<p>I agree that the friend of your was more than well qualified…but it is not enough to say that her race was enough to stop her from getting in… Some well qualified students simply are not admitted because since they will be accepted at near all other universities, Stanford may have just been trying to not increase it’s lost cross-admits.</p>
<p>For Stanford to reject someone because of their race is just immoral and illegal…I think Stanford has better judgement than what you may perceive it to have.</p>
<p>One friend of mine ,asain,…had an 1800+ SAT and 32 ACT, which I believe u agree are not the highest scores…also none of those great accomplishments, but managed to get in last year through RD</p>
<p>so an observation that I have made is that stanford does no that have a vendetta against anyone!</p>
<p>^Well, thanks for your observation. I have nothing to say to you, but that from your posts I think it is safe to say that you, sir, are needlessly self-righteous and rather condescending.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, I definitely agree with you. I’m pretty sure the whole “vendetta” thing was a joke, my interpretation of the question was “Is it generally more difficult for Asians to be admitted to Stanford” and my answer to that question would be “yes, generally it is more difficult, due to the large number of Asians with decent stats that apply”</p>
<p>“Haha, I definitely agree with you. I’m pretty sure the whole “vendetta” thing was a joke, my interpretation of the question was “Is it generally more difficult for Asians to be admitted to Stanford” and my answer to that question would be “yes, generally it is more difficult, due to the large number of Asians with decent stats that apply””</p>
<p>Yeah, this is how I interpreted the question as well, and honestly, if the poster were indeed meaning the “vendetta” thing literally, I would myself ignore it if that were as implausible as it is to me…and try to ask a more intelligent question. I am not knowledgeable enough to say stuff on this topic, though I can find it believable that the school tries to promote some diversity. Asians do get in, and they’re not being completely excluded <em>at all</em> though it may be harder for some to get in.</p>
<p>DataBox, sorry for your friend. I agree with you that Stanford should at least have tried to get her even there might be a cross-admit problem. Last year was unusual for Stanford because of the removal of SCEA from Harvard and Princeton. I hope this year they will do something differently.</p>
<p>I’ve a very strong opposition to this statement. Does this imply that Stanford is willing to enroll a non asian clones of asian but limit asians?</p>
<p>Think of it this way. All students who apply as US citizen are citizen of the country and if a university is taking science/math geeks then it should take the top science/math geeks irrespective of whether a science/math geek is an asian, an indian, a white or a URM.</p>
<p>If the above statement says that Stanford is replacing a science/math geek with an art/history geek then it is appropriate but replacing a science/math geek of one color or race with another color or race just on the fact that there are too many of one color race is absurd.</p>
<p>“If the above statement says that Stanford is replacing a science/math geek with an art/history geek then it is appropriate but replacing a science/math geek of one color or race with another color or race just on the fact that there are too many of one color race is absurd.”</p>
<p>I think it probably referred to the art/history geek thing. I also think that there might be more to their classification than “math and science” versus “art and history” – there might be subtle differences among the math and science students. Perhaps there is more diversity among certain groups of math and science geeks. I think the key is that they could admit 100% of any type of high achiever if they wanted to, but don’t want to…I will take on faith for now that they’re being discriminating about something other than race.</p>
<p>^Also, just an interesting tidbit I’d like to add is that while my dad was finishing his Ph.D, a highly reputed business school asked him to help select the following year’s class. When he analyzed the students by simply academic accomplishments and abilities, the entire class came out to be Indian and Chinese. Obviously, this would put several other ethnic groups at a great disadvantage and would probably have some political ramifications, thus, it isn’t in an institution’s best interest to necessarily pick the best students (academically speaking).</p>
<p>It’s that kind of attitude that I dislike in admissions. Like it or not, it’s racist, and it’s discriminatory, and it really reveals how deep seated some stereotypes are. </p>
<p>When a stereotype like the “Asian stereotype” that Asians are lifeless study grinds in math and science becomes accepted by so many people, including Asians themselves, it becomes way too easy to just throw everyone into the stereotype box even if they don’t really fit there. Just because someone’s Asian, and likes math, and likes classical music, doesn’t mean they’re a -clone- of every other Asian who’s like that. That excuse just doesn’t work. </p>
<p>Especially when checking a URM box, with the exact same “study grind” characteristics, suddenly makes you unique and special and not a clone at all.</p>
<p>“A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities.”</p>
<p>I believe the study was done in 2005, but they were studying admissions data that was quite a bit older than that.</p>
<p>Not sure, but just thought I’d mention people keep trotting out the same data from 10 to 20 or more years ago.</p>
<p>“Espenshade, Chung, and Walling (2004)
examined the strength of admission preferences for underrepresented minority students, athletes, and alumni children at three highly selective private research universities in the United States. Using data from the National Study of College Experience on 124,374 applications for admission during the 1980s and the fall semesters of 1993 and 1997,…”</p>
<p>So, because of the volume of high scoring and achieving applicants who are Asian, there is a 50 point disadvantage showing up in the data. I would have thought maybe a little more, but that gives you an indication of how tight the Asian pool is.</p>