Thank goodness for that Stanford housing for only students- and the same policies for presumably all US colleges. Part of the college experience is leaving family. Plus, the US government should NOT be expected to grant visas to an entire family just because a deserving college student can get a student visa. She is a resident of England and staying in that country makes a lot of sense. Hopefully her family will stay where they are and give her some space since it will not be that far. This is one special teen, but still just a person like all others.
“If they were genuinely committed to holistic admissions, then Malala’s stance against the Taliban combined with her GCSE results would have told them enough.”
That’s not holistic.
I would be disappointed if Malala listened to silly advice about women’s colleges and didn’t choose for herself which kind of school was the best fit for her.
Really, lookingforward? What significant element of a holistic assessment is missing, given that Malala is a public figure about whom a very great deal is known?
I have not traced down who at Stanford actually said that Malala had to take the SAT for her application to be considered there. It was announced on the CBS news, in a link up above.
Despite her well deserved accolades this young woman is not the most gifted or otherwise tippy top student in the world. She needed/deserved to be and was evaluated on her whole person and not just the award. I suspect she will become a long time great leader in the world but sure hope there is no pressure on her because of her past.
While it’s true that housing in the Stanford area is extremely expensive, and the fact that Stanford does not provide housing for family members (!) might have played a role in the decision, in my opinion, Malala will be far better served by Oxford.
Really, QM.
I suspect she’d get into most any US tippy top as a discretionary choice, youbetcha, but just stating her scores and fame isn’t “holistic.” It’s more hierarchical, same argument as, “But, she’s a math genius” or he got a Putnam.
Oh and yes, except for test optional, all should provide the SAT or ACT. The only exceptions are some countries where it is not available and not feasible to take in another country.
Well, that makes the difference in our overall opinions pretty clear, lookingforward. I have always understood “holistic” to mean that the admissions committee looks at the whole person, in the person’s environment, in reaching an admissions decision–as opposed to checking if all of the boxes have been ticked, whether or not other evidence on the same issue is available, and then making a decision based on all of the boxes.
Wow! To suggest that Malala would be a “discretionary choice” for a school!! If ever anyone earned their way into a school, she has done it. She has the academic qualifications for Oxford, which many Stanford admits would not actually have (certainly not if they had to take A levels cold, with a typical American high-school education).
There were many who argued that Malala would have to take the SAT to go to Stanford. I think a lot of them were in the “rules are rules” category. I always like to look for the purpose of the rules, and see whether that has been met.
Some of the people who argued that Malala would have to take the SAT said that she should not presume to have any of the rules waived for her. Fine. But there is zero evidence that she asked to have the SAT waived for her. Just raising this point, as if she would not have provided the information that Stanford wanted (had she actually applied there), seems disrespectful of Malala to me. At the same time that it seems to me to indicate a lack of understanding of her character, as far as it can be discerned from her public persona.
Also, “most any US tippy top?” I suppose MIT and Caltech might have turned her down, since she is not interested in pursuing a STEM career, and did not take much science at A level. But I doubt that she would have applied there to begin with.
Can you name any US school (among those where Malala might actually have wanted to apply) that would turn Malala down (other than those schools with religious tests that might exclude her)?
Famously, Albert Einstein applied to be a faculty member at Denison College, and they did not hire him. A US school turning Malala down would be ridiculous in the same category.
(Oh no, another Nobel Prize winning applicant, with an incredible life story and top-notch academic credentials. They’re a dime a dozen. Pass.)
One more comment–I don’t believe my thinking with regard to Malala is hierarchical at all.
Malala is a unique person. She doesn’t fit into any kind of hierarchy; rather, she stands outside of hierarchies. To suggest that she should be evaluated “on an even footing with all the other applicants” is to overlook her uniqueness. She was already a strong individual with excellent values and a pro-active stance before she was shot. Her complete uniqueness came at great cost. She took risks that most people would not be willing to take. With someone that extraordinary, to refer to her “scores and fame” makes no sense.
It’s not her fame, it’s the qualities of character that her fame shows.
Also, she had the “fame” before she had any of the scores.
Nothing wrong or lesser is implied by “discretionary choice.” It’s a bit of a fast track. Head of the line. Very small percentage of total admits.
But holistic is the whole (and focused on the app and supp presented.) It’s not a bye, “oh, look at this one aspect.” Or what we know of an actor or public figure. Or a particular award.
That’s my point.
There is no evidence M ever decided to apply to Stanford. No evidence Stanford made any scene, at all, about the SAT. So we could skip that, in discussing her.
Not disrespectful. Nor is it some unreasonable hurdle.
In ways, real ways, in real life, I find it more disrespectful to endlessly speculate she wanted Stanford but couldn’t handle the SAT, couldn’t arrange it, in England, would resist.
I prefer to believe she chose Oxford for the right reasons, for her. Not that she hit the wall over the SAT. Think about it. Really.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve always assumed that “holistic” meant that the admission folks look at the whole person as captured by the entirety of their application material: grades, course rigor, SAT, ECs, and essays.
She has proven that her academics are strong, so SAT would not have been an issue. We also know that she was aware of the testing requirements that Oxford required, and she met them, so, she is not adverse to conforming at admissions requirements. IMO, I don’t think she applied to Stanford (for whatever reason), and I’m happy that Stanford is consistent in their admissions requirements (as was Oxford).
Agree 100% with most recent post by Rivet2000. I have said that the SAT’s are no big deal. If anyone can track down the original source of the Stanford hoo-hah about the SATs, I’d be interested.
To the best of my knowledge, no one on CC has suggested that Malala would have an iota of difficulty with the SATs, if she took them. Further, no one on CC has suggested that she would not have taken them, had she wanted to go to Stanford.
So I don’t understand the point of saying, “In ways, real ways, in real life, I find it more disrespectful to endlessly speculate she wanted Stanford but couldn’t handle the SAT, couldn’t arrange it, in England, would resist.”
No one speculated this.
I will offer one speculation: I seriously doubt that Malala wanted Stanford once she visited it. Stanford is quite different from Oxford.