<p>Wow, are you guys serious? A ■■■■■ can not be more obvious than this. You guys disappoint me.</p>
<p>I mean yes, his defense is sort of pathetic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose any of the ~150 people admitted with under a 3.70 would be considered a ■■■■■ by your standards. That’s the problem with high school students thinking they know exactly what adcoms are thinking, when the high school students only see half the picture (the 2400, IMO gold medalist, Intel ISEF Finalist, etc students). </p>
<p>Next thing you know, you’ll be calling that third grade USAMOer a ■■■■■. Oh wait, he actually exists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, I can say Terence Tao is a ■■■■■ too. IMO at the age of ten? Impossible. Full professorship by the age of 24? His defense is pathetic. How could he have possibly been made a full professor while others his age are two years into their PhD program?</p>
<p>I don’t see fault within his story. Please explain fully why his defense is pathetic? My high school’s cheer team had four male members. Being a varsity athlete is definitely not impossible by freshman year. The fact that he was a varsity athlete in so many different sports makes this acceptance even more believable.</p>
<p>And if he is a ■■■■■, he made this acceptance a perfect reflection of the other end of the admitted students that CC kids do not or will not acknowledge. Under a 2400? Not a 4.0? Reject. “You can’t possibly be admitted to Stanford with a sub-2100 SAT score or anything like a 3.5.” Exactly. The CC mentality.</p>
<p>No, it’s just that there’s nothing in the description of hooks, essays, life experiences, or anything else that seems to compensate for low grades/scores.</p>
<p>Correct, GlobalDolphin. People do sometimes get admitted with the kinds of record that the OP posted in another thread, but they have something extra to compensate and/or put that record in perspective. This is especially true in the REA round. It may be that the OP did in fact demonstrate that extra something in his application, but it is nowhere apparent in his postings. The quality of his written expression in his original post also aroused some skepticism. If he was actually admitted, I certainly wish him lots of luck if he decides to enroll. Mainly, I hope that other applicants don’t put too much emphasis on a case like this in assessing their prospects, because that could set them up for disappointment. </p>
<p>The references by the prior poster to Terence Tao and similar prodigies is irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. No one doubts the existence of true prodigies like Tao, and certainly no one would be skeptical about the admission of those people to any top universities.</p>
<p>I would say the OP’s athletic abilities, especially in addition to the other ECs, could compensate for the 3.4. Also the 3.4 could have been something along the lines of a 2.7 freshman year, 3.7 sophomore year, and 3.8 junior year. </p>
<p>I re-read the stats post and aside from a couple mistakes, there wasn’t much wrong. Again, the purpose of a post like that is not to have perfect grammar, but to post stats/ECs. Besides, dozens of Stanford Courserank reviews, written by current students, prove that proper spelling and grammar is not a high priority for many students.*</p>
<p>If the OP were a ■■■■■, would he really be so dumb as to make up the fact that he was a cheerleader and athlete? That would just invite skepticism. Besides, what does one have to gain by lying about this? Where’s the motive?</p>
<p>*Check out this review for CS 148:</p>
<p>“Although I didn’t quite do well in mid-term and final (maybe it is because I’m an EE student and haven’t take any serious CS exams previously) I did do well in projects and learn tones of things in this course. It is kind of heavy, but way more interesting!!! Highly recommended to those who want to catch a glimpse of computer graphics.”</p>
<p>Senior, I’d bet that course review was written by someone whose first language isn’t English.</p>
<p>As to motives for trolling on these forums, that’s always an interesting question, given that trolling is a surprisingly popular activity on these forums. Some people seem to get a kick out of seeing how many other people they can dupe. (And yes, trolls often intentionally put overtly dumb things in their posts for their own amusement.) Again, I don’t care whether or not this particular poster was trolling; even if he wasn’t, his case is nowhere near representative of an REA admit, unless there there are other factors involved that he chose not to mention. That’s all.</p>
<p>its even more obvious since he has almost the last post on the forum…thats were trolls are located…real posters usually post right when they get their decisions or the day after…</p>
<p>To physicsboy32, I am distraught by how you did not even read the first post. Do you even know why I even posted it late? You should probably have the the thread through.</p>
<p>To the people who defended me, Thanks for all of your support! </p>
<p>To the rest of people calling me a “■■■■■”, i cn typ hw ever i wnt too. these bad grammars is proof i not get in two stanford. Right? So, just cuz i typ dis way mean i am ■■■■■ right?</p>
<p>All I could say to the rest of you, good luck with your acceptance. Whoever is going to be my roommate in Stanford, this will be a funny thread to see. I will show him how idiotic and immature some of you guys are.</p>
<p>ok sure, lets see your facebook then ;D</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why people try to gauge how “qualified” the person who was accepted. They were accepted. End of story. Finding out the exact reason is impossible.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this guy is a ■■■■■ or not, but he sounds legit. Congrats</p>
<p>I think this helped him get in…4 years working at the same company through high school tells a lot about someone.</p>
<p>“Job/Work Experience: Outback Steakhouse, freshman year to senior year. I am considered a shift leader, but not manager position since I can only come three days a week during school year.”</p>
<p>Also, I believe his stats show a really strong Communications major.</p>
<p>racedad et al., 2011-12 Common Data Set for Stanford shows that they “consider” work experience. Work experience is not noted in the “very important” or “important” criteria category for freshman applicant selection. Another basic EC issue was the four years of football with one year (soph) listed as cross country. And the junior football captaincy, or co-captaincy which is rare in high school football where there is considerable and often established overarching tradition. A junior football captain selected by his team, especially following a soph. cross country season, unless the soph. xc was a error of commission, just doesn’t make sense. 'Always recognized cross country as a fall sport along with football. In my day, if you didn’t like to run you played football, if you didn’t like football, you ran xc. Respectfully, Mr. VC</p>
<p>Male cheerleader?</p>
<p>What’s wrong with a male cheerleader?</p>
<p>wow, stop bumping this thread(ironically im doing it but its for a good point ;D)</p>
<p>obvious ■■■■■, stop being naive.</p>
<p>Your stats show one thing, yet you post as if a h.s. junior or senior?</p>
<p>Am I missing something? Please copy?</p>
<p>Mr. VC</p>
<p>Congratz on getting in!</p>