<p>I was accepted last Friday SCEA. Nonetheless, I am very disappointed by some of the outcomes for many students. I realize that Stanford prizes its “unparalleled diversity,” but I think that, in trying to maintain this diversity, it rejects many qualified applicants. I guess the root of my frustration is the affirmative action policies that Stanford practices. I find it ridiculous how some kids do not have to work as hard since they can easily use the minority card or another similar method, while other kids work their butts off, only to find themselves rejected. </p>
<p>I understand that some kids go through hardships and struggles. I also understand that some kids are born in very unfavorable conditions. But I, personally, think that it shouldn’t go too far. I guess what I am trying to say is that college admissions should be close to 100% merit.</p>
<p>I too was accepted SCEA as an Indian-American student with no hooks (in terms of URM (over-rep. if anything), Legacy, Athlete, etc), but I wholeheartedly agree. I do, however, think that the people bashing Stanford for their AA policies are somewhat overstating AA applicants’ advantage, as many of the minority students did truly deserve their acceptance over other applicants. Nevertheless, there are surely many that were not more qualified than their white/Asian counterparts, and I too think admission should be based 100% on merit.</p>
<p>If race/poverty is truly a hardship, then they of course have the option to write about their struggle in their essays, just as any student (regardless of race) can write about hardships in their essays. For example, I know for a fact that several (white) applicants to elite schools have used essays concerning severe medical conditions to either themselves or a parent/sibling, often as a route to describe passion in the medical field. While most of these students were accepted, I of course have no way of knowing if it was that that got them in (but surely if it was, there was more to their admission). I guess what I’m trying to say is that applicants often pull this card just as much as the race card , and in my opinion, neither should provide an advantage in the admissions process because neither is in the applicant’s control.</p>
<p>True, but you won’t mind it too much next year when you are close to the top of your class because many students who shouldn’t have been admitted had been and cannot thrive under the course load.</p>
<p>I cant disagree more with this. The only reason u say urm’s are less qualified is because we tend to have lower test scores. THATS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. I have a lower than average test score for Stanford, but guess what. I work my ass off and deserve an admission just as much as anyone( most of the rejects could just as easily have gotten in).</p>
<p>There’s no evidence that minority students are struggling to do the coursework, and tons of evidence to the contrary. </p>
<p>And I have yet to meet a minority student that felt they “did not have to work as hard” to get what they earn. </p>
<p>I also disagree that any school should base their decisions 100% on your definition of merit. Stanford has no obligations to admit students with high test scores or from top prep schools. And I don’t think you are nearly qualified enough to deem other people qualified or deserving of their admissions. The fact that some applicants are rejected is just a fact of a selective institution, and the fact that people feel it is some kind of crime that some are rejected while others are not are the ones who need to adjust their perspective. </p>
<p>This does not apply to the silent majority on this board who are humble about their victories and defeats. </p>
<p>OP, maybe you should reevaluate whether you would like it at stanford, as your values are clearly inconsistent with those of the institution. You may also want to consider whether you are simply picking the easiest scapegoat in singling out minority admissions.</p>
<p>I’ll avoid the “merits of AA” debate and just say: all the minority students in my dorm are just plain awesome. I can see, easily, why they got in (one has mastered a difficult language very quickly; another has established herself in a prominent position on campus; others have been selected for internships and fellowships on campus; and all are extremely intelligent, engaged, hard-working people in their classes–I don’t know of any student who isn’t, actually).</p>
<p>You haven’t seen any applications and can’t really say much. So please, stop making others on the forum feel bad (which you’re doing both to those who were rejected and to those who got in).</p>
<p>honestly, i feel like this AA topic has gone on way too much. the advantage that they get is probably incredibly slim. yeah it exists, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t work as hard as others. (i’m asian btw. so no, i’m not being bias. and no, i did not apply EA either.)</p>
<p>honestly, i feel INCREDIBLE respect for stanford admissions officers. they have to choose whoever they feel is going to carry the stanford name the best, and that doesn’t necessarily mean the ones that were la creme de la creme in high school: they need kids who are going to get out there and do something amazing. and if you look at their alumni, you’d see what i mean. the stats on CC do not show essays or letters of rec. of course everyone is going to say that they had EXCELLENT letters and essays. i’ve seen that comment on practically every chance thread, every “reject” profile on the stanford decision thread. but the truth is that some letters and some essays are better. and THOSE subjectives are what showcases a person’s potential.</p>
<p>Well if Stanford is so pathetic, don’t attend. Seriously. It’s a private university and no one deserves admission. It can decide to pick students based on something as stupid as the first letter of the first name. While I will agree that there were people who were admitted that I would have passed up for others (one of my friends is one of them) I wouldn’t label Stanford “pathetic” because of this. The admissions process was extremely harsh this year and I’m sure I would have been rejected had I applied SCEA this year instead of last year. For those rejected with stellar stats, it was Stanford’s loss, not yours. Seriously. I’ve seen the absolutely outstanding level of achievement on this board and I’m sure if you have the right attitude you’ll go extremely far in life. Please lets stop this debate about Stanford’s admissions processes.</p>
<p>^ So do I. I’d much rather have a class full of diverse people, interests, experiences, and ideas than a class full of 2400 SAT, pre-med majors. It’s Stanford; it heavily weighs diversity, ethnic or otherwise. Maybe you should have researched more extensively before applying.</p>
<p>I can’t imaine someone calling the university they’ve just been accepted into, one of the best in the world mind you, pathetic…</p>
<p>I understand that many of you in here are trying to be the big man and down play the whole AA situation, but c’mon now, you ALL know that it exists and it does indeed play a pretty big role in the college admissions process. I’m not saying that the minority groups who are accepted are undeserving of their admission. Obviously, for them to get accepted, they must have WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF and congratulations to you all for getting in! Your hard work and your determination will most certainly help you succeed in college. </p>
<p>However, if you look at the statistics (even the one in our very forum), you will see that the overall test scores, grades, and the outside involvement for these minority students are INDEED lower than those overrepresented groups in college. Just flip through a few pages of the accepted/denied thread! Clearly there are those underrepresented minorities who has the high grades, and I APPLAUD you for that. However, there are also those who had <2000 on the SAT’s, <3.7 UW, <30 ACT, etc. and was able to get in. On the other hand, I failed to spot a single Asian or White who got in with the same stats. Obviously, stats aren’t the only factors that should be considered during the admissions process, but shouldn’t they be the primary factor? I mean, shouldn’t students be admitted into colleges based on their merits? Essays clearly play HUGE roles in the admissions process, this is undeniable. BUT! there just seems to be a suspicious correlation between Asians/Whites and poor writing skills (and conversely, underrepresented minorities and PERFECT writing abilities). </p>
<p>Oh, by the way, I am not a Stanford applicant; I was just browsing around and I stumbled across this thread. Please refrain from bashing me; this is simply my opinion.</p>
<p>You guys don’t get it…at highly selective schools like Stanford your grades and test scores work more as qualifiers than to determine admissibility. This is a big country with lots of talented kids and the MAJORITY of people who applied to Stanford would do well there, no doubt about it. But everyone can’t go and when confronted with a large cohort of deserving and qualified candidates, it becomes a more subjective process, geared towards perceived institutional mission and needs. Don’t pretend you know more about this than the universities.</p>
<p>All I can say is this: out of the three people in my school who were accepted, one definitely deserved it, one semi-deserved it, and the other one completely cheated and lied her way through high school and the application (I read the essays and everything too; all lies). From personal experience, I’ve known people of very questionable character who have been accepted while others with dignity and self-respect have not been. Stanford loves to talk about diversity. So I guess that includes liars and cheaters?</p>
Come on… how was Stanford supposed to know she fabricated her application?</p>
<p>You can’t blame them for that, an applicant tried to pull one over on them. All I can say is, I’m sure that girl’s behavior will catch up to her in life.</p>
<p>You read the essays too? Surely such a person who “completely cheated and lied her way through high school and the application” would be more circumspect to have shown you her application. Indeed, I don’t remember showing anyone outside my family my application nor any of my friends doing the same. Even assuming your story is true, its just anecdotal and to be honest expected to a degree at top universities and not indicative of Stanford in anyway, there are people of questionable character at every school in the nation.</p>
<p>please allow me to put in my 2 cents.
First of all, no disrespect to any URMs, the URms at my dorm are all truely awesome.
Second of all, any asian american who is complaining about being hard to get into stanford, us asian interationals have it much harder.</p>
<p>Now, let’s get in the URM topic.
I posted this on internaional forum and college admissions forum, and here I will use some of it:
"8. For the most part, affirmative action doest not accept underqualified minorities. They just reject very very qualified whites and asians. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say one has to reach 90 to be “qualified” for a college. Generally 70% of the applicants are “qualified” to do well in the school (I didn’t make this number up, this came straight from MIT’s press 2 years ago). Affirmative action takes place to accept underrepresented minorities that are 91, while rejecting a white applicant or asian that may be 98. Now, I understand this sounds harsh and a large number, but let’s imagine the number is 99.1 and 99.2. Perhaps that makes it psychologically more comfortable to absorb this information. So while affirmative action may hurt some people’s chances, they DO NOT compromise on the qualifications of underrepresented minorities, at least for the most part. A lot of hispanics and black people I came across at Stanford are very talented in their area. "</p>
<p>So I guess u can claim they dont have to work as hard as asian internaitonals to get in, however, they worked hard enough to “qualify”. (note: a lot of rejects are qualified)</p>
The benchmark is White. Let’s say on average a white kid gets into a school with 1500/1600, Africans need 1270, Hispanics need 1315, Asians need 1550, atheletes 1300, and legacies 1340.</p>
<p>The points are advantage points. -50 means that you need 50 higher to get into the same school that a While person gets in.</p>