<p>
[quote]
but you ought to read holistically and realize my point. Which is not that those who got in don't deserve it necessarily. All your sentences on this matter began with "perhaps" I think.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I read “holistically,” but your points seem ill-constructed--you can see, then, why I’m misconstruing what you mean. (I said “perhaps” to imply that you don’t know as much as you think you do about other applicants.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I'm not willing to so easily accept that the decisions are even mostly sound when many hardworking students with higher scores (OK, I DO know what I'm talking about when I refer to my own high school, I am certain) were seemingly cheated of admissions, and others with comparably lower performance in SEVERAL areas (I'm not just talking miniscule stuff) were in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You say the above isn’t your point, but then you just reaffirm what I think your point is: that Stanford has “shady” admissions because some students that you “know” were not as spectacular as others get in while the latter gets rejected. You are implicitly judging those students. I think that is wrong. (I also sense some bitterness-- “cheated of”? Lower performance?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your view is pretty narrowminded if you want to stop people from questioning the admissions systems
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where did I say that people shouldn’t question admissions systems? I’m saying that your support that Stanford’s admissions is questionable is not support at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and they do have a legitimate reason to question Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Simply because they didn’t get in? Methinks they need to get over it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, I don't get your point about Berkeley grad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The first point re: grad school was that “You may want to get Graduate and Postgraduate degrees at that place,” with the implication that undergrad is comparatively inferior (as was obvious in the OP and in the clause following the above: “but for undergraduate you will be not in better environment than in average SU”), i.e. that undergrads are marginalized in favor of grads (to which I said that it’s much more so at Berkeley). You agreed with the point about “graduate studies,” which appeared to mean the above; but as you clarified, “it's a good idea for those rejected from Stanford undergrad to look towards the grad school.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
somewhere else, he said I'm trying to make Berkeley sound better than Stanford. JUST in this thread, I have said that I don't believe CAl's admissions policy is always clear-cut either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Simply because you make a concession about Cal doesn’t mean that you haven’t implicitly tried to make it seem better.</p>
<p>And again, I can read your points, but you need to make it clear that your statements aren’t driven by some bias. Some examples where you seem to portray Stanford in a bad light or Cal in a better one:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Come to Cal! You'll find that half of us are more fierily academic than those who got into Stanford instead of us</p>
<p>if you're a really good student who didn't have the strange requirements [for Stanford to think you "stick out"]</p>
<p>I see the point of whoever spoke against Stanford for having seen the huge classes</p>
<p>But not only Stanford - basically all of the undergraduate programs which consider themselves selective - end up making very strange admissions decisions. [follow-up with anecdotal evidence judging fellow students]</p>
<p>but their admissions policy is very shady at best.</p>
<p>Specifically, something from your essays should make them think you're STANFORD MATERIAL. What that means, no idea whatsoever.
[/quote]
</p>