1.
“Inventing the Perfect College Applicant,” January 29–February 11
For New York’s latest cover story, Caitlin Moscatello interviewed a private educational consultant who charges parents $120,000 a year to turn their kids into Ivy bait. Writer Andrew Boryga, whose forthcoming novel, Victim, is about a young man who games the admissions system, said, “This is straight bananas. Reads like satire.” Those who work closely with students were quick to comment. Math teacher Neema Salimi wrote, “High wealth parents lighting their money on fire in a zero-sum game for college. The absurdity of the college admissions process has created this monstrosity. There’s a reason no colleges would comment for this article; they know how insane this is.” Vanessa Lamers pointed out, “As someone who does interviews for an Ivy League school, I can tell you admissions committees are getting quite savvy to this. These schools are not looking for a cookie cutter prototype with no creative or critical thinking ability.” Many readers noted the irony of the story in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn affirmative action. Journalist Tatiana Walk-Morris said, “This is affirmative action for the rich. Children who are actually gifted & have had to overcome real obstacles, nope we can’t make room for them because all the rich parents have bought all the spots.” Others questioned the worth of getting into a top university. @CentipedeMouse tweeted, “It is important to recalibrate the public image of elite education. A whole lotta people pay a whole lotta money to buy their way into a fancy school, and even then oftentimes the rich kids either plagiarize without care, or they find other ways to not do any substantial work.” Meanwhile, commenter bkmoderate asked, “Does it strike anyone else that much of what this service is described as doing is the sort of thing that, like, parents should be doing?!? I mean how stunningly disconnected from your kid’s life are you that you can’t help them think through what internship to apply to, or have a conversation about what they may have gleaned from your summer vacation.” And Sean Carmody tweeted, “Every parent putting their kid through this … might as well sign them up for a lifetime of therapy as well.”
2.
“How We Lost Our Minds About UFOs”
Nicholson Baker contributed a sprawling historical essay on “How We Lost Our Minds About UFOs.” Fellow novelist Joyce Carol Oates said the article included “excellent observations about the UFO phenomenon … but Baker is so matter-of-fact, so pragmatic-minded & persuasive, there is little margin for fun-speculation & whimsy-woolgathering about ‘flying saucers’ that enlivens lives otherwise mundane.” Many readers found Baker’s conclusion that most UFOs are actually old military balloons convincing. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, tweeted that “UFOlogists describe ‘crinkly’ material that when scrunched up unfolds back to original shape. Very probably balloon material” and called out the article’s “nice history of US military & scientific balloon projects.” Longreads joked, “Attention, ufologists: Nicholson Baker regrets to inform you that your entire movement is easily debunked by investigating Cold War history. At least he eviscerates your extraterrestrial dreams with good cheer and good writing. And he suggests that you bring some proof beyond grainy footage and anonymous sources.” Others pushed back on Baker’s opinion. Commenter colecar wrote, “Skepticism generally seeks to reinforce the status quo until enough anomalies accumulate to force a paradigm shift. I can forgive anyone who doesn’t think enough evidence has accumulated to justify a new paradigm but dismissing, ignoring, and ridiculing evidence doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.” In a letter to New York, reader Dan O’Neill said, “The author cherry-picks who, in the UFO community, to go after, conveniently skipping over trusted witnesses.” Baker, he added, “also seems to have a problem with any journalist who dares to take this issue seriously, merely enforcing a cultural stigma that’s been in place for many decades. It’s intellectually dishonest to play this game, to be the ‘arbiter’ of what is and isn’t a serious topic worthy of discussion … We need more, not less, smart people discussing this topic. Whether you’re a diehard UFO believer or a seasoned skeptic, I think we can all agree that stigma and taboo only serve to muddy the water and create confusion — something neither side of this issue wants.” Back on X, @JakesAlterEgo said it was “absolutely amazing how many people and institutions come off terribly in this.”
Send correspondence to [email protected]. Or go to nymag.com to respond to individual stories.