<p>absolutely correct, she better be a world renowned essayist, and some sort of prodigy if that awful score got her into stanford, i think it’s ridiculous she even thought to apply considering what we know about her, i bet her dad donated a building or tons of money</p>
<p>LOL! clearly, unless she got an 800 writing section and 200’s in math and reading</p>
<p>ok, but i think it is totally unfair that stuff like that happens because with a 3.2 gpa and 1550 sat you couldn’t have worked that hard academically, and clearly reasoning and problem solving aren’t strengths as reflected in the sat. ok so you get in on a minority status, but can you handle the work when you get there? i don’t want to come across as racist, and don’t get me wrong, my mom is from africa, but it comes down to can you do the work at that school?</p>
<p>someone tell me how to quote i feel like no one has any idea what i’m talking about</p>
<p>amen, the us news high school rankings a re consistent indicators of tough high schools, like there are 100 gold medal schools, and 504 silver medals schools out of the 32,000 in america, so if you manage a decent or good pa in one of those then colleges know you are a smart kid, as for the valedictorian from trenton high, who has a 3. w/e and only has to show up to get an a</p>
<p>The young lady who scored a 1300 did in fact score that low. As I mentioned before her GPA was respectable but not incredible. I was privy to all her stats in a scholarship competition for a leading UC. What set he apart was her URM status–child of migrant farm workers who chose NOT to follow her family to a new community in the middle of high school so she could focus on her education AND she also was a major player in a community protest against a liquified gas plant. She was one of the community advocates speaking at council meetings, etc. She stood out for other reasons. Still, I worry about her ability to keep up academicaly, but I’m assuming Stanford provides admits like her plenty of support. They’d have to!</p>
<p>teachcounsel, sure those are indeed impressive accomplishments that I’m sure my school would look favorably upon-that being said, the CDS says that <.5% of the students scored less than 500 on any section and no one did worse than a 400. With a 1300, you can see that you’re not doing well whichever way you cut it admissions wise. And you’re right, as someone who scored over a 1000 points over that I wouldn’t exactly say Stanford is an easy school to do well in. With those kind of scores she probably would find Stanford over her head, at least in the beginning. Maybe she retook the SATs later? But anyway, kudos to her for getting in! I have heard similar stories like this happening at Harvard, but I didn’t wholeheartedly believe them.</p>
<p>
Wouldn’t the services at Stanford best be served inspiring the brightest students in the world rather than holding the hands of those who simply have no business at top schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Type the following WITHOUT the space:</p>
<p>[ quote]</p>
<p>Copy and paste the text you’re quoting. Then type, WITHOUT the space:</p>
<p>[ /quote]</p>
<p>Not to be confrontational or difficult, monstor, but it’s Stanford’s call, not yours or mine, who has business at Stanford. Even though her test scores are clearly uncharacteristically low for a school like Stanford, she’s demonstrated <em>real</em> leadership ability that would put most Stanford students to shame. If Stanford feels that she will be an influential leader in the world with strong character, I’m sure Stanford won’t mind investing the extra resources to make sure she’s academically up to snuff.</p>
<p>
And why does its multi-billion dollar endowment and high rank warrant trust? Any time a top college admits a student with questionable qualifications, well, questions should be raised. In this situation, the student is unquestionably unqualified. Are you so naive as to fully accept a situation where this student will receive an extremely high quality education along with ample opportunities, whereas some of the brightest students in America are denied the same education and opportunities despite being clearly more qualified, or at least, qualified at all?</p>
<p>You might as well suggest that you trust Stanford’s judgment despite, unknown to you, the admissions officers at Stanford secretively use its last 100 available slots for its most unqualified applicants.</p>
<p>
There are nearly one million seniors in America that have higher SAT scores than she has. Unless she led something that was at the magnitude of a national revolution, I don’t think Stanford would be hard-pressed to find thousands of students with similar leadership roles and much stronger academic qualifications.</p>
<p>
I doubt in her ability to become academically up to snuff, unless her grades are artificially raised or if she is enrolled into unique courses that cater to her skill level.</p>
<p>Even you acknowledged your disbelief that such an applicant was admitted by Stanford, and I’ll now acknowledge my skepticism of the poster claiming that a 1300/2400 applicant was admitted by Stanford. Such a feat is accomplished by two groups: celebrities and high-priority developmental cases.</p>
<p>
It is not difficult for students of even marginal qualifications to maintain a passing GPA at any top university aside from those that are self-selecting, typically schools like UChicago, Caltech, JHU, etc. With that said, a dropout rate exists, and I would not be surprised if this applicant was amongst those who have dropped out.</p>
<p>
I am not telling Stanford that it has to change its policies; I am merely calling into question its policies. You might be confusing casual debating with real world activism.</p>
<p>What Handkerchief said. Stanford is a private school and is under no obligation to admit students based on what you, or I, or anyone else considered to be appropriate criteria for admission. The fact that there are people who say that this or that student isn’t “Stanford material” tells me that they’re missing the point. If you’re an alumni who donates money to the institution and you’re not happy with how they’re spending your endowment, talk to Stanford directly. But if you’re just a parent or student who thinks that private universities “owe” it to the public to admit “the best & brightest”, well, tough. </p>
<p>My son spent a summer at Stanford, I live about 15 minutes away, and I know many students, staff, and others associated with the school. It’s clear to me that it’s Stanford’s purpose to admit students who will contribute to Stanford itself, and to the greater world. Check out their own admissions overview: [Our</a> Selection Process : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/index.html]Our”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/index.html) . </p>
<p>A 1300 SAT does not mean someone’s not an amazing student. It can mean that one hasn’t had the benefit of the cultural experiences necessary to succeed on the SAT.</p>
<p>PS: Not even going to <em>touch</em> the whole “A 1300 student could never succeed at Stanford” except to say that my son has an A- from his time there as a 16 year old, two A’s and an A- in real, live, for credit undergrad coursework at Stanford. While they were some of the most enjoyable courses he had ever taken and shaped his career plans – he fell in love with Freud at Stanford – they were also the easiest college courses he’s ever taken, including his community college Calculus and everything at his notoriously rigorous LAC. To this day my son (and his friends who did go to Stanford) are surprised at the discrepancy between how hard it is to get into Stanford vs. the ease of coursework and the grade inflation.</p>
<p>
If you do not draw at least vague boundaries, there would be no standards. Top schools like Stanford have such huge endowment endowments because they have throughout history admitted a combination of the most academically qualified and the most subjectively compelling applicants, and in turn its students have an extremely high success rate. If you throw ignore personal attributes, certainly Stanford will still have a high turnout rate of successful students but it will probably lack in world leaders. But if you throw away the vague boundaries established by SAT scores (I can’t believe you are even debating these!) and simply admit the most subjectively interesting applicants, those students aren’t going to be very successful in the future, and Stanford would have never been able to get to where it is today.</p>
<p>regardless of how false a sense of security something gives, it probably does give something to the pool. </p>
<p>and if someone can manage to collect all coins, then they can probably 1 UP some other applicant and get in, just like Mario.</p>
<p>monstor: I didn’t say that SAT’s are never useful. I’ve pointed to Stanford’s own information saying that they look at the whole student, not just the numbers. Yes, I think that in some cases, there’s clear cultural bias in the SAT. I think that College Board has been working to correct it for years. But this topic isn’t about bias or not in the SAT, so I’m not going to discuss it further.</p>
<p>
I think an important point needs to be made though: Cultural biases might cause minor discrepancies in SAT scores, but clearly other factors are present when there is nearly a 1000 point disparity between this applicant and the majority of Stanford admits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but it does. Don’t fall in the trap of “Oh, the SATs don’t test knowledge, blah blah blah”. A 1300 is a HORRIBLE score no matter how you look at it. Sure the SATs aren’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean they are worthless.</p>
<p>
I was actually referring to Morsmorde, not you.</p>