<p>Stanford will and always will be my dream school. I had scenarios in my head about what I would do if I was accepted...I somewhat obsessed.</p>
<p>Well, I mean, it was my dream school, wasn't it? After being deferred SCEA and rejected yesterday, I realized that the title of the thread is actually true. If you set your heart on something, it almost never works out (obviously this doesn't apply to everyone). </p>
<p>It hurt when I was deferred. I cried for 3 days, because I felt it would be the first of many bad news to come. Well, yesterday, it didn't hurt as much. Sure, I was a little sad, but I got over it within 1-2 hours, since Berkeley and UCLA accepted me.</p>
<p>I don't know why some people get accepted, and others get rejected. I'm sure everyone has worked hard and struggled, and I'm not going to argue with Stanford's decision.</p>
<p>If they didn't want me, then I probably wouldn't have been a good fit there anyway. </p>
<p>I guess I just wanted to say, even though it sounds a little corny, that it doesn't matter where you go but what you do. Congratulations to everyone, and I'm sorry to everyone who was rejected. I'm sure each and every one of you will find a good school to go to.</p>
<p>Guys, read your rejection letters carefully! A college’s acceptance or denial does not pass a vote of judgement over your abilities. There are too many factors to take it personally. We all have our dream schools (I was also deferred from mine and we know what that road usually leads to). Move on. If you were a realistic applicant invested in Stanford, you must be truly remarkable. Some things work out; some don’t. Believe in the bigger picture and greater scheme of things. Best of luck with your decisions. Once again, don’t let this period eat your optimism. If you don’t dream, that’s the battle lost right there. Cheer up or you’ll have more people shoving obnoxious optimism down you!</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s basically the same with me. I hear people saying humor or quirkiness works but that’s what I put on my app, I added quirks and funny points that fit right into the point of the essay. Didn’t get me in.</p>
<p>So I dunno what ended up being wrong with my app. I had a super-rigorous senior year, taking classes at local colleges, and had a legitimate computer science job, not just a stereotypical high school job. Even being a regional finalist in the Siemens competition wasn’t enough.</p>
<p>I feel like I have to blow up a country before I get noticed. It’s just so disappointing to know that even my best just isn’t good enough.</p>
<p>^^^^ And that’s the convo I had with my boyfriend. It’s never ever good enough. So what’s the point. I feel like, and I’m gonna be real, some people don’t deserve their spots. I know a girl who said her parents wanted her to apply to all the Ivies b/c she was “that amazing.” What about the child whose parents died and can’t hold on to anything but a dream and their education? What happens to him/her?</p>
<p>@christiansoldier: I used a random example. I’m saying had someone who applied (but still had good grades and what not) just because gotten in over my friend who worked her butt off all 4 years and really loved the school, it just wouldn’t seem right. But it happens all the time. But of course, I knew she would get in. She’s amazing. And she deserves it. Her father would be so proud. </p>
<p>PS Read. I never said the person who lost both parents wasn’t highly qualified. Why would I use that example if the student wasn’t qualified? Context clues.</p>
<p>Sigh. I really feel the same. From when I chose to apply to Stanford, I thought about it obsessively. I visited, I’ve explored their website in and out. I could imagine myself there. I could see myself there. I poured for over 35 hours weaving a personality into my application. By far, it was my best application with my essays, etc. I was in love with every aspect of it. It’s a crushing feeling to know that it was not enough, and no matter how much I worked for it, I wouldn’t have gotten a spot, even if I was a somewhat on par applicant. I feel bad that I wasted precious time I could have spent with my elderly grandpa that won’t see for another 5 years working for such fruitless endeavors.</p>
<p>They don’t admit based on who likes their college the most. That would be preposterous. It’s based on academic credentials, ECs, essays, and a slew of other things. Overall, the accepted person is most likely just the better candidate for Stanford in the admission officers’ eyes.</p>
<p>Thanks Silverturtle, and thanks also for your Berkeley congrats. I wanted to wait until I could send you something more substantial and thoughtful in return, but I’m afraid my thanks for you sticking with me is the best I can give.</p>
<p>And Nerd, I hear you, but I’m just saying that whoever wants to go to a particular college the most isn’t necessarily the person who most deserves to go. Even if that person worked hard specifically for that college, there’s something to be said for the guy who worked his butt off not because he wanted to get into Stanford but because he wanted to be the best, wanted to accomplish something, wanted to make a difference, or whatever. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad your friend got what she wanted so badly, but there are many ways to really deserve something.</p>
<p>@christiansoldier- I agree. But okay what if the person was a complete jerk…dad was a rich jerk…grandfather was…etc. But of course he gets accepted. On the other hand, we have someone who legitimately HAD to work hard, not for rep, but for survival. It’s like are those things taken into account? Ever?</p>
<p>Meh, I think the point here is that life isn’t fair, but Stanford or even highly selective colleges in general don’t exactly help out to make it a little bit more fair.</p>
<p>kevmo, I think Stanford and its peer colleges are trying to make things a little bit more fair in the more “macro” sense of evaluating all candidates in the context of their respective opportunities. One can always find some rejected candidates, compare them with some accepted candidates, and wonder whether it was “fair” for those accepted students to have the spots vs. those rejected ones, but that doesn’t render the overall process less fair in the scheme of things.</p>
<p>I think it’s also important to remember–and for subsequent applicants to realize–that anyone who applies to these schools basically has only about a 7% chance of admittance. That is a known situation from the outset. Once you really internalize the odds, you are less likely to obsess about a particular place, even if it is a “dream school”, or to feel betrayed by a rejection.</p>
<p>That said, I am confident everyone here on CC will wind up with some very good choices in the near future.</p>
<p>Yes, while this is true, the issue here is that being fair, from an individual’s perspective, is determined on the personal level, comparing against a few other candidates, rather than the pool as a whole.</p>
<p>For one to consider Stanford as a completely disjoint entity from his life, yes, Stanford appears fair as he are not applying for admission. On the other hand, if one tries to do everything in his power to attain admission, it appears unfair when he is rejected but someone who doesn’t put in as much effort is admitted.</p>
<p>To the person who puts in enormous amounts of effort, rejection is essentially telling that person that they were never capable of admission in the first place, and that that effort was a waste, whereas others are able to somewhat naturally, per se, get admitted without as much effort.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the admissions process isn’t unfair, but in the same respect, it’s not that fair either.</p>