<p>Hook as in olympic athlete, world-renowned violinist, published and well-acclaimed author, superman?</p>
<p>So of the 60 or so cc’ers, 3-4 unhooked stand a chance. Sux</p>
<p>Anybody follow @applystanford on twitter? They just tweeted a picture of the SCEA committee</p>
<p>No. hooked as in legacy, donor, kids of profs, urm. Being a world renowned musician is not a hook, it’s something the kid achieved. Athletes to some extent are semi hook IMHO</p>
<p>^guess that’s a good a sign(:</p>
<p>@hartman1224</p>
<p>The awkward moment when this could be any of our applications …
[Twitter</a> / ApplyStanford: Behind the scenes: REA admission …](<a href=“http://twitter.com/ApplyStanford/status/278653745137606656/photo/1]Twitter”>http://twitter.com/ApplyStanford/status/278653745137606656/photo/1)</p>
<p>Seeing their faces makes me feel less afraid. For some reason I hadn’t thought of them as humans before. I mean I had logically, but not conceptually.</p>
<p>so they’re still making decisions?? or this is old. or staged. but probably not. oh god</p>
<p>I think it really comes down to how you project yourself in your essays. I think I’m reasonably lucky since I have a sibling at Stanford and I’m a white African (born in South Africa) and I live in a pretty underrepresented state (Tennessee). I still think my essays are my strongest point though. I really went for uniqueness on those. </p>
<p>If I do get accepted, I think it will be because of my unique essays and my large amount of business experience for my age.</p>
<p>Whoa, the whole Schrodinger’s cat is really interesting, but it’s messing with my mind a bit. Someone want to explain it in dumbed down terms?</p>
<p>so these are the people that decide our fate lol</p>
<p>^lol that’s exactly what raced through my head when I looked at the picture…
That and the fact that they look so normal… It’s kinda weird xD
But in a good way… I’m a little less scared i think…</p>
<p>7 people scrutinize 1 application. dead from the first round.</p>
<p>@anar: The idea is that until you can see it for yourself you cannot be 100% sure of the result. So in the cat example, you don’t know if the cat is dead or alive until you open the box, so it’s reasoned that it’s dead, alive, neither, and both dead and alive, all at the same time… (the moment you look you force one of those possibilities to manifest, but until then they are all fair game).
At least, that’s how I understood it… LOL</p>
<p>They stripped out the metadata so we can’t tell when the pic was taken. But those look like reports/summaries of some sort.</p>
<p>why is the guy in the green shirt smiling? stop joking around and get these decisions done</p>
<p>Seeing the people just kinda scared the crapppp outta me…it’s werid to think that those are the people actually judging/scrutinizing every little detail of our apps. Those are the people determining our fate.</p>
<p>Soooo that means they haven’t completed our apps yet? Guess they’re taking a bit longer this year…</p>
<p>Uhm I don’t think Stanford would procrastinate… they should have got the apps done by last week and then look at our css profiles :/</p>
<p>Someone should get those animal crackers out of the room so they can do their jobs!</p>