<p>Sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the guys who don't think you'd have much of a shot if you weren't URM (after all, you wouldn't have qualified for MITES, right?). Also, please keep it to the Stanford 2011 forum; it's sorta condescending when you place your acceptance in here. But good job nonetheless, and I'll probably see you next year.</p>
<p>I don't think she's gonna get much sympathy or congratulations when she's starting her own thread about getting accepted.</p>
<p>I only posted my stats because there was another guy (who also got into Stanford) who did so as well and I actually found it really helpful. Sorry, if it came off as pompous.</p>
<p>Congrats on getting in WeCareALot. Forget the haters on this board!!! They dont seem to realize college admissions is more than just test scores.</p>
<p>WeCareALot, Congratulations! Do not listen to the naysayers as you got in on your own merit. Your ACT score of 32 places you at the 99th percentile in the country! Those who are saying that you got in because of your race are flat wrong! Take a look at the 2006-07 common data set at Stanford and you will see that your ACT Composite score places you above the 50th percentile for current first-time students (25th to 75th percentile for current freshmen who sent ACT scores is 28 - 33).
No, it was not race that got you accepted to Stanford, it was your merit and hard work. Again, congratulations!</p>
<p>And to those of you who are doubting WeCareALot, it seems like ignorance is in fashion. In this age of the Internet, you should be embarrassed by your ignorance of the admission statistics for Stanford.</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly agree with MSDAD. Congratulations! Your stats are outstanding, particularly for a low-income person. Of course, you will always have to deal with people who are ignorant, jealous and can't accept the fact that a Black person can accomplish something as awesome as getting into Stanford. You go girl!</p>
<p>Yes, Congratulations WeCareALot. Your academic and extracurricular accompishments definitely deserved you a spot at Stanford. There will always be people playing the "affirmitive action" card, and all we (I am a minority student as well) must do is ignore the naysayers. Congratulations once again.</p>
<p>it wasn't pompous, but it's just the fact that getting into stanford when ur not a citizen of California is very, very difficult. our valdictorian, 2390 SATs, 4.7 weighted GPA, 4.0 unweighted, 17 AP courses got deferred. she's an asian female btw.</p>
<p>Congrats! I'm sure you had many other things going for you that made the difference: excellent recs, essays, etc...don't listen to the nay-sayers, feel sorry for them. They need something obvious to blame for the competitive nature of college admissions. Go to Stanford and enjoy!</p>
<p>BTW--it's funny how some CC'ers ask about padding ECs, cheating, etc...then latch on to ethnicity when a URM gets in. It's a little hypocritical for some to think that tweaking their applications are okay, but socioeconomic status and ethnicity, which affects how one is sometimes treated by society, is seen as less meritous. Or, that stats are the most important thing in holistic admissions. Shhhsh!</p>
<p>Krn, I am not tracking? What does being a citizen of California have to do with this?</p>
<p>of getting into stanford?? any cali school is easier to get into if ur a citizen of cali. if u look at the stats for the people at stanford who are from instate and out of state, the out of state stats are higher.</p>
<p>And would you care to show me where you found those stats that show that it is "easier" for California residents to gain acceptance to Stanford?</p>
<p>WeCareaLot</p>
<p>Congratulations on getting in. You are by no means "underqualified" in terms of grades or test scores. but what the neighsayers are saying is that 90% of applicants are qualified to go to stanford, and the majority of them had much higher test scores and a slightly higher gpa in harder classes. so why did you get in while they got rejected? it is pretty obvious. </p>
<p>there are people who are doing research at stanford everyweekend, who have devoted their high school careers to getting into stanford, and because they are not URM, they end up somewhere less than desired. </p>
<p>what we are trying to say is that
if you hadn't checked the URM box, you would not have had a prayer of getting into Stanford. Not because you weren't qualified or didn't have to overcame the injustices of society (as if the rest of us have all had a cake walk), but because there are so many more people who are even more qualified than you.</p>
<p>Fair? Of course not.
But life rarely is. So go make the best of your 4 years at Stanford. And the best part is that once you get out, you will be making far more than the Stanford non-URM's who happened to slip by the admissions committee. Every company will do anything to hire more URM's, especially with a stanford diploma. so go enjoy it for the rest of us who can't. but it's only fair, as we have yet to overcome any struggles ourselves.</p>
<p>good post, Oracle</p>
<p>Does being low-income hurt your chances at Stanford?</p>
<p>oracle1, Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I say again, it seems like ignorance is in fashion! I sense quite a bit of bitterness in that you were deferred/denied admission to Stanford, but that is not an excuse for your ignorant and racist statements. Although I understand your disappointment, it is very convenient to blame others for your lack of success. Take a look at your essays, ECs, and letters of recommendation rather than blaming others for your failure. </p>
<p>I urge you, again, to take a look at the Stanford Common Data Set for 2006 and measure WeCareALot against current freshmen. You will find that she actually has higher standardized test (ACT) results than approximately 60 percent of current students, including, yes, legacies, URMs, athletes, and children of faculty. </p>
<p>You will, in due course, get over your bitterness and disappointment - time does wonders. In the meanwhile, please do not blame others for your failure.</p>
<p>Best of luck to you with your other applications.</p>
<p>I'd have to agree that being black and low income did help. But hell, shes definitely intelligent. It's not like by being slightly below the standards of Stanford is a huge injustice to those who are above it. She had a whole lot more **** to deal with on top of it.</p>
<p>MSMDAD,</p>
<p>a few points</p>
<p>1) i am not ignorant nor racist. I am saddened with the way a.a. has been carried out in this country, not with the people who unfairly benefit from it. </p>
<p>2) And I think I have a right to feel frustrated. After all, along with a good number of other Stanford applicants, my gpa, test scores, class rank, difficulty of classes, and level of commitment to ECs are all much higher than the OP. </p>
<p>Discrimination based on the color of one's skin is as unfair now as it was in the past.</p>
<p>"Although I understand your disappointment, it is very convenient to blame others for your lack of success."</p>
<p>How did he blame others? He was just pointing out his frustrations in general. Maybe you saw that in your zealous quest to quash "rascists" who don't agree with AA.</p>
<p>"I urge you, again, to take a look at the Stanford Common Data Set for 2006 and measure WeCareALot against current freshmen. You will find that she actually has higher standardized test (ACT) results than approximately 60 percent of current students, including, yes, legacies, URMs, athletes, and children of faculty." </p>
<p>Maybe you should take a look at the fact that unhooked applicants are in the minority at such schools, and need to realistically be in the top 25% to have a decent chance. When the OP has no other hooks and a profile that puts her below the 50% line of applicants, by no means is it a stretch to guess that the OP got in because of URM status. </p>
<p>"No, it was not race that got you accepted to Stanford, it was your merit and hard work. Again, congratulations!"</p>
<p>A lot of people work hard, yet they didn't get in. Hmmmmmm....what can I conclude from that?</p>
<p>And legacies, athletes, and children of faculty get special treatment.</p>
<p>Of course their scores are going to be lower than others.</p>