My Story (Rant). Am I wrong to be bitter?

[tetsure]

<p>

Yes, quotas based on race are illegal, after court challenge. Which was a blow to the methods of admissions officers. But admissions officers are not so stupid as to think that one cannot achieve the “proper” proportions without formally using the word “quota”. So now there is the language of “overrepresented”, “underrepresented”, or the acronyms thereof which CCers seem to be so fond of. And the "holistic’ admissions processes, by the Miracle of the Invisible Hand, conjure up a carefully crafted classes of perfect fit…year after year, “elite” school after “elite” school–with the proportions in accord with those in the bad old days of unashamed quotas.

They can achieve such proportions without using the word as it is not a system in which they allow for a certain amount of acceptances for races and will refuse another race based on this allotment not being met. Nor do they employ a system in which they ensure that bonus points they give to applications is had up to a certain amount of acceptances and then completely nullify it. The system they use that allows for the allotment is one that they found provided for such proportions, one in which is race is a beneficial factor, but not a determining factor, placing it as “considered” for all applicants that are URMs, regardless of the proportion already accepted. This allows for a diverse population of students. This is done year after as they receive roughly the same amount and proportion of applications from the various races year after year. If they use the system in which they consider race beneficially to the same degree as they have, they will get roughly the same results year after year. However, this is not a statement that URMs are not in and of themselves already offering competitive applications. There is also the case in which URM scores are rising and they receive the same allotment. This can either be the fact that URM race is of less consideration than previous years, the rising scores still are not so much up to par as to have the same level of race allow for such proportions (a more likely prospect), or pre-alloted spots for the races. If “proper” proportions means that of “diverse” proportions, then yes, they do try to attain such and thus place race positively rather than an allotment percentage. Now, you claim it is the same proportion of URMs as it was during the days of quotas. Besides accounting for the various changes in minorities in poverty, changing scores, and possible changes in the factor consideration of applications and what applications include, where exactly do you view these percentages? </p>

<p>

So, for example, MIT [a sop to Stanford sensibilities] accepts 21% of its female applicants, as opposed to 7% for its men, to achieve a rough “gender parity” in its classes. Year after year men dominate the applicant pool, but year after year it seems the men are just not so qualified, in nearly the same proportions, as the female applicants. Stupid Men. Clever Women.

Yes, they do. MIT is notorious for its gender disparity to achieve gender parity. However, a glance at other colleges shows that this far from the case. [Stanford[/url</a>] [url=<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2008_2009_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf]Harvard[/url”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2008_2009_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf]Harvard[/url</a>] [url=<a href=“http://www.upenn.edu/ir/Common%20Data%20Set/UPenn%20Common%20Data%20Set%202009-10.pdf]UPenn[/url”>http://www.upenn.edu/ir/Common%20Data%20Set/UPenn%20Common%20Data%20Set%202009-10.pdf]UPenn[/url</a>] [url=<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2009-10.pdf]Berkeley[/url]They”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2009-10.pdf]Berkeley](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#admission]Stanford[/url”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#admission)They</a> receive a pretty roughly equal distribution of male/female applicants. However, is this example simply to show that the rates are disproportional for genders and likely to be disproportional for races? I also believe in private universities, gender as a quota is allowed as long as they are not financed by federal government. Bakke only dealt with the illegality, regardless, of racial quotas. I am not sure of gender quotas in schooling. [Title</a> IX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX]Title”>Title IX - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

The acceptance rates for most "URM"s, say “Latino”, are far higher, even as the average qualifications run substantially lower, than for the general applicant pool. The disparity even stronger when compared to non-URMs [which in practice becomes Asians and Euros].

I do believe that URM acceptance rate is higher than non-URM in the top colleges and that they hold lower qualifications, but proof must still be provided. The claim though, that they are substantially less qualified ignores the impact of socio-economics on an application and what exactly is being argued as “qualified”. The essays, character represented in questions of the application, recs, and ECs all are valued differently by persons. Claiming, on average, they are “substantially” lesser qualified as fact cannot even be claimed as fact as its root is in subjectivity on what qualifies as “qualified”, “competative”, etc. </p>

<p>

These rates break 50% in some years. Remarkable for MIT.

Proof? I am aware of these rates in “lesser” (excuse my language) schools, but in the “higher” schools, these acceptance rates are tremendously less by 25-40% (which I still admit is a high URM rate compared to the likely non URM rate as race is still valued, but not necessarily as a “quota” system). The acceptance rates were typically from 10%-25%, which would make sense as many URMs already applying to these schools offer competitive applications in and of themselves, but race pushes them over the edge many times. MIT may have another notoriety in the amount of applicants by race leading them to place a greater value on race than most other top institutions. [url=<a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/firstyearenrolls.html]JBHE[/url”>http://www.jbhe.com/firstyearenrolls.html]JBHE[/url</a>] MIT has about half as much as you stated for this years, but you are claiming from other years, so can you please point me in the way?</p>

<p>

But then not so Remarkable for MIT, as its admissions officers admit that only about 30% of its freshman classes are now chosen on the basis of academic/scientific merit. That leaves 70% for the games people can play when they understand that a tetsure can claim, with face straight and ironic smile hid, that by not using the word “quota” the letter of the law against quotas has been met

Proof? You make many claims of what they claim/statistics, but I see no verification. I’m not saying you are lying, in fact I’m giving you benefit of the doubt, but I just wish to get these claims verified. However, while I’m not sure of what definition you use, that seems to be a percentage other top institutions would have. Academics are only part of a competitive application as the others include the extracurriculars one participates in, the essays, the talent/ability/character shown in various little parts of the application, and teacher recs. Academics may be even less valued at other top institutions as MIT holds its attribute in the scientific minds of its students, but even with such a mind, one must show ambition and dedication to do well in this school. They do want scientists, but they also want a multi-faced persona who will have a drive, cooperation, balancing, etc. to better investigate science and its principles and those who are unique in their attributes, not simply another worker deindividualized. Anyways, I love these games and I do lovingly participate in them with a smirk on my face: [url=<a href=“http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090911152606/darkerthanblack/images/f/fa/November_11-nav.png]:}[/url”>http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090911152606/darkerthanblack/images/f/fa/November_11-nav.png]:}[/url</a>]
I think of it as a rather handsome smirk. As evidenced by chess, games utilize logic, mi companero o companera. </p>

<p>The thing that makes a quota a quota is the means employed, not simply use of a term in the admissions process if you meant that they still use a quota system without labeling it as quota. Aside from admissions officers themselves likely disagreeing to such a policy as it was ruled illegal, they are also investigated by government to ensure they are not employing such a policy. If they do, besides the damage to reputation and private funding, there are also legal punishments that a school would likely not want to face at the expense of using a quota system when they can simply use racial positivity to gain diversity. I am not sure if these schools attempt to garner grants from the government, but if so, that would be yet another factor to deter the employment of a quota system. </p>

<p>Also, careful with the appeal to ridicules that we both have now committed.</p>

[tetsure]

<p>@Senior: I like his/her argument length. By being lengthy, he/she can clarify some points that may be vague or misinterpreted. As for their language, meh, to each their own. Some people just naturally use that level of language as they may have learned to write in such a manner in, talk in such a manner in debates, etc. If they are using it to purposefully sound as though their argument carries more weight, then again, to each his own.</p>

[Senior0991]

<p>Not to rehash all the debates that raged on here a while ago, but I strongly recommend the book “Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Century.” I’m only 1/4 of the way through, but it has helped me gain some perspective on a lot of things that were said here. </p>

<p>This Amazon review sums it up nicely: “Moya and Markus define race and ethnicity as active and social processes rather than fixed biological categories. This dynamic definition lays the foundation for Doing Race, an impressive, multidisciplinary collection of essays that are useful and thought-provoking for anyone who is interested in identity, race, and ethnicity in relation to human behavior, cultural history, literary criticism, law, genetics, theater, etc…”</p>

<p>It’s primarily authored by two Stanford professors, and Stanford professors (among others) author the essays (the Elams, for instance). Could be a great conversation starter with the professors if you ever come into contact with them.</p>

[SWHarborfan]

<p>I hope that the original poster’s child found happiness at whatever school he/she attended and was made to feel good about the other school. I think that there are other very wonderful options besides Stanford, and it just made me sad that the parent was so stuck on the “rejection” from Stanford–had to divine, initially, whether or not it was the parent or child who was rejected.</p>

<p>For the inverse story, my child got in EA to Stanford and chose to attend elsewhere (as did more than a handful in her senior class), this Fall, fully aware that not only are there other great choices but also that some choices might even be better fits.</p>

[zenkoan]

<p>SWHArborfan, I remember that soon after I joined this list a couple of years ago, you were posting here that your child didn’t even apply to Stanford after having attended a summer program there, and that she instead applied early decision to another private college. You sounded pretty annoyed at the time, and some posters asked if you (like the OP in this thread) were unhappy because of your kid’s admission decision, and you posted that she didn’t even apply to Stanford. So it’s kind of curious to see you now saying she was admitted to Stanford EA, since she didn’t apply.</p>

[SimpleLife]

<p>^It could be that SWHarborfan had two different college applicants – one was accepted EA to Stanford, and one did not apply. Afterall, SWHarborfan says that the EA Stanford child chose to attend somewhere else “this Fall,” and you said that the other “conversations” took place a few years ago.</p>

[zenkoan]

<p>^I thought of that too, and looked in some other forums to see whether there might be twins or something involved, but SWHarbor said the kid took a gap year, so it seems to be the same kid since the discussions were two years ago. (I remember it was then, because I had just recently joined the forum having been admitted REA myself.) I also remember that SW’s posts about Stanford were sort of disparaging, so others asked if SW was a disappointed parent. SW said no, his or her child never even applied to Stanford, but instead applied early decision somewhere else (which would have precluded also applying REA to Stanford, come to think of it). So it’s pretty strange to later see statements that the kid turned down early admission to Stanford without having even applied. But whatever. I hope everyone is as happy with their college choices as I am with mine. :)</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>^ your memory is astonishing.</p>

<p>A search of SWHarborfan’s posts in the Stanford forum leads to only a few, all of which seem to be bashing Stanford for one thing or another. This was particularly funny:</p>

<p>

Stanford was hot after my daughter, and she was uninterested. She didn’t want to go to college in her own backyard and while she had a great time (and got grade grades) at Stanford’s High School Summer College, this past summer, she thought the school lacked vibrancy and intellectualism (there were a lot of Texas Republicans in her program who were aiming to apply and got in).</p>

<p>She heads off to Boston, we found out a few days, ago, thrilled and thrilled with her ED acceptance.

</p>

<p>

I said that Stanford was a fine school, not appealing to my daughter (who did not apply, by the way, to Stanford as an undergrad, despite a lot of encouragement from two of her Stanford professors)

</p>

<p>Oh, hell hath no fury like the parents of a scorned applicant…</p>

[SWHarborfan]

<p>@Zenkoan and Phantas…</p>

<p>I am flattered by your keeping track of my activity/claims to the extent that you hijack a thread devoted to something other than your easy ire and jealousy. And, yes, a child who got into Stanford EA and elsewhere. </p>

<p>You both sound unhappy; I wish you well. It’s very small things that seem to occupy you, both. :-)</p>

[ANTIDRAMAQUEEN]

<p>Zenkoan, I don’t have the time or interest to dog your posts, but you sound bitter. It’s just possible that some parents, in the interest of wanting to recant personal and identifiable info. about their kids, appear to be inconsistent.</p>

<p>I stupidly posted my son’s multiple acceptances to some top-notch colleges, only to get a private message from someone asking if I were the mother and son she met at Pomona college. I felt very uncomfortable with the lack of anonymity and promptly posted that my son did not get into Pomona, when he did. </p>

<p>I guess it’s a matter of time before you hunt down my discrepancies and call me out as the liar.</p>

<p>Back to the original intent of the thread. I do hope that the parent and more importantly applicant was able to move beyond the rejection. Life is just too short to allow a college acceptance run one’s life or to “hunt down” posters’ lies.</p>

<p>CC can be a really crazy and zealous place. Scar-reee.</p>

[CarpediumOrBust]

<p>Cholla, I admit to being so curious about how your child is doing in his or her chosen school. He or she really sounds like a winner. Let us know, if you haven’t been scared away by the pettiness of the Zenkoan and Phantasmagoric, whom I certainly hope are not parents or, worse, someone who could be my son’s dorm-mate or classmate. I’m new here and hope that other posters evince greater tact and kindness.
.
Let us know. Please.</p>

[zenkoan]

<p>SWHarbor, you really don’t know how to quit. It’s obvious that “antidramaqueen” is another of your screen names (and in violation of this site’s policy, incidentally) because that screen name suddenly appeared not long after you started in with your nonsense about the Stanford EA thing, and by some amazing coincidence that “other” poster always pipes up to reiterate what you’ve just said. So give us all a break, please. And please give the rest of this site a break and don’t just come up with yet another screen name now that you’ve been outed. I don’t take any pleasure in this, but you asked for it. I feel pretty sorry for you that the situation bothers you enough to have to create some kind of alternate reality about it. And–as everyone who’s read my posts knows, I couldn’t be farther from bitter–I’m an extremely happy Stanford student interested in having accurate information in this forum to help prospective attendees. Buh-bye!</p>

[zenkoan]

<p>CarpeDium new member with 1 post? What a coincidence! LOLOLOLOL</p>

<p>And by the way, SWHarbor, that’s “Carpe Diem”–don’t mean to be petty but that’s the spelling. Latin, don’t you know. ; )</p>

[Kieran0696]

<p>She will do fine where ever she goes… Lol.</p>

[dapotatoman]

<p>WOW! That is a hoot. SWHarborfan does indeed appear to have created not two, but three alternate identities for this site in order to go around and make up stuff. HAHAHA LOL CATS!</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

I am flattered by your keeping track of my activity/claims to the extent that you hijack a thread devoted to something other than your easy ire and jealousy. … You both sound unhappy; I wish you well. It’s very small things that seem to occupy you, both.

</p>

<p>Excellent.</p>

<p>This whole thread is on bitter parents who post diatribes about Stanford because they’re angry that their little angel didn’t get in. So can our posts about your motives really be considered hijacking?</p>

<p>A search of the forum for your username brings up a handful of posts, all of which are railing on Stanford. Now who’s unhappy here?</p>

<p>You’re dissatisfied that your D didn’t get into Stanford and is at Tufts instead, and we’re the jealous ones?</p>

<p>And her rejection is such a small thing, yet you post time and time again railing on Stanford. And we’re the ones who are occupied with small things?</p>

<p>This was a good laugh. But it’s time to get over this bitterness and move on, SWHarborfan. I seriously doubt even your D cares as much as you apparently do.</p>

<p>zenkoan’s right about prospective students - that’s why we would call you out on this. Do you feel that it’s okay to mislead prospective students because you’re angry with Stanford? Just know that every time you try to do this, some regular on the Stanford forum will call you out on it. Dad2 is persistent and people know his posts by now. So it’s in your best interest, as well as the prospectives’, to just stop now.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>While this thread mostly rehashes issues that have been discussed on many other threads, there was one thing in the OP’s post that interested me. Is it, in fact, the case that a person who applies early to Stanford and is deferred, will not ever be placed on the waiting list? I took a look at the Stanford admissions info pages, and did not see anything explicitly saying this (while it does say that a deferred student will get a “final” decision by April 1, it says essentially the same thing about RD applicants).</p>

[Dad2]

<p>Yes: if deferred at S, will either accept or reject RD, not wait-list.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Then I will agree with the OP that this should be spelled out on the admissions info pages. Deciding whether and where to apply early is a strategic decision, and this information may well matter to some people.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>But it’s not some blind policy that Stanford instituted. It’s based on experience: they know that for someone who applied SCEA, and was deferred, and was reconsidered in the RD round, and was found not to be ‘sufficient,’ this person would have absolutely no chance of getting off the waitlist. Remember that in each round, Stanford has three piles: automatic admit (the best ones), automatic reject, and ‘reconsider’ - the latter of which is considered at least 3 times, oftenmore (by multiple people); even the automatic admits/rejects are considered at least twice for consistency, and Stanford has a committee system by which people vote for/against applicants. They then do the exact same thing for this deferred applicants in the RD round. By the end of that round, they’ve considered that person many, many times. And considering that very few get off the waitlist (what was it this year - 20?), it’s very unlikely that a deferred applicant would get in (after all <10% of those deferred get in at all). So I’m not surprised that Stanford has this policy; in SCEA, it has a strong commitment to giving as many students a final word as possibly (which is why 80% are outright rejected), and it seems likely they’d have the same commitment in the RD round.</p>

<p>Point is: in the end, it makes no difference to applicants whether they state this policy or not. It’s a “strategic decision” to apply early, but anyone whose first choice is Stanford is not going to decide “I won’t apply early because I might not get waitlisted if I’m deferred to the RD round.”</p>