<p>Gecko, its good you know football players. Please wish him luck next year, and tell him he must crush Notre Dame. Also, please elaborate on your academic hooks which trump mine. I’m pretty certain you have absolutely no idea what writing a quality novel actually entails, so if you could list what you’ve done, I’ll pass judgement fairly. And, for the record, you are doing a terrible job of being gracious about your acceptance.</p>
<p>I think I have every right to be mad, because I would never have applied to Stanford early, or pinned by hopes on it so much, had I realized they used AA to such a unjust degree as this decision rounds shows the used it. You can’t really tell how I feel, because you benefited from the exact policies that hurt me. Just stop.</p>
<p>Otherwise, as Baelor noted, I’m kind of thankful other college recognize the SAT more than Stanford does. While I initially thought it was due to the greater emphasis on athletics, I know realize it is mostly due to their addiction to unfair AA policies.</p>
<p>Gecko, if you’re suspicious of my qualifications, I took multivar last year and I’m in linear algebra second semester this year…that is quite impressive though, really, excellent work.</p>
<p>I was rejected from Stanford SCEA with a 2400 (single-sitting) SAT.</p>
<p>I won’t moan about how AA screwed my application or anything like that. I think making excuses for things like that is futile and doesn’t help anybody. But I will add that I think THERE IS A REASON STANFORD’S MOST RECENT NOTABLE ALUMN IS SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR and Yale’s, for example, includes the past THREE American President’s. And at Princeton two people who were roommates in their freshmen year became the Secretary of Defense, each in different terms. Talk about being an incubator…</p>
<p>Such is not the case at Stanford. Because Stanford is hooked on this “diversity” drug and dogma that rewards who you are rather than what you do, Stanford’s alum have been lagging for the better half of a century. The other schools of HYP reward what you do, and therefore, in my opinion, have better track records of recognizing the people who will ultimately be the movers and shakers of our world than do Stanford. </p>
<p>The US Presidents of the past 20 years, I dare say, would agree with me. And Stanford’s only boasting point for the better part of a century is their admissions rate. How pathetic.</p>
<p>Yes, his essays read like articles from the Wall Street Journal. They struck me as the best written essays that I have ever seen. (college essays.) All his writing is phenomenal. (sorry for the edits. it’s almost 3am… I cant think)</p>
<p>Look, Stanford admits that it has more qualified applicants than it has slots. I’m confident that you are **qualified and could succeed **at Stanford. I’m just getting riled up by this amicw kid. </p>
i’m sure google and yahoo would take exception to that, lol. i’m pretty sure google has had much more impact on most people’s lives than most politicians.</p>
funny… i really think you do not want to go there.
the prominence of Yale’s alums has nothing to do with their education, and everything to do with the good ol’ boy network. our current President was accepted to Yale because his father was a Yale grad, an oil mogul, and a politician. and he happens to be the most prominent stain on Yale’s legacy, not the exemplar. </p>
<p>a better measure of alumni success, i think, is the fact that over 50% of Silicon Valley’s output is from companies of Stanford alumni.</p>
<p>oh, and if you like politicians… Condoleeza Rice is a Stanford alum. you might have heard of her. and a guy named Mitt Romney, too…</p>
<p>You guys kept Charlie Weis. Stanford and Notre Dame’s programs are going in opposite directions, and without the friendly atmosphere of your snowball throwing fans, I don’t see them winning against Stanford next year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As if mine don’t? My APUSH teacher noted how I loved foreign affairs and he saw it taking me to a state department office (which I obviously wouldn’t turn down). If not, my teachers couldn’t capture it properly. My Calc teacher noted how I went beyond the rest of the class, and that I elected to do Calc BC and statistics this year. That demonstrates a lack of thirst of knowledge how?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s good. I read Lord of the Flies in fifth grade. I love reading the Economist and Time. I always try to understand military theory. I communicated this in my supplement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, quality is subjective, secondly, my novel required just as much, if not more critical though, just in history and literature, not a physical science. Don’t pretend there is a difference between the two, because that would be woefully incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This feeling is definitely mutual, considering your myopic attempts to justify your acceptance as much more than a result of your nationality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the exception of Bush, who clearly benefited from legacy (Obama I’ll ignore due to AA actually being fair then, especially for him considering his families financial state), this is very true. I guess I should have recognized that more before I applied.</p>
<p>GeoffreyChaucer, Why are your notable alumni restricted to politics and government? there are other majors to study at Stanford and quite prestigious alumni in these.</p>
<p>^ That is true. Computer geeks have founded Google, Oracle, Sun Micro, etc. out of Stanford.</p>
<p>IMO, though, I think people in politics and government construct the ballpark everyone else plays on, so I think people in politics and government are more influential than those in other fields. But that’s just my opinion, and many others would disagree. </p>
<p>Is anyone really naive enough to think that the ‘boys’ network’ doesn’t have any influence on the quality of a college? Life is about connections.</p>
<p>Wow so many people are dissing affirmative action. Do you guys know why Stanford practices AA so religiously in the first place, anyways?</p>
<p>When I went to S I asked an admissions officer how the school became so prestigious when it wasn’t one of the first schools started in the country. He replied Leland Stanford hired all the professors from the ivy league schools and gave them larger paychecks to work at S. However, it didn’t matter if you had the paycheck to afford to attend the school or not; if you had the brains you were in as a student. </p>
<p>At the time, all the rich kids went to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, while S would rather take in the poor kids with intellectual vitality. 123 years later, S is still practicing the same method. I’m not saying the ppl who didn’t get into Stanford today lack intelligence; it’s just that AA was practically designed for a school like Stanford. Through AA, many bright students get the chance to experience an education at one of the best schools in the world, that would never have gotten the opportunity otherwise.</p>
<p>Okay, but I’m not rich, and Stanford rejected me. You are arguing for socioeconomic affirmative action, which is clearly what is not currently being practiced by the admissions office.</p>
<p>amciw, you’ve rapidly become the cancer of these Stanford boards, and you’re detracting from what could be a helpful discussion for future applicants.</p>
<p>Please, until you calm down refrain from posting caustic remarks.</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? I stated the obvious truth. There is a difference between overly caustic remarks and factual observations regarding admissions policies. (I could say that anyone accepted into Stanford like you would be able to differentiate between the two, but that would be caustic, and thus, I don’t intend to actually say.)</p>
<p>If you would take a second to step outside yourself and analyze more than the intentions of your actions but the EFFECTS, you would see what I’m talking about. </p>
<p>Do you really think it’s productive to get into an argument about who was more qualified than who? Suppose every claim you made about who was more qualified was right, how does that help anybody?</p>
<p>How have any of the comments you’ve made over the past 24 hours on these boards helped anyone make a better application?</p>
<p>Amciw, you’re obviously rich enough to afford a computer. At my high school, teachers were not even allowed too assign papers due in typed ink because 40% of my class had no computers at home. The library was broken down both in my city and at my school. Many of my classmates dropped out of school at 16, not because they were stupid, but because they could not juggle work, providing for their family, and school at the same time. I even knew a kid who was so desperate that he would mow people’s lawns for $1 every day, for years, just to make extra cash. </p>
<p>Although we had AP classes, the teachers usually did not even show up to class. One of my (URM) friends, despite this, scored a 5 on all of her AP exams, even though she did not have access to the library to check out the books to study independently for these tests. She was accepted to Stanford, although her GPA was low. The fact is most underrepresented minorities do not have the same opportunities we do. Sure, my friend had a sucky gpa, but considering the circumstances, Stanford accepted her because they saw promise. An admissions officer even CALLED my school simply to ask about my friend, before they accepted her, just to make sure they wanted her.</p>