<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, that’s outrageous. LOL</p>
<p>it’s been confirmed we all got rick rolled.</p>
<p>No, we didn’t–I called bulls**t back on post #8. There’s some mighty gullible people in this forum.</p>
<p>And I smelled a ■■■■■ when I first joined in the fray, back on post #26! :)</p>
<p>At least this ■■■■■ has a good sense of humor…</p>
<p>^Personally, I don’t think this ■■■■■ is funny.
I think this ■■■■■ has a character flaw that is very unattractive.
Racist innuendo inherent in his posts. Not cool.</p>
<p>Yeah for stanford, that really could be the difference for acceptance and rejection</p>
<p>Jumpshooter…I find it insulting that you think that you would get accepted to Stanford because of Affirmative Action if you were Black and that you assume that when Blacks get accepted into colleges of that level it is because of Affirmative Action, which for the most part does not exist.</p>
<p>“We…must consider every single factor into Stanford admissions, including race.”</p>
<p>There is no way the admissions committee wrote this. It is against the law to consider race. Colleges get around this by saying they look at the applicant “holistically”. But they can not consider race by law and would never admit to it.</p>
<p>The OP was a ■■■■■. This is the first time I have viewed CC in a year. Young people are still as gullible as ever.</p>
<p>My advice to all college applicants. Don’t read the CC discussion section. You do not have enough experience to understand who is honest, who is giving false information, and who is a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not.</p>
<p>^ That is very true. How else would affirmative action exist?</p>
<p>Yeah sorry cardfan but they can consider race. Why else would they ask a question about race on the app?</p>
<p>It is illegal to have quotas, but it is perfectly legal to consider race as a “tip factor” among qualified applicants. If the OP is a ■■■■■, it’s not because the Stanford letter admitted that fact; it’s because the letter is verbose and ill-worded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, have you worked in the Stanford admissions office? Second, on Stanford’s rejection letter, it says “it is with regret.” Try asking someone who has a Stanford rejection letter.</p>
<p>I don’t know why I waste my time arguing with posters who don’t have a clue what they are talking about, but here goes. This issue has been in the California headlines for 13 years. Here is one article out of thousands. For those who have no idea about what they are posting, please do some research and educate yourself.</p>
<p>[Calif</a>. race-based college admissions ban challenged](<a href=“http://www.thegrio.com/news/california-race-based-college-admissions-ban-challenged.php]Calif”>Calif. race-based college admissions ban challenged - TheGrio)</p>
<p>Excerpt from article: “Thirteen years of a ban on affirmative action in the state of California has left, in particular UCLA and Berkeley, with just pitiably low numbers of black and Latino students,” Driver said.</p>
<p>The reason they ask for ethnic background on the application is because all colleges are required to keep this information for statistical purposes. It is not permitted by law in California to be considered for admissions. </p>
<p>Once again, I would warn young people to go elsewhere for information about applying to colleges because you get too people posting uneducated opinions as fact on CC.</p>
<p>And as I said earlier colleges in California and other states with a similar law get around it by calling their admission criteria “holistic”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no need to insult, but I believe you do need to read more carefully what you research. Proposition 209 only bans affirmative action in government and public institutions, which includes the UC schools that now lack Latino and African American students. It does not include Stanford, which may continue to admit based on race. I find it implausible that you believe every single organization in California cannot “favor” an individual based on race. Also, the schools affected by AA usually accomplish little with a “holistic” look. This is why they lack certain minorities. </p>
<p>It is understandable for people to have different information. We just need to correct them. Please don’t insult them just because you feel they are wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m probably not even going to apply after seeing these stellar 2400 profiles getting rejected EA (of course they were asian not black/hispanic/native american) even though my SAT is 115 points above Stanford’s average.</p>
<p>I think you should take AP US Government or at least look up these court cases: Reagents of the University of California v. Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.</p>
<p>If you did any of that hopefully you will learn that race is still very much used as a factor in admissions, a point that the OP tried to get across through some great ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>Like leoyuguanall said, you’re incorrect Cardfan. Kind of funny considering your condescending comments… It’s only in public institutions like UCLA and Berkeley that it is banned. Not in private colleges like Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A point well made. The emphasis on AA at Ivy level schools makes it almost “normal” to believe that one with considerably stellar stats would be accepted simply on an URM status. </p>
<p>And Jumpshooter, I suggest you apply. SAT scores are mentally overweight for most applicants. Colleges really don’t care if you can do a certain type of questions perfectly. They look at the SAT simply for proficiency in reading, writing, and math. The SAT is unlike the Olympiads, or Intel, or other competitive subject specific competitions. A 2300 and 2400 have little difference in the eyes of Ivy level admission offices.</p>