ) Clearly, you would want to reference a different metric for more focused undergraduate programs such as computer engineering.

I want to see how good your chinese will be if you came to china for three years

Ni hao! Hen gao xing ren shi nin. Dui bu qi wo de zhong wen bu hen hao. Wo zheng zai xue hua yu. Wo shi meigo ren! Wan an.

From my own experience, I go to UCSD, and I can learn the math that is taught in one class in 30 min. by myself and if I didn't understand something I could go to the prof. and understand it in another 10 mins, but if I went to class it would of cost me 65 mins to learn it, so I would say my way is more better.

If the material being presented to you is that easy, then perhaps you are not challenging yourself enough when you select courses.

Thank you, everyone, for your input and your defense. ... I am also applying to Boston College, Duke, Cornell, Swarthmore, Georgetown, and Penn State Honors.

You are welcome. This is certainly an impressive selection of schools. Receiving serious consideration for admission in any one of them will be an achievement in itself. Good luck and good mind with the college application process!

[LaszloWalrus]

I saw someone wearing a shirt that said:

Duke: the Duke of the South.

[Mimpy]

I saw someone wearing a shirt that said:

Duke: the Duke of the South.

That's cute! I like that.

Edited December 16, 2006 by Mimpy