<p>What’s up with this Stanford’s “Likely Letter”?</p>
<p>What makes them mail this letter to you, and when? Thanks.</p>
<p>I’m really unsure in general. I know they usually only send to students in low-income brackets, but beyond that idk.</p>
<p>Students that Stanford expects will probably get into all competitive schools they apply to receive “likely letters,” though Stanford calls them “early approval.” It’s a way of enticing the students to choose Stanford, before they got acceptance letters elsewhere. There are about 120 sent–“superstar” and “multicultural” likely letters. They’re typically sent in February and March. It has nothing to do with income status. There are also athletic likely letters, though those are very early in the admissions cycle.</p>
<p>There are some threads about it on the forum; search for them. Here’s an article from the Stanford Daily (see the bottom):</p>
<p>[Admit</a> yield increases by 2 percent - The Stanford Daily Online](<a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/5/30/admitYieldIncreasesBy2Percent]Admit”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/5/30/admitYieldIncreasesBy2Percent)</p>
<p>And on Yale’s:</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - ?Likely letters? part of Yale?s admit strategy](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20938]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20938)</p>
<p>What does
stanford mean by wanting a “multicultural diverse” pool? Define multi-cultural.</p>
<p>A lot of cultures?</p>
<p>As in students from different ethnic, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds.</p>
<p>But that is racist isn’t it? Hypothetically take this into consideration:</p>
<p>A white male and a Sri-Lankan Male with same stats (SAT, ECs, GPA, etc) apply to Stanford.
Would the white applicant get rejected over the Sri-Lankan boy because The Sri_Lankan boy would bring a cultural diverse enviroment because he can practices Sri-Lankan religious activities??
That isn’t so good . . .</p>
<p>Thats a common (mis)conception associated with the fear of AA. And you’ll get people arguing tooth and nail on both sides as to whether or not this is a form of reverse discrimination.</p>
<hr>
<p>My opinion is that it’s not.</p>
<p>No mediocre student is going to get accepted, regardless of his background. Period. If they both have the exact same stats like in your example, then the holistics come into play. Essays, recommendations, etc…
In an effort to have the student body reflect the world itself then the adcoms are going to make sure to get extraordinary applicants from both Shri Lanka as well as from suburban boston and wasp families. Which is a good thing in my opinion. Someone who is rejected is always going to think someone else took their place. If that someone else is a minority they will instantly scream Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Its never as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Plenty of international students with good stats get rejected every year. The school just makes sure that those that are accepted aren’t all from the same city block which I feel is important.</p>
<hr>
<p>Just my opinion of course.</p>
<p>It’s evaluation based on race, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad. It depends on the mission of the institution. If Stanford’s mission is strictly to educate the most academically qualified applicant pool, then race shouldn’t factor into it. If their mission includes fostering a multi-cultural environment, then they need to evaluate based on race on culture.</p>
<p>I say this all as a white male who is against affirmative action in public universities. I think a public university should strive to provide the best education to the most academically qualified, but I think a private institution can fulfill whatever mission it likes. It’s like Hooters only hiring female wait staff. It’s sort of like a, what’s the word, bonafide employment qualification. Evaluation based on race, age, sex, beauty etc., are all quite legally defensible under certain circumstances.</p>
<p>Any institution is, at its roots, a business KGZotU. Therefore, should it not be allowed to function as one by reserving the right to refuse service to ** anyone **?</p>
<p>Thats not the climate they want to (or should) foster. They’re using their informal “business” status to integrate variety to the education they provide…not to block the door to whoever they please. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And again, it is not a race game. Ethnicity is a factor, not a shoe in factor.</p>
<p>mercruz,</p>
<p>I’m not sure we disagree. I said that Stanford can fulfill whatever mission it likes, including fostering a multi-cultural environment. I am against AA in public universities, which is another matter entirely.</p>
<p>True, but the matters are related in that if AA is outlawed in public, it would only be a matter of time before AA is outlawed in private. Furthermore, AA does make a school more attractive (to some people). If AA was outlawed at public universities, would that not put undue burdens upon public universities’ ability to attract the best types of students?</p>
<p>Alright, I see what you’re saying.</p>
<p>I’ll disagree on a few points. First I’d say a public institution is fundamentally different from a business. A public institution exists to execute the will of the state, which means that it exists to serve the people. Now, AA does provide certain benefits to the population, but I personally believe that public universities better serve the people by offering education to the students with the most academic potential.</p>
<p>Second, I’d point out that a business can generally not discriminate among who it serves based on race. That went out with the whole separate but equal thing.</p>
<p>I think that the University of California system implements a good alternative to AA, which is evaluation of potential in the context of opportunity. That is, an inherently outstanding student from Inner City High is going to have a lower level of achievement–regardless of race–than an inherently outstanding student from Mountaintop Rich Folk Prep. So, a student with 3 AP classes from Inner City High and 1800 SATs might be more highly qualified than a student from Mountaintop Rich Folk Prep with 6 AP classes and 2050 SATs.</p>
<p>Finally, AA is against the law in California public universities…and I would also draw a distinction between AA and Stanford’s “multiculturalism.” I don’t think they’re the same, and I don’t think Stanford’s policy is threatened by AA’s status in California public universities.</p>
<p>Honestly, I really don’t care either way, I just wanted to wax philosophical for a bit. But good points, very nice. Btw, I’m the “ideal” minority so AA actually hurts me. Think about it for a minute, you’ll get it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Er, what? So, by that logic, anything that is government-sponsored can’t be a business?</p>
<p>Trust me, there is a public business sector in the economy.</p>
<p>(The university charges people to attend, and offers a service. If that isn’t the definition of a business, I don’t know what is. The only difference is that publics get more money from the government–but so many private businesses, whether they’re universities or not, can be entitled to certain government funding.)</p>
<p>I mean nothing of the sort. All I mean is this: private businesses are created to benefit their owners. Public institutions are created to benefit the public.</p>
<p>You can both charge money and serve the population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, who’s benefiting from Stanford?</p>
<p>The answer is no one. It’s a board of trustees that runs it. No one “owns” it. Thus, nobody gets any benefits by “owning” it.</p>
<p>You’re correct, but I’m not sure what it has to do with my point. You’re bringing up issues that I’m fully aware of, but that are outside the context of the argument. How does this relate?</p>
<p>Sure a board of trustees runs it and no one “owns” it, but I am sure that that board of trustees would like to elevate themselves higher and higher in terms of prestige. I.e. indirect profit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…not…really. Yes, there is self-interest, but look at the board as it is: they are all very well-accomplished people who don’t really need boosts. On top of that, there reaches a point where the ‘indirect profit’ reaches a plateau.</p>