<p>Msmdad, are you denying that this applicant was helped by AA?</p>
<p>To the OP: congratulations on your acceptance!</p>
<p>I agree with the person above me</p>
<p>omg some of the people on here are absolutely unbelievable .. not only slamming on somebody who has obviously achieved a lot and has gained something from it .. but being disrespectful to everybody else trying to explain their arguement</p>
<p>Whether the poster had an unfair advantage or not .. thats LIFE and REALITY and if you can't realize that or deal with it then you'll never be succesfful no matter what college you go to</p>
<p>I'm a ASIAN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT who will ned FINAID applying to stanford RD .. you can't get any worse than that
and I know that for all of the posters yelling about discrimination and unfair advantqages .. if YOU were black and from a low income family and that gav eyou an advantage in the admission process .. I'm certain that you would use that.. I know I would , so don't even act like you are so high and mighty that fighting the racaist cause when you're angry that you didn't have a similar boost.</p>
<p>congratulations to the OP! If you were accepted, no matter whether you had a slight advantage or not, you were obviously well qualified and had a good standing without any of the other stuff. They must have seen your personal qualities along with your academic potential =]</p>
<p>I hope I have as much luck .. I'll need it .. seriously >.<</p>
<p>jeunix- we clearly are not talking from a "high and mighty" position. Like i've said time and time again, we hold nothing against the OP. It is the way AA has been instituted that we are arguing against. Of course the OP should use it to her advantage, as every single applicant will always try to maximize their chances whichever way possible. for some it means writing down community service, checking the URM box (which i ended up not doing even though I am a small part hispanic), or boosting about all the awards you have won. the problem we are saying is that the URM box is really the only one where the playing field was never fair. you are born a URM or you are not... life isn't fair blah blah blah, but ccept it or not, being a URM has a HUGE impact on your admissions decision. I would gladly knock 300 points off my SAT score if i got to be a URM. of course you can bring up slavery...but nobody applying to colleges today was or is a) a slave or b) a slaveholder.... and as for discrimination in society.... of course there still is some, but why should non-URM college applicants take responsibility for that?</p>
<p>now some other people have been saying that 70 percent of applicants for stanford are qualified.... thats wonderful and probably true, but let's not forget that Stanford does not just accept anyone (other than URM) who meets their basic requirements. I hear about 2400 SAT 4.0gpa class presidents getting rejected from Stanford left and right. but of course, that would not be the case for a URM. </p>
<p>OP, if you are still reading this thread, once again, congratulations. you, as did a lot of other people, deserve it.</p>
<p>To start off with yes, I was accepted to Stanford on dec.15th, so my views posted here are not the result of bitterness, frustration, etc. The race of the OP was the determining factor in her admissions. There, I have stated a fact. Am I rascist for stating the truth? Apparently MSMDAD thinks so as he called oracle1 both ignorant and rascist for doing the same. Yes, her overall scores are above average, so are those of most of the other 4,644 applicatants for SCEA. Yet even when combined with the rest of her application, she is medicore to inferior by Stanford standards. No one is contesting the fact that she is "smart", but the fact is there are many "brilliant" students who got rejected. As others have pointed out before me, why did they not get accepted while the OP did? The answer is because they are not black, whereas she is. Is it fair to those "brilliant" students who got rejected? No, it is not. Yet that's one of the reasons why affirmative action is such a divisive topic. There, that's the ugly truth, yet it is the truth nonetheless.</p>
<p>You guys keep forgetting that STATS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. Stanford read her essays and recs, got to know the person behind the application, and decided they liked her.</p>
<p>Don't talk about stats like they're some automatic almighty pass in.</p>
<p>You're right, and I would like to think her essays and recs were good enough to overcome subpar (by stanford standards) stats and ec's but I doubt this (essays and recs never get you into a school like stanford if the rest of your app is subpar). It seems that she doesn't have any "hook" besides her race, and that hook was enough to get her in.</p>
<p>Vissanik:</p>
<p>I've been staying out of the AA fray for the mean time, but really... the OP didn't have a hook outside of her race?</p>
<p>If she's accurately represented herself and is indeed low-income, she is not some suburban wealthy kid with expensive SAT prep classes and a family with enough free-time to act as her chaffeur to after-school activities. When viewed in that light, her excellent scores are remarkable, as is her very interest in engineering itself. To overcome a low-income situation and maintain her level of academic success is a far greater "hook" than that to be found in the average upper middle class kid with the usual set of prepackaged activities.</p>
<p>And attending a selective MIT summer program is nothing to sneeze at, even if it does target minorities.</p>
<p>You haven't read her essays. You don't know much about her life situation. And presumbably her post was not a full stats profile of her activities. Just because her SAT is not a 2400 does not mean she will not contribute worthily to her class.</p>
<p>At any rate, I'd much rather have her in my college graduating class than just another wealthy suburbanite with 100 more points on his SAT. A different perspective is always beneficial.</p>
<p>Tell that to the guy who has devoted his life for four years to getting into Stanford and who is also low income (there are low income white, asian, etc. people out there) but who has better sat scores, gpa, ec's, etc.</p>
<p>I cannot believe we are still talking about this.. lol.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>AA helps.</p></li>
<li><p>URMs do not always get in/out because of AA.</p></li>
<li><p>OP may or may not have gotten in without AA; nobody will ever know.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Simple enough? =D</p>
<p>EDIT: In fact, why don't one of you daring people just call Stanford and ask?</p>
<p>Vissanik:
Who is this person you speak of? Yourself, or is this just some hypothetical? And her extracurriculars look pretty solid to me... 4 years of debate? I'm a debater, and I am very familiar with that time commitment. Not to mention the fact that it distinguishes her from the usual Math-Olympiad roster who generally aspire to be engineers.</p>
<p>And just because your hypothetical student has also devoted his life to getting into Stanford does not necessarily mean that he deserves it more than she does, or that he would be a better fit for the school. Your list of grades and scores and your resume earn you consideration. It is something more elusive that gets you in-- that blend of fit and personality and a bit of luck. Admissions is a crapshoot at these schools... her lucky number came up, but yours didn't. That doesn't mean that if things were reshuffled, they wouldn't turn out differently. </p>
<p>Besides, many things influence a person's success in high school and shape our worldviews-- race and gender among them. The history of racial and gender (I'm surprised no one has mentioned that her sex probably had something to do with her admission yet!) discrimination has lasting effects that cannot be ignored in terms of how they shape the cultures of the races in this country. An adcom is right to consider the balance of perspectives in creating a class. Low-income whites and a low-income blacks, though both are subjected to great difficulties, differ in their culture. A campus benefits by having a blend of people of all races, income levels, sexes, political viewpoints, and whatever else you can name. Sometimes you can have great statistics, but in context of the whole school, you don't fit. I know, so sad. But your statistics do not mean you worked harder and they do not mean you are entitled to the acceptance letter.</p>
<p>2250 sat.
4.5 gpa.</p>
<p>Studied Piano since 6 years old: Manhattan School of Music Precollege for 3 years: Ive placed in international piano commpetitions, won a couple of closer ones. (performed in places like Alice Tully Hall) I am also on a chess team which is currently first in the state of nj. I took the most difficult curriculum my private school had to offer.</p>
<p>I am a white male.</p>
<p>I got deferred from Stanford.</p>
<p>Leshachikha:
The fact that you have to work so hard to rationalize affirmative action is a result of how wrong it is. To critique it, one does not need to offer long explanations or use euphemisms to cover up the fact deserving people are getting screwed. Also, you claim "But your statistics do not mean you worked harder and they do not mean you are entitled to the acceptance letter." Actually they do mean you worked harder, hence they are better. And leave gender out of this; you seem like one of those people that goes around accusing people of being rascist or sexist if they don't agree with your viewpoint.</p>
<p>I also forgot to mention that I have a twin brother who is essentially equal to me in those regards - except that he plays saxophone and not piano. He did the EPGY Summer Program out at Stanford, and had a letter of recommendation from a Stanford Physics Professor, saying that he was "by far the strongest thinker in the class."</p>
<p>He, too, got deferred.</p>
<p>(I had taken a summer course at Columbia instead, and had a letter of rec. from a professor there as well)</p>
<p>Maybe it's that arrogant I-deserve-it attitude that kept you out?</p>
<p>Or if you're just making a point, I say again, the intangibles are what gets you in. It comes down to personality, and how well you and your teachers portray yourself.</p>
<p>A few points...</p>
<p>firstly, Vissanik big time congratulations. You obviously deserved it. I also agree with every post you have made. </p>
<p>Some posters are saying that the OP got in because of great essays and recomendations- which very well could be true- but the people who have devoted their lives to Stanford (achieving the high stats) are also the same people who have spent months and months revising their admissions essays and getting to know teachers through the "prepackaged" activities. It is not like she is the first URM to ever get into Stanford with sub-par stats. There is obviously a trend that is far bigger than one applicant who must have had amazing intangibles. White/asians/indians too have intangibles, and just because there are more of them on the campus doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer. When I am in math class, I do not suddenly understand calculus because the guy sitting next to be is a URM. I would much rather go to a school where I know that I, just like everybody else there, got in because of merit. there are plenty of opportunities to learn about new cultures (teachers, books, immersion trips). I'm willing to sacrafice being exposed to new "culture" as I walk in the hallway between classes.</p>
<p>There are a alot of assumptions being made here. First, just because WeCareALot is low income, female and black, and from Chicago it was stated that her scores are good for a "low income." Do we know what high school she went to?</p>
<p>Second, WeCareALot started this thread herself to, in my opinion, boast about her acceptance. I believe she started one or two other threads to similarly boast. She also herself said, "possible other factors: black, female, low income" thus inviting a discussion of affirmative action in admissions.</p>
<p>The bigger issue really is that I think it's kind of arrogant and snotty to start a thread to show off that you were admitted to Stanford. Is the point just to show off or to show off that you got in with these scores or with this background or what? What is your point WeCareALot?</p>
<p>Anyway, gloating is unbecoming, whether you are low or high income, black, white or purple.</p>
<p>Congratulations! You'll love stanford, I never heard a single bad thing about it except the price.
Good luck.</p>
<p>As for affirmative action, I think it's bull****. But I'm not going to shoot someone down just because they got in with mediocre stats (on Stanford standards). Suck it up, she got in and you didn't.</p>
<p>Vissanik: </p>
<p>Have I accused you of racism or sexism? I have not. I do not find it productive, nor even just to make such accusations. I respect the fact that many AA opponents are not racist or sexist by conventional standards and I would appreciate that you rebut my arguments, instead of dismissing me as "one of those people." </p>
<p>I would be interested why you think my arguments are unconvincing rationalizations. You say that they are euphemisms about how deserving people get screwed-- well, I believe that the real cover-up here involves those denying that race matters in one's opportunities in the United States today. Race influences your culture. It influences what neighborhoods you live in, what school you go to, and the academic experiences that come your way. It especially influences your interactions with other people, how they perceive you, and the respect they accord you. Again I say that private colleges have the right to consider that difference in perspective an asset.</p>
<p>And truly, you believe gender wasn't an issue in her acceptance? Schools heavy on engineering are often very interested in moving towards a more balanced class. Her sex probably helped just as much as her race in the admissions result.</p>
<p>In any case, I guess that your reply gets down to the heart of our disagreement: I do not think that statistics equal merit. You do. Guess what we can do about that?</p>
<p>Visanik and Oracle, we are all consumers of high education. Private colleges and universities are businesses that have the right to cater their product to their audience. I personally, would prefer a college that balances its students in as many respects as possible. Diversity is a business plan, education the product, and if I like the product, I support the company. I have elected to go to a college that sacrifices a few points in mean SAT scores in order to choose interesting and diverse people.</p>
<p>Well, you both do not like that business plan and would prefer a product without any race-based advantages and more statistical selectivity. Then spend your money on a college that adheres to that standard! Paying college tuition while protesting its AA policies is tantamount to buying a pair of Nike sneakers while simultaneously protesting the company's use of sweatshop workers-- you think the business practice is wrong, but you support it with your cash anyways. Universities are nothing more than businesses and your money speaks much more loudly than any editorial column you might write in their school newspaper. Don't like or agree with the product? Don't buy it. If a sufficient number of consumers agree with you, the power of the purse will win out.</p>
<p>yea....i'll get right on not going to college in protest. </p>
<p>when there is only one game in town... we really don't have much of a choice. </p>
<p>we can still support higher education while arguing against one aspect of the admissions process. the product is a 4 year liberal arts education...we just dont think some people should be able to buy it without waiting in the long line like the rest of us. (I hope you enjoyed my extension of your metaphor)</p>
<p>I apologize for my previous posts.</p>
<p>They were made out of bitterness and disappoitment at not getting into the school of my dreams.</p>
<p>Congrats to those who were accepted. I just looked at some of the essay subjects of those who were accepted. Far more creative than my own.</p>