Take a photo of a barcode or cover
rheak 's review for:
can't really tell you why i read this but i was interested so i did. i have mixed feelings. if you're feelin beat down by the 'game' of college apps maybe give it a read. or if you end up at the school you never thought youd be at. maybe don't read as youre applying that just feels like a lot of anger + cynicism.
*i did not edit this nor did i refer back to the book i am just vibing*
where you go is not who you'll be starts off decently strong.
immediately you notice the reliance on anecdotes + interviews but its ok we can entertain the thought process.
and for the most part i see where he's going and there were a couple moment where i was like thats true! but there's also moments where i disagree straight up. the lack of acknowledgement for those points make the book significantly weaker and just sadder. colleges are definitely overhyped but this book just leans to hard one way (less selective is better) and i guess thats ok because common culture polarized the other way (more selective is great!) but to me it's just no longer an accurate nor believable protrayal of the issue.
some examples:
bruni compares the number of fullbright scholars from Harvard to other school, for example UMich.
-Harvard has 33, Michigan 28.
the point of this is to show hey! you can do this at other schools too and yes that proof is there.
-however, michigan is still selective, thats ok there were less selective schools on the list. i just think the mixing is a lil shady.
-but the bigger issue to me is the neglect to mention scale. he's comparing harvard + mich as if theyre equals. Michigan is literally like 5x-6x larger than harvard. to me, that completely changes the context, thus any statistic (there were a lot of them) that compared raw numbers just failed on all fronts.
my other major issue was the lack of consistency. bruni frequently cites stand out forbes all star people as success cases for less selective schools and thats great! he's proving proof of concept, he's saying you CAN do it from wherever. but when we're talking about Harvard, MIT, Cornell, etc it's all off handed generalizations- Yale students are intellectually incurious, Princeton kids want a checklist. every postive example for less seletive schools was preceded by the usual harvard/etc was there BUT, he never directly says anything positive of the ivies. that just really implies a cherry pickin attitude.
to me these generalizes serve one purpose- you know what ivy league schools+ their students are BAD. i think fundamentally that disagrees with the title- where you go is not who you are unless you went to an ivy then really youre just a loser who just does as they're told. and im sure they have a grain of truth in them but bruni fails to ever pass stereotypes + generalized anecdotes (from directors or admissions officers, people who reallyknow the student body). it's a massive difference from the like 30 interviews he did with others to prove his point about less selective schools. the whole of chapter 8 is literally just ivys actually suck lol. as a disclosure i was rejected from every ivy except the ones i didnt apply to so im really not trynna protect them. i genuinely think this section does nothing to help him prove/get through to anyone but rather just allows rage and annoyance. it takes away from legitimately critism- the lack of socioeconomic diversity, the true impact of legacy, etc. the real reason for chapter 8 is to describe a funnel effect (and resulting lack of passion in the pathways of ivy kids(backed up by a maximum of 3 anecdotes)) but it just reads like ivys suck i hate them i hate them here's a stat, here's why thats bad using one anecdote, here's why ivys just suck i hate them.
my last issue is the villians- parents. to me bruni stops too early in his path tracing of this mania. yes parents want to give their kids a leg up, but crucially it's out of fear. fear changes things. this isn't greed, parents are concerned. a college education isn't good enough anymore and frankly not everyone can be a self starter. bruni gets at this- it's the system but then goes back on it and implies that parents are the sole perpetrators. which is strange but sure. saying that i think the actionable items at the end are solid and i will be doing them.
anyways i only really mentioned the negatives but it did have some interesting insights. i specifically liked the diversity + honor college shoutout. this was also the first book i annotated and i have just a lot of underlines of me agreeing. i think the best time to read this would be maybe a year before you start the process or afterwards, this definitely isn't a book to read during. if you end up at a school you felt you wre better than i would definitely give this book a read.
*i did not edit this nor did i refer back to the book i am just vibing*
where you go is not who you'll be starts off decently strong.
immediately you notice the reliance on anecdotes + interviews but its ok we can entertain the thought process.
and for the most part i see where he's going and there were a couple moment where i was like thats true! but there's also moments where i disagree straight up. the lack of acknowledgement for those points make the book significantly weaker and just sadder. colleges are definitely overhyped but this book just leans to hard one way (less selective is better) and i guess thats ok because common culture polarized the other way (more selective is great!) but to me it's just no longer an accurate nor believable protrayal of the issue.
some examples:
bruni compares the number of fullbright scholars from Harvard to other school, for example UMich.
-Harvard has 33, Michigan 28.
the point of this is to show hey! you can do this at other schools too and yes that proof is there.
-however, michigan is still selective, thats ok there were less selective schools on the list. i just think the mixing is a lil shady.
-but the bigger issue to me is the neglect to mention scale. he's comparing harvard + mich as if theyre equals. Michigan is literally like 5x-6x larger than harvard. to me, that completely changes the context, thus any statistic (there were a lot of them) that compared raw numbers just failed on all fronts.
my other major issue was the lack of consistency. bruni frequently cites stand out forbes all star people as success cases for less selective schools and thats great! he's proving proof of concept, he's saying you CAN do it from wherever. but when we're talking about Harvard, MIT, Cornell, etc it's all off handed generalizations- Yale students are intellectually incurious, Princeton kids want a checklist. every postive example for less seletive schools was preceded by the usual harvard/etc was there BUT, he never directly says anything positive of the ivies. that just really implies a cherry pickin attitude.
to me these generalizes serve one purpose- you know what ivy league schools+ their students are BAD. i think fundamentally that disagrees with the title- where you go is not who you are unless you went to an ivy then really youre just a loser who just does as they're told. and im sure they have a grain of truth in them but bruni fails to ever pass stereotypes + generalized anecdotes (from directors or admissions officers, people who reallyknow the student body). it's a massive difference from the like 30 interviews he did with others to prove his point about less selective schools. the whole of chapter 8 is literally just ivys actually suck lol. as a disclosure i was rejected from every ivy except the ones i didnt apply to so im really not trynna protect them. i genuinely think this section does nothing to help him prove/get through to anyone but rather just allows rage and annoyance. it takes away from legitimately critism- the lack of socioeconomic diversity, the true impact of legacy, etc. the real reason for chapter 8 is to describe a funnel effect (and resulting lack of passion in the pathways of ivy kids(backed up by a maximum of 3 anecdotes)) but it just reads like ivys suck i hate them i hate them here's a stat, here's why thats bad using one anecdote, here's why ivys just suck i hate them.
my last issue is the villians- parents. to me bruni stops too early in his path tracing of this mania. yes parents want to give their kids a leg up, but crucially it's out of fear. fear changes things. this isn't greed, parents are concerned. a college education isn't good enough anymore and frankly not everyone can be a self starter. bruni gets at this- it's the system but then goes back on it and implies that parents are the sole perpetrators. which is strange but sure. saying that i think the actionable items at the end are solid and i will be doing them.
anyways i only really mentioned the negatives but it did have some interesting insights. i specifically liked the diversity + honor college shoutout. this was also the first book i annotated and i have just a lot of underlines of me agreeing. i think the best time to read this would be maybe a year before you start the process or afterwards, this definitely isn't a book to read during. if you end up at a school you felt you wre better than i would definitely give this book a read.