for the rest of your life.

Go back and reread ndoldtown's post, but with much greater discernment than you have to date. He said none of the things you have attributed to him. He did not imply any of the things you have attributed to him. While I can see how you could read those things into what he said, the fact remains you read them into what he said, rather than reading what he said.

What he said wasn't really about you (neither the specific baloo88 "you" or the generic "alumni your age" you); it was about Notre Dame. I encourage you to take another look at it and to expand your view of what he wrote from your current narrow focus on you and toward a view toward the changes that have happened at Notre Dame.

"Notre Dame used to be a place where hard-working, ambitious people without all the advantages could go, excel and make more of themselves. Now it is to a large extent a destination spot for entitled people who have had things handed to them. Good kids, generally, but not of the sort that built the place and defined its ethos."

He's clearly talking about the current students and recent grads.

I am going to break it down, very specifically, into exactly what ndoldtown said. I am then going to tell you exactly where you are adding things he did not say. I am willing to do this in an effort to help you, because listening and discernment is a critical skill that will differentiate you from just about everyone around you in your professional and personal life, when practiced correctly and frequently.

ndoldtown's quote, in full, as supplied by you:

"Notre Dame used to be a place where hard-working, ambitious people without all the advantages could go, excel and make more of themselves. Now it is to a large extent a destination spot for entitled people who have had things handed to them. Good kids, generally, but not of the sort that built the place and defined its ethos."

I see where you went through this line by line below, but you missed the point. Let's go through it again:

"Notre Dame used to be a place..." (bold to differentiate ndoldtown's work)

As you noted below, "used to be" is an indicator that the upcoming description will be about the past, as contrasted to the different circumstances of the present.

Here is where you keep missing the point, though:

"...where hard-working, ambitious people without all the advantages could go, excel and make more of themselves...." (italics and underlining added)

"Without all the advantages." "Could go." Each and every time you have discussed this point, you get hung up on the "hard-working, ambitious people" part, but leave off the critical qualifiers. "Without all the advantages" is the difference between the son of an accountant, and the son of a high school dropout working the line at the machine shop. ndoldtown's comment isn't to say that hard-working ambitious people no longer attend Notre Dame; it is to say that those hard-working ambitious people without all the advantages have a very, very difficult time getting in, and then graduating, from Notre Dame when that was not the case in up through the 1970s, and even into the 1980s. Notre Dame is no longer a place where those people can realistically hope to go. It's out of reach.

If you miss the point of the first part, then you cannot hope to understand the point of the distinction he draws in his next sentence:

"...Now it is to a large extent a destination spot for entitled people who have had things handed to them...."

Note first what is not here. At no point does ndoldtown say that those "entitled people who have had things handed to them" are neither hard-working nor ambitious. You have added that by misunderstanding the previous sentence. You compound your error by misreading "destination spot" below.

Read without the additional meaning you mistakenly applied to it, this sentence says 2 things: Notre Dame is a much more prestigious place than it was decades prior ("destination spot") and it is increasingly populated by students who do not know what it's like to do without ("entitled people who have had things handed to them"). In this context, but "things" is better understood to be "objects." These kids have worked their tails off for the grades and extra curricular activities needed to get into Notre Dame today. What they have not had to do, generally speaking, is work their tails off to buy a car, or to earn their spending money. Economically speaking only, Notre Dame is not a place where students go to "make more of themselves," because these students already come from means and privilege relative to their predecessors. It is a destination spot.

Notre Dame is where they go to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, in a way. That wasn't the case through the 1980s. The changes started to become apparent in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. You still had the kids without means getting in and trying to make a go of it, but the cost had passed them by, and the University did not meet full needs, even through crushing debt loads. If you didn't have the money, or couldn't work for it (which was hard to do with the cost escalation by that time), you were out of luck.

That was my story as an erstwhile member of the Class of 1996. My ex-wife, on the other hand, was exactly the entitled person who had had something handed to her her entire life, as a member of the Class of 1997. She worked very hard through school to earn her way into Notre Dame, but she never had to worry about whether the heating oil tank was going to run out in January, for example. That kind of sheltering from all hard economic choices is something we all hope to give our children, because it's undeniably a good thing. That kind of sheltering from all hard economic choices, however, is a relatively new feature of the Notre Dame student body, and it not the sort of characteristic found in the student body "that built the place and defined its ethos."

The sons of factory workers gave way to the sons and daughters of lawyers and CEOs, and that unquestionably carries with it significant change to the makeup of the place, and the mindset of the students. Older alumni do not love Notre Dame more than you, or less than you. Their love for Notre Dame, however, is undeniably different from yours. In that sense, it is much like the love you have for your children: you love each of them intensely, and no one more than any other, but you love each of them differently.

It will be referred to again and again to explain what shouldn't have to be explained. But does. Again and again.

Both for the explanation and the patience to make it.

You're obviously too dense or obstinate to understand what ndoldtown said, and you're just making yourself look worse persisting in this folly.

Cash

And the stuff before and after it.

It may sink in.

Hell, I come from a relatively affluent background, and I didn't take it as a swipe against me. He didn't mean it as a swipe against you or your peers.

He meant it as a commentary as to what the University has endeavored to become. It is somehow embarrassed about its heritage and wants to be something other than what it was.

I'm as serious as a heart attack. I also liked your opening post in this thread. I was and remain a Kelly supporter. From reading your post, I was likely more of a supporter than you were. I'd guess that's reversed now. I just need to see it before I believe it.

It was that he ascribed the terms not hardworking, unambitious, entitled, had everything handed to them, and view Notre Dame as a destination spot to current students and recent grads. I didn't care about the student body being called rich. It's true, at least in comparison to ND students of the past and most other college students in the country. It's the other descriptors that bothered me.

but I seriously doubt you'd rise and strike to defend the honor of the entire student body. If you came from a single parent background and worked your ass off for everything you have, congrats, you're blessed with something more important than wealth.

But honestly, did you even look around you on campus when you were there? Notre Dame has significantly...significantly increased the Spaulding Smails/Danny Noonan ratio.

It is what it is, kid.

handed to them.

Or did I make that up?

He did not say that you or your classmates are not harworking or ambitious. Look, the message is obviously lost on you. Consider that older, wiser and smarter people have tried to set you straight. Consider that your feeling may be hurt unnecessarily. Consider you may have it wrong. Consider letting it go, like now.

Let me go through this line by line.

"Notre Dame used to be a place where..."

Doesn't "used to be" imply that Notre Dame is no longer the place he describes.

"...hard-working, ambitious people without all the advantages could go, excel and make more of themselves."

Whom is he talking about? Administrators? Quite a stretch, don't you think, to say that he's talking about administrators making "more of themselves". I think the simpler explanation is that he's talking about students.

"Now it is to a large extent a destination spot for entitled people who have had things handed to them."

Yes, entitled and haven't worked for what they've gotten. Those who get to Notre Dame aren't seeking to excel and better themselves. We've reached our destination.

"Good kids, generally, but not of the sort that built the place and defined its ethos."

I'm supposed to believe that he's referring to the administration as "good kids"? Come on. It's simpler, yes, to reason that he's referring to students.



You tell me just where I'm mistaken.

For the record, Andy brought it up.

"Yes, entitled and haven't worked for what they've gotten. Those who get to Notre Dame aren't seeking to excel and better themselves. We've reached our destination."

That's your inferral, he didn't say this

"Good kids, generally, but not of the sort that built the place and defined its ethos."


The place wasn't built in the last few years. My generation is not like my grandfather's generation who went to ND. I don't see how that is controversial.

The real problem is the quoted statement above. You lept from his quote to a conclusion that isn't there.

I don't mind that he says we are different from old students. Yes, we do come from more wealthy backgrounds from the most part. Even I, a son of a single mother who is an accountant, have probably had more advantages than the average Notre Dame student from the first half of the 20th century. But there's no mistaking that he did use the terms "entitled" and "had things handed to them" to describe students today and he did say that we view Notre Dame as a destination spot.

If he was trying to land a blow against the leadership at Notre Dame, he missed with those three sentences and hit the current students and recent grads.

Is that he's trying to say those are the types of people ND is targeting now, and the atmosphere they are attempting to cultivate as well.

Assumptions as mine. You must admit that if one is to believe what you just wrote, he has to read a lot into ndoldtown's post.

But I'm content to leave it alone from here. I really do appreciate you taking the time to explain what you thought of ndoldtown's statements.

Also, Fernando Torres is still a bust. Luckily for your Blues, Chelsea have made a few other smart buys (Meireles, Mata, and Luiz, in particular) that have really saved their bacon.

My feelings certainly aren't hurt. I understand what you guys are saying, and I think it's wrong. I do get that he was making a point about the leadership at Notre Dame, but in doing so, he did make judgments about the students. I'm going to drop it here, because this really is a stupid argument. We're getting nowhere.

If we were 2-0, none of this shit would have ever been brought up.