<p>I feel bad for my D. and her classmates. They are great kids, yet colleges don’t seem to value them. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I am tired of the constant complains by the faculty that “There is not enough bright kids in college”. “Students are plain stupid”. “I don’t know where to get a good grad student” and so on … </p>
<p>Something is wrong with this picture.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure I don’t believe it is easier to get into graduate school than undergraduate programs at the same university. For the graduate programs a couple of my kids applied to, there were 1-3 spots for two to three hundred applications. And for graduate school applications, there is a whole lot more self-selection going on.</p>
<p>Calif, why do you think “merit” is ONLY about stats? To paraphrase from other threads: do you choose friends based on their grades and scores, or look for a larger pattern? </p>
<p>Nothing tells me you understand the admissions picture. Only that you have some complaints based on what you think goes on.</p>
<p>Sorry the colleges don’t value your kid and her friends- but, if she’s just in hs, how do you know this? It’s all too loosey-goosey. I don’t think you know.</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To their credit, the number of Asians admitted to Stanford has increased since this 2006 article was written. But why are their percentages lower than at Berkeley, which is also selecting students holistically?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PhD is mainly of value for specific types of jobs within a given field or industry (i.e. cutting edge research or academic). For those who have other aspirations, departing the education track to pursue employment after earning a bachelor’s degree often makes more sense than continuing on to a PhD. There are other tracks as well, such as going on to professional school for an MD or JD.</p>
<p>In addition, the world is a huge place that produces a lot of bachelor’s degree graduates who would be candidates for PhD programs but who may not have particularly good opportunities in their home countries.</p>
<ol>
<li>"Nothing tells me you understand the admissions picture. " </li>
</ol>
<p>IMHO, no one understands the admission picture. It is too murky, too subjective, too variable. </p>
<ol>
<li>"do you choose friends based on their grades and scores, or look for a larger pattern? " - most of my friends are from the same socio-economic class that I am. College educated professionals. Yes, we have similar “scores”.</li>
</ol>
<p>Momsquad, there’s no real telling. But it seems to me the two schools have different student attributes they like, different mandates and criteria to meet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley does have a heavier California bias in student sources than Stanford does, so the differences in percentages alone would not necessarily mean that there are shenanigans of this type at Stanford.</p>
<p>“I am pretty sure I don’t believe it is easier to get into graduate school than undergraduate programs at the same university.”</p>
<p>It is much easier to get into Ph.D. program than you think. Much-much easier than into undergrad program. BTW, my husband got into Ph.D. / MD at top medical school with ridiculously low MCAT. How? His Prof. went directly to AO and said that he needs this guy in his lab.</p>
<p>This is too much misinfo.
Good luck, Calif. What worked x years ago, what you heard, what you think- all doesn’t add up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Into the job market?</p>
<p>Can’t college accept more kids to STEM majors to begin with? To fill-in the shortage.</p>
<p>First, there is a tremendous competition to get undergrad. Next, there are not enough qualified US students at Ph.D. programs. </p>
<p>First, colleges select against American-born Asians. Next, they import Asians from China and India. Does it make sense?</p>
<p>Correct me, if I am wrong. It looks like you are more optimistic than I am.</p>
<p>I know for fact, that there is not enough qualified US students in Ph.D. programs. I know that college faculty is not enthusiastic about teaching undergrad students. </p>
<p>I think, faculty should have more weight in selecting students that THEY need. Instead of “holistic” AOs.</p>
<p>^^it is such a shame you weren’t around when we were advising MIT on admissions decisions.</p>
<p>I was thinking the same, she needs a friend of ours.</p>
<p>We all have these archetypes of what college should be- as if someone, someday, will come down and ask us what they should do. But the colleges do what they think is best, to keep their machine oiled. Darn, it’s a buyer’s market.</p>
<p>Doesn’t it seem odd they should throw out a process that clearly works, just because the physics dept is so blown away and resentful?</p>
<p>Think they resent the kids, ucb?</p>
<p>"^^it is such a shame you weren’t around when we were advising MIT on admissions decisions."</p>
<p>I speak for a lot of people in academia. I am not sure if MIT Profs are happy with common appl and holistic approach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would that be to "their credit? Stanford admits the students they want, need, and would like to see enrolling. If there is a credit due, it would be that they make --seemingly-- the right choices as the number of students who are cross-admitted (Cal and Stanford) end up enrolling at Stanford. It is known that you can count the number of students who attend Cal over Stanford is so small that it is statiscally so small that Cal is not among the top 20 schools to which Stanford loses students. In so many words, while there is an overlap in admissions, there is hardly any in terms of enrollment. </p>
<p>As far as Reider, he is simply playing into the hand that feeds him. While he remained mum about the admissions’ game at Stanford when employed at the Farm, he found religion when he bolted to University. His credibility is highly suspect, and so is his message. And, even if some of his stories were true, there is simply no support for a theory that Stanford refrains to admit better qualified Asian students. The school admits the students it feels deserve admission and might contribute positively to the fabric and experience of the school. The number of admitted Asians is entirely in line with the expectations, and does not have to be compared to the simplistic and quasi-dysfunctional system of the UC. The schools have different missions and raison d’</p>
<p>californiaaa: there have been several very long & serious threads about some of the issues that concern you and MIT has been used for the debate. You can probably search MIT in the parents forum and cafe to find some older threads of interest to you. However, if you bump them up, people will probably get aggravated. If you read long enough, maybe there will be another one. I have almost recovered from the last go round.</p>
<p>sorry to go off topic, but don’t want to be cryptic to new posters.</p>
<p>alh,</p>
<p>Could you please help me to find the relevant thread? Thanks!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Flat out wrong. Many students are accepted to both colleges each and every year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, just flat out wrong. (Are you just making this up as you go along, or does the parking lot chatter at your HS fill you in?)</p>
<p>btw: most undergraduate applicants to each campus, apply to Letters & Sciences, where intended major is NOT an admissions requirement; indeed, it is not even considered. And note, prospective Physics majors at Cal apply to the College of Letters and Sciences, so they start out as Undeclared Frosh.</p>