<p>oracle...Read all my posts over carefully and think about them - do not take parts of them out of context and make them sound like something completely different! Did I imply that I or other admissions officers assume all people of a certain race think the same way and all have the same perspectives? Absolutely not! But when thinking of putting together a class, we want different perspectives and certainly one's race can influence one's perspective on things! How do we find out about that individual's point of view? Why, we read their essays! And we read about how they contribute in class and what they contribute in class from teacher recommendations! And we interview students! This is how we get to know you each as individuals! </p>
<p>As you all get to college and encounter new people, you will see that race, class, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and privilege all flavor one's perspective on different subjects. You will be challenged by others who think differently than you - others who think differently because they have grown up in different environments. Would it be erroneous to say that how one reacts to and learns from one's environment is profoundly flavored by one's race and the perceptions others have of it? No, I don't think it would be....so, this is precisely why a decrease in racial diversity on campuses would lead to a decrease in the diversity of ideas, perspectives and opinions of value in our classrooms, in our dorms, etc...,.</p>
<p><i>
A lot of people work hard, yet they didn't get in. Hmmmmmm....what can I conclude from that?</i></p>
<p>you can conclude that stanford didnt want you because of several of the following reasons:</p>
<p>1)you just wont fit at stanford
2)your matriculation will not satisfy stanford quotas
3)there are too many like yourself and you lost the lottery</p>
<p>i understand the frustration that people go through when they see someone "less qualified" get in while they dont, but really, this frustration is pretty hollow. at schools like stanford, gpa, sat and ECs do NOT define you as a person. many times stanford wants people with personality. they want someone who persevered through many hardships; the OP is low income and black...hence she probably did go through ALOT MORE s**t to come where she is today than would a white student. </p>
<p>really, saying she got in solely because she is black is the worst thing ive seen on CC so far, and it really shows how some people are.</p>
<p><i>This particular applicant, did not deserve a spot more than the droves of 2300+ 4.0 asian prodigies who were rejected. </i></p>
<p>haha...that's funny. well guess what, she went through alot more hardships to come this far than any asian prodigy did with parents that are constantly pushing their kids, who by the way, regardless of which college they attend, will be successful in life.</p>
<p>hence, she did deserve stanford. and i'd say, by looking at your character (big role in top college admissions!), you dont.</p>
<p><i>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.</i></p>
<p>wrong. come tell me that when you've been brought up in a ghetto, dont have parents to push you or to guide you to excel, dont have thousands of dollars to prepare for SAT, and have been discriminated against all your life. try to get those scores with all those factors in play.</p>
<p>you people seem like drones, as if the stats and ECs are automatic deciding factors. just go look at the harvard EA thread, whole load of 750-800s getting deferred (harvard only rejects 3% of EA apps). there was this one girl who got in with 660 verbal, but she wasnt black.</p>
<p>it goes to show that stats really arent everything, and people should not be enslaved by them like some drones here who keep whining that their 5.0 gpa makes them "better". </p>
<p>you ppl need to relax a little. college does not define who you are.</p>
<p>Congratulations. I am in favor of affirmative action when it comes to a person's financial situation, but not when it's about their race. No way should a less qualified wealthy African American be accepted over a middle class Asian or White person.</p>
<p>In your case, you absolutely deserved to be accepted. You have persevered in a very tough environment.</p>
<p>Sifat writes. "i understand the frustration that people go through when they see someone "less qualified" get in while they dont, but really, this frustration is pretty hollow." Well Sifat, as I've already stated once before, I was accepted to Stanford on dec. 15th.</p>
<p>Sifat writes, "haha...that's funny. well guess what, she went through alot more hardships to come this far than any asian prodigy did with parents that are constantly pushing their kids."
How can you say that? My uncle has been working in the ghetto for 25 years; he runs a welfare program to help people. He says that 99%+ of them have tv's, household appliances, and a roof over their head, and with his program, food. Now I really don't see the "hardship" in that. You want to see real hardship, go to a third world country. Unless she is being shot at (which I highly doubt) I am going to have so say the asian kids have been through more difficult times. Sifat, were you admitted to a highly selective college (esepicially HYPSM)? Do you have any idea how much crap you have to go through to earn that acceptance letter as a non recruited athelete and non-urm? Obviously you don't if you're making statements like this.</p>
<p>In response to my statement that "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." Sifat writes, "wrong. come tell me that when you've been brought up in a ghetto, dont have parents to push you or to guide you to excel, dont have thousands of dollars to prepare for SAT, and have been discriminated against all your life. try to get those scores with all those factors in play."</p>
<p>As for the "ghetto" issue, I've already addressed that. Also, my parents didn't need to push me to excel. I did it on my own and earned my way into a top college without any crutches like a.a. to help me. And guess what else? The SAT blue book and princeton review cracking the SAT books don't cost that much money and will prepare you for the SAT as well as any tutor can as long as you're willing to put in the time to study. Then you go on to talk about being discriminated against all your life. Do we live in the 1800s? How about the 1950s? Are the Jim crow laws still around? Yes, discrimination is still here, but now it is a fringe element. It is not a central part of our society practiced by most of those who are in positions of authority as it once was. We've made progress. Look at what happened to Michael Richards. It is no longer acceptable to say and do things like that in our society. And that's a good thing, primarily because it gives African Americans and other minorities a better chance to succeed. So to sum up, yes, discrimination is still around and probably always will be, but it is no longer the gigantic obstacle it once was in the way of minorities' desire to be successful.</p>
<p>I honestly think stanford makes some weird choices, the OP is definately qualified, but as I've seen who got in and who was rejected from our school, I definately think stanford has an interesting way to select its canidates. Yes the OP is smart, but I think compared to those who have been rejected, her demographics might have helped, but theres a reason that makes her smarter than we who live in rich, comfortable surburbia. She had to overcome alot more than we did, so her scores are not as high as other stanford students, who cares! I definately think shes overcome alot more than we have, she has much stronger perserverance, so lets all stop whining. </p>
<p>Besides, it's college admissions.. I really wouldn't be suprised if they covered all the applications with a sheet and started randomly accepting, rejecting, and deffering.. I mean what do you do when theres 4.000 applicants, and 2,000 of them look almost the same and are pretty much equally qualified??</p>
<p>college is weird. let's just all be happy that the OP got what she, in all her minority glory, got what she deserved. What's putting her down going to do for us anyway?</p>
<p>I don't know if the OP is still reading this thread, but if so, I want to say congratulations. </p>
<p>I understand that a lot of people think that AA is unfair, and there is truth in that. However, as a URM who has had to deal with a lot of people saying that I'll only get into schools because I'm Mexican, I sympathize with the OP because I am TIRED of hearing it. I'm sorry that I am an under-represented minority and that I get unfair advantages because of it. I'm sorry that my family has had to deal with an incredible amount of racism and discrimination because of our last name and where we came from. I'm sorry that in my family, college is considered a frivolity. Graduating high school is an accomplishment. Getting a job (no matter how low-paying) is an accomplishment. Who cares if you can go above or beyond that? I'm sorry that I have had to work against that mentality (imagine how easy it would be for a lot of you to get bad grades if your parents didn't care at all) and try to be a better person/student/applicant for myself and not for my family. I'm sorry that my parents are poor. </p>
<p>But the truth is, I'm not really sorry. I know there are millions of white and Asian applicants who have probably had much harder lives than I have. I understand and acknowledge that it's not fair. I just am curious as to what everybody wants us to do about it.</p>
<p>I attempted to apply to Columbia without checking a "race box." I didn't have much interest in the school, but it was an Ivy, and I wanted to see if I could get in based on merit alone. However, my GC essentially stopped this plan because my last name completely "gives me away" and she had already mentioned Natl. Hispanic Merit Scholar in her letters of rec. Point being, I couldn't "lie" about my ethnicity even if I wanted to. I honestly wish I could apply to some schools WITHOUT saying I was Mexican to see if I could get in that way. But I can't. So what does everybody suggest that I do to make this all "more fair?"</p>
<p>I'm sorry that I'm angry and frustrated, but I just feel bad for the OP in a way. As someone who has been told "Nobody likes a URM" (DIRECT QUOTE) on CC because of the unfair advantage it gets me, it just bugs me that there basically still is discrimination (not racism, discrimination) of a reverse sort.
I don't think that should be the case. </p>
<p>And lostincode- I know that some people never had a chance to overcome a lot and that you shouldn't be "penalized" for that, but really? I think that people who haven't had to overcome a lot should be thankful. It's a lot easier that way. I apologize if I sound like a martyr or if I sound pathetic, but I don't think that a gain in college admissions cancels out all of the other things that come along with being a low-income Hispanic person. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>j07 - Although I could be wrong, my impression of the thread is that people don't like URMs who grew up in a privileged environment and yet are getting that same advantage. Those who are not sympathetic to you (sympathy isn't the right word, but I hope it gets the point across) are not looking at the big picture. I don't mean to be patronizing here at all.. REALLY. AA is great for people (probably like you) who have grown up disadvantaged in one way or another. Since high educational standards are usually correlative with wealth, I assume you DIDN'T grow up in a lot of money. That also likely means that you live in an area with a sub-par school (these are all assumptions of course) - low property taxes usually result in under funded schools, at least that's how I think it works. So, we really aren't complaining about you... at least I'm not.</p>
<p>Who I/we ARE complaining about are the racially diverse kids who DO fall under URM status just because of their skin color. Let's talk about Williams College's diversity conference. Supposedly Williams accepts about 75 percent of all the kids who attend that if they choose to apply ED. The diversity conference really doesn't bother me for the most part - Williams is doing its job to say "HEY, you could really fit in at this school! Come on over here and we'll show you why." That is probably a pretty great service to one who doesn't really think he/she has much of a chance at college. However, I'm also familiar with those that aren't disadvantaged by ANY MEANS, and yet they're pigeonholed as URMs as well, enjoying all of the benefits that those who are REALLY URMs appreciate. </p>
<p>THAT bothers me and I think that is what irks everyone else.</p>
<p>I definetly understand where you are coming from. However, like j07 said, what do you want african-american and hispanic people to do about that? As a URM, I know AA is a problem. It has flaws and is by no means perfect. But in all honesty neither is getting in because you are legacy or because you have "connections." Not everything in life is fair. No matter what you do or say, nothing will change that fact. Ten years down the road things still will not be fair. It is not fair that many qualified asian students don't recieve acceptance to universities they are clearly qualified for. It is not fair that many african americans and hispanics still face discrimnation on a daily basis and it is not fair that highly qualified students are regularly rejected from top universities.</p>
<p>AA is an ATTEMPT to help those in disadvataged situations. Once again it is not perfect nor does it accomplish all it should, but it is an effort. Obviously, there needs to be a change but I don't think that this is the way to go about it. If you really feel pasionately about this topic DO SOMETHING other than post. Write a letter, make you're cause known and then maybe something will be done.
Come up with a solution. So far no one on this thread seems to have one. I know I certainly do not.</p>
<p>Maybe I wasn't clear. I think we're all agreeing here. I don't condemn AA entirely, in fact I support it. There is good and bad in all, and although there are some parts of AA I don't like, it's gonna stay whether I like it or not - and for the most part, I do like it. </p>
<p>To prove your point, I heard of a girl whose daddy has a building in San Francisco named after him. She got into Stanford with MUCH below what other, much more qualified applicants had (she had mid 600 SAT Reasoning Test scores and a few Bs here and there). ON THE OTHER HAND, her dad is likely to contribute money, which means that Stanford will either have a new building (which will increase Stanford's value to incoming students) and probably add to the endowment, bringing more money to the table for needy applicants. Is that fair, no.</p>
<p>hey guys...interesting conversations you're having on here...i added a lot to another post where folks were talking about affirmative action that you might find interesting...the OP titled it "I hate being an Asian" (which I yelled at her for!!! be proud of who you are guys!). i disagreed with a couple folks on there who mentioned different educational research studies because, in all honestly, i felt they misrepresented the research and took a lot of stuff out of context...but again, i think you'll find it interesting. </p>
<p>fhimas888888 - i am really uncomfortable with development cases - students whose families donate a lot of money to the college and that helps them get in - too. However, two important points: 1) if the kid can't do the work, they won't get in. In your example, for example, her testing and grades don't necessarily mean she isn't "qualified" to do the work (although she certainly seems well below Stanford's averages doesn't she!) so rest assured that she's at least gonna keep up academically. 2) even though this still seems unfair, the way I look at development cases is similar to something you mentioned...these folks bring a lot of money to the colleges - philanthropy brings in more funding to these top colleges than tuition revenues; a lot of these gifts - unless they are going directly to fund construction of a building (if that's the case, they are dropping millions) - go to endowing financial aid funds!!!! So at least a development case is 1) probably paying full price and 2) giving other students the opportunity to attend. It's a trade off - and one that doesn't really happen that often (at my school, in fact, we just denied a kid early whose parents were both alums and who agreed to donate $500,000 this year for the school to do whatever it wanted - it's going into financial aid, but their kid ain't coming :)) - but it can be hard to swallow when it does happen and the kid is below profile...</p>
<p>I hope you guys do read my other posts on the other forum I mentioned...if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help you out with them. But I want to interject here that the effect affirmative action has on the admission of non-URM students is minute at most - while at the macro level it may seem like there's a lot of affirmative action-ing going on, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't really affect anybody's individual decisions. If, for example, there was no affirmative action policies, there is a less than 2% chance that your own personal decision would change (Bowen and Bok's The Shape of the River research). It's hard not to take this issue to heart, but it very, very rarely affects non-URM students' admissions decisions. Also, I want to mention that just because a student might be an URM doesn't mean they are necessarily going to get in. A few folks have mentioned that it's not fair that wealthier URM students can benefit from affirmative action. Well, the reality is that whatever race a student is, if they are relatively privileged and don't appear to have faced any challenges in achieving, they aren't going to get any "help" from affirmative action. We don't automatically think "oh, he's an URM student, he's in!" when reading files...it's much more complicated than that. </p>
<p>Best of luck guys!!! I can't wait to hear about where you all end up!</p>
<p>Why are Asians penalized for overcoming adversity?</p>
<p>Were we not severely discriminated against? Are we still not discriminated against? Did we not have to learn a whole new -- and, might I add, TOTALLY different -- language? Did our parents and grandparents not work 14-16 hour days for 363 days of the year?</p>
<p>Again I ask, "Why are we being penalized for overcoming adversity?"</p>
<p>We had no crutch to help us get to where we are today. We didn't grow up in America with the privilege of knowing English. No familiarity with American culture. No welfare checks to help us pay the bills.</p>
<p>Again, "Why are we being penalized for overcoming adversity?"</p>
<p>AdOfficer- No argument here. I have a friend who is a HARDCORE development case (as in his mom and his dad were the first ()<em>)(&</em>(&%^*&% University couple - she got in the first year women were admitted) - and that family gives a lot of money. That kid will definitely be able to do the work. Does it lie well with me and everyone else who knows him and the choices he made in high school... no. But whatever, cause life will go on... and no matter where any of us go, we will likely get a gosh darn good edgucashun..........................................................</p>
<p>........................gosh darn good shoo tal huckle gin darn it. You her' wha' I sayed.... pr'spehhhhct've stuu''nts. Naaw shooo! Awwlll yeh!</p>