<p>Would Stanford look unfavorably upon applicants who are national guard/have interest in ROTC etc? Would that be something to refrain from mentioning in your essays?</p>
<p>Kinda wondering about that too (I’m doing military service), but they claim to “not discriminate against … veterans” so I guess it doesn’t matter at all.</p>
<p>I would mention it, since it could show some good commitment.</p>
<p>I told them outright I have to do military service (compulsory) and they still admitted me - I don’t think there will be any problems there.</p>
<p>That Stanford felt the need to say that veterans were not discriminated against implies that such accusation have been leveled, they are or have been, and that the school is trying to correct it.</p>
<p>The phase “thou dost protest too much” comes to mind.</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> to participate in tuition program for veterans](<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News)</p>
<p>why would stanford possibly discriminate against rotc let alone veterans?</p>
<p>that makes no sense.</p>
<p>and fyi harvard and yale mention that they do not discriminate based on veteran status. its a holdover from post-vietnam.</p>
<p>I’ve visited friends at Stanford graduate school of business several times during this year, and met MANY military vets from multiple countries. There is no discrimination at that school towards those who served or those who intend on serving.</p>
<p>I think they like to see a veteran who protects the country at their school.</p>
<p>Johnno is right. All this stuff about not being against veterans, current military, and ROTC is just a holdover from the '60s and '70s, when many young, college-age Americans took a very anti-war stance. Most schools wanted to make it clear in the post-hippie period that they themselves were not against those who serve/served/are planning to serve in the armed forces, and they just never stopped saying it, since it’s still true.</p>