<p>Seriously, with all that the OP claims her daughter did … </p>
<p>Well, if I were an admissions officer, I would probably see that whole package in a negative light. I don’t know if anybody else has said this yet or not. If not, I’m kind of surprised.</p>
<p>Three sports teams (the captain of all 3 and a lot of travelling for one), plus 200 community service hours a year (almost 4 a week, if it was over 4 years), plus the president of a major school-community organization, plus several other clubs, AND the piano and cello at a very high level??? (Oh, that’s right … AND held jobs in retail and tutoring.)</p>
<p>It’s just NOT normal. (I did see someone else’s post that lots of kids who apply to these elite colleges have similar EC resumes. I totally disagree. I have seen very few who claim this much stuff.)</p>
<p>If I were admissions (as the parent and adult that I am), I would think one of several things. This kid is:
Very likely way too stressed out.
Exaggerating her accomplishments, or even lying.
Succumbing to parental pressure.
Jack of all trades; master of none.
Not able to relax or find down-time – which is not a good thing in a challenging environment.
Possibly has no social life.
Is unable to simply be herself. Possibly unable to feel comfortable as simply herself.
Etc.</p>
<p>That resume does not sound good to me. It sounds a little sick. I actually feel a little sad when I read it.</p>
<p>In response to the question posed in the subject line, yes, you are wrong to be bitter. I just don’t see the great injustice that you seem to feel was perpetrated upon your daughter. I think you’ve lost perspective. For your sake and your daughter’s sake, please move forward. I’m glad she’s happy where she’s at.</p>
<p>@simplelife
I’ve come to know some pretty crazy workaholics, most of them end up immensely successful in college and will most likely continue doing so after they graduate. </p>
<p>I’ve known people like that personally, and I know the scheduled is workable, as insane as it sounds.</p>
<p>There are people who can put amazingly little effort into things while achieving far greater goals in absolute terms than others. Being athletic usually means you can play more than one sport pretty well. So if you consider that usually many elite high school athletes compete in multiple sports during off seasons to keep themselves in shape, so its not that strange to be the captain of 2 or even 3 teams, especially if they are from a small school.</p>
<p>What’s sad is that people have to make excuses and bring down these people by claiming to be the arbiter of human nature in order to protect their own ego. </p>
<p>Of course its not “normal”, but if normality is what you aspire to, then I don’t think you should be applying to any of the elite schools considering the price tags. </p>
<p>In defense of op, if you were in her place, wouldn’t you become cynical of the process after your son/daughter didn’t get into their dream school (and their 2nd and 3rd choice schools) despite all that hard work?</p>
<p>The point is, discussing this 2 or however many years down the road is highly unnecessary. Why is it that important? All I can see is you (the OP) presenting yourself as a helicopter parent. If your child winded up being fine at whichever school he/she did end up at, then why are you complaining now? Do you need reassurance about the whole situation, that your child wasn’t a failure or something just because she was rejected from Stanford?</p>
<p>@freezingbeast, I do realize that the 3 sports thing, by itself, is not unusual or difficult to accomplish. I did the same many years ago when I was in high school. It’s the 3 sports, and the piano and cello “at a very high level,” and the 2 jobs, and the 800 hours of community service, and the several other clubs, and the president of a “major” organization that give me pause.</p>
<p>I have some musician children, and I can tell you that playing at “a very high level” requires a heck of a time commitment. We have bunches of friends on elite, travelling soccer teams – also a heck of a time commitment. 800 hours of community service? If that’s over 4 years, it’s still almost 4 hours a week. And so on.</p>
<p>No need to protect my own ego. Happy with my own success and my kids’ success. Attended an elite college myself. Also not claiming to be any “arbiter of human nature.” Just stating my own opinion … which is that this girl’s story is sad to me, if true. </p>
<p>AND stating that, if I were an admissions officer, she would not rise to the top of the pile. Spread too thin. Amongst other things. </p>
<p>A lot of people on CC seem to think that colleges want all these “superstars” who are great at everything under the sun. I think that colleges want normal, human people who can interact with other human people, and who are passionate about, and accomplished in, the things they undertake. Her resume is not normal. “Being normal” and “aspiring to normality” are two different things.</p>
<p>Whether or not it’s “normal” or whether normality is a goal or not, the OP’s daughter probably seemed like a “serial joiner”–doing stuff just to get into college.</p>
<p>I think the whole “passion” thing is overrated: how many 17-18 years olds (except maybe Steve Jobs or Yo Yo Ma once upon a time) really have an overriding passion that is going to change the course of destiny? With all the “passion” in the incoming Harvard/Stanford classes (just to single out two examples), its amazing how many of these artistic/social activist/poets end up becoming financiers and portfolio or hedge fund managers (god bless 'em). Let’s not kid ourselves here.</p>
<p>@Dad2: You’re extremely incorrect from my POV. Yes, most students these days don’t have a real “passion” (I absolutely hate that word), but that’s simply because they haven’t found themselves yet. However, they may also try to pursue an interest that they believe to be a passion as well, all in the hopes of, once again, finding themselves.</p>
<p>For me, I’ve already found my “passion.” Technology. You might think I’m kidding myself, but it’s hard to disagree with somebody who: grew up with computers, played video games as a young child, and everything else under the sun in regards to technology. Even now, I can’t go a day without learning which new gadgets are being patented or unveiled. The last couple years I’ve begun to learn programming. Technology is easily my favorite “hobby.” My life consists of that (and studies of course).</p>
<p>That’s how it works. Some students can identify, some can’t. It’s taken my sister roughly 5 years after high school to decide what she wants to do with her life; heck, she’s still trying to figure it out. She just never really narrowed down her main interests into a singular “passion.”</p>
<p>As per that statement above, I’ve seen many students with that issue as well. Just like the applicant mentioned in the OP. Too many “interests” or activities to really satisfy the slot in life of “passion.”</p>
<p>You can be extremely good at something and still not be impassioned for it.</p>
Besides phantasma already explaining his intention, if you look at factors of non-race that would be considered for an applicant whom has grown up in a lower-level neighborhood, we see that application essay and rank in the school are quite important. Much more so than race itself. One whom is from a lesser school, but has the ability to compete against those from upper class families can be posited that they have a rank within such a tough school that is high in comparison to the number of peers in their class. This may also be coupled with a GPA that is above average, say an unweighted 3.4 and a weighted 4.0 whereas, in viewing the records of past students, the average unweighted for the school would be approximately 2.5 and weighted may be 3.0. This would present a view of high rank and GPA as they may not take such things at absolute value, but rather as a comparison to peers. This would serve to likely trump race when an application is being considered. In terms of essay, because they may likely have a more compelling experience due to their environment and the fact that in being a high-ranking student from a lower-class school they are able to put pen to paper in a fluid/coherent fashion, this too serves to place them above simple grading of an application significantly by race judging by the value Stanford places on these merits compared to race. In terms of nonacademic, this show of achievement in a lower end school adds to personality of the individual and also the ability, both of which are viewed as “very important”. Essentially, in being a relatively high-achieving student from a low school and neighborhood, you have shown both your ability to overcome odds and the character trait or perseverance. In terms of extracurriculars, you may have likely had little to put into this category as you presented with less opportunity, however, you may have been presented with an outlet to pursue sports in terms of a league (many local leagues are had in poorer urban environments where the school cannot exactly provide its students). However, assuming ECs suffered, there is still the outlet for character and ability. Then there are lesser factors that are “considered” as well that may have placed a minority in besides race, mainly work and volunteer. In lower-class residencies, many times a child has to work to better provide for the family and in terms of volunteer, there exists many community outreach opportunities. I am merely posing other considerations that are likely to be had from a lower income minority as to why they had been accepted into Stanford. You may very well argue that not every applicant from a lower socioeconomic standing has a good GPA or ranking, but do not ignore the essays telling of a trying experience and the character/ability of the person. If they are an incredible athlete whom became so in an environment where the local economy was less apt to support their ventures (not the opposite of a local leagues being provided for) it may seem more impressive than an athlete who achieved roughly the same achievements, but in an upperclass neighborhood. All the above mentioned factors that may be found in a person of lower economic standing (save work and volunteer work) are all far greater in consideration than race. Race is considered, but as you said, to what degree “considered” means is subjective and likely so to each of those whom review the application. </p>
<p>
The argument can also be posited that in light of illegality, would Stanford and other top elite institutions risk such an admissions process in terms of race consideration where there university can be sued and possible lose grants/funding from both government and benefactors? There is also the issue that it is a panel whom reviews the application and a disgruntled employee can very well rattle off this information if they wish to harm the school, not to mention they may not want to upset those reviewers whom do not agree with affirmative action and/or attempt to be law-abiding citizens. From what I have been told, the panel is not instructed to hold quotas at top schools, though race is “looked at”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems to rest on the fallacy of correlation=causation. First of all, I believe Hispanic is grouped being separate from “ethnic identity” in the application process where both a shared of whites, blacks, and Asians view themselves as Hispanic. The same goes with the actual demographics of the U.S. [Demographics</a> of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia”>Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia) You are right in your distribution of being non-Hispanic white, but I am not sure of those whom you group as “black” and that which you group as “Hispanic” is incorrect. There is also the issue of those who place “no identity” on the application. B2: [Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2010-2011](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#enrollment]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#enrollment) </p>
<p>If you mean to say that is the definition of URM, I believe you hold a mistaken definition of the term: [underrepresented</a> - definition of underrepresented by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.](<a href=“Underrepresented]underrepresented - definition of underrepresented]underrepresented by The Free Dictionary”>Underrepresented - definition of underrepresented by The Free Dictionary) However, if you mean why they have become URM, then I agree, to an extent. URM can also include Asian at some universities, so therefore being underachieving is not the sole basis for being a URM at university, but also the proportion of applicants who themselves apply to the university. At elite institutions, it is more so that former than the latter. Now, aside from all these nit-pickings, you say that because the top tier is principally comprised of those, that must mean that to have a rough representation of the American population, they must take on the URMs of a weaker tier. You are using a correlation of those whom are considered “top tier” (which is an operational definition as again, there are the merits of character, essays, and ability rather than being seen in an absolute view in terms of academics, which is what is often prescribed as “top tier” and admissions officers do not necessarily view that as such) and an assumed lack of numbers in “top tier” to be the basis as to why they MUST take URMs of a lower tier. Is it not possible that the top tier applications themselves are roughly 20% Hispanic and Black and 80% White and Asian? It is very much possible that the volume of applications they receive from Blacks and Hispanics have a fair percentage of “top tier” applications on the basis of academics, but not as much of a volume as Whites and Asians. Hence, the lesser proportion of the student population being of the group Hispanic or Black. Simple statistics, if more of a group is placed into a place, the more likely a greater percentage of that group will be selected. In terms of top tier applicants, those whom are higher achieving (academically/ECs) will be better represented than those whom are not, but notice how there are greater percentages of them selected? In terms of those from “lower tiers”, while I will agree URMs comprise a greater percentage in those areas than compared to their percentages in top tier applications, we do not see that there are more of them selected of the percentage. This means that stating most applicants of URMS being of a lower tier (and more specifically academically lower tier) is a quick claim to causation as to how they fill their representations. There is also the case that being of a lower income place, they may be discouraged from applying in the same percentages that the upper class URMs apply, but those whom are lower class, but have relatively high achievements compared to peers applying in fair numbers. The top tier lower class applicants and the top tier upperclass applicants apply in such numbers that in order to achieve the number of acceptances (306 and 128) of URMs, they do not necessarily have to scour lower tiers. However, again, “top tier” and “lower tier” is high subjective as there are some who describe top tier in terms of academics, but also top tier in terms of ability/character/environment. There are others whom take a more holistic view of the applicants achievements. I wrongly committed a strawman assuming you mean “top tier” in academics, but I meant to illustrate a point of subjectivity. </p>
<p>
I have to say that regional differences as well apply heavily. There are places with a dearth of URM populations in top public schools, but this area has also had a dearth of minorities to begin with. You cannot ignore a dearth of Asians in certain top public schools despite being high-acheiving, but also having a dearth of Asians in the area to begin with. Can I ask for a list of low ratios in comparsion between areas with higher proportions than their top, public schools? In my experience, top, public insititutions have a rather representative population of both their area and nation, some even having greater representation of minorities than the nation, whereas private schools such as Stanford, the proportions are less than the national percentage of URMS (though very roughly equal), but overrepresent Asians nationally and state-wise: [Stanford</a> University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Stanford University - Wikipedia”>Stanford University - Wikipedia) / [Demographics</a> of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Demographics of California - Wikipedia”>Demographics of California - Wikipedia).
I know why more Asians are accepted than the proportions, as they are typically high-acheiving. However, just as there are greater percentages of URM nation-wise (state-wise too in terms of Hispanics) due to the percentages of those whom may apply being lesser than those in the state and nation, this can be interpreted to mean that this lesser of a percentage is more apt to be met by top tier individuals. Many may be snatched up by elite insititutions as they have competative applications, but in lower numbers than Asians and Whites are snatched up by elite insititutions. There are more Asians and Whites who graduate and apply to elite/top public instititutions. They too are snatched up if they offer a competitive application, but this also means greater numbers are not whereas for URMS, less are snatched up by these insititutions, but the lower numbers also means less are left out of such insititutions concerning those who applied. I also believe Whites and Asians share a greater percentage of their population applying to such institutions than URMs, and the percentages reflect the greater percentages of numbers. </p>
<p>
Social economic status can explain part of the admission rates, but so too can the number of applicants applying and exactly whom is applying. It is not really disproportionate in terms of URMs being overrepresented and again their is the issue that many top tier applicants from URMs do come from the upperclass, but there also are the top tier from the lower class who provide a good number of top tiers and whom there are more URMs in this class than upper class. The stats do not align, but they do not show an overrepresentation of URMs, rather they show underrepresentation and an overrepresentation of Asians. Whites are truly the only ones whom have a lower proportion of themselves in an institute like Stanford compared to national and state percentages despite not being an URM. In terms of ghettos, this is more so a hasty generalization as not every lower class area is necessarily a crime-ridden ghetto. Many times a lower middle class area is grouped as lower income area, though they are seemingly absent of any crime/“true poverty”/etc. There are also notably low income areas, but again, are not crime ridden/borderline poverty. Many kids from this area do apply to top institutions. In terms of their stats, there are different definitions as to what “top tier” means. Hell, a White athlete from an affluent neighborhood, but with slightly above average scores and grades in comparison to peers and average scores and average scores compared to other applicants to this school can very well be viewed as top tier if he has truly impressive ECs (say being state champion for track 2 times and coming close 2 other other times) and relatively good essays. The same would be applied to a Black athlete in a similar situation. However, if they both came from lower-income areas and were not at phenomenal athletes, they would likely be considered the same in terms of competitiveness with race being a negligible factor. As an admissions officer told me. Race does count, but not really. </p>
<p>I understand we are basing our arguments on assumptions, but who is to say that we cannot apply logic to our assumptions as you and phantasma have been doing, right?</p>
<p>That’s true, but when we don’t have much data, we have to be very careful about what conclusions we make. Your post is saying what I was too lazy to explain–exactly where the logical/statistical fallacies existed in freezingbeast’s argument. There are some things that we can deduce using logic and more general data, like the US population. Like the fact that Asians make up less than 5% of the population but typically 20-25% of the student body at Stanford–which suggests that Stanford gets lots of Asian applicants. But not necessarily; they could just be getting a proportion of Asian applicants lower than 25% of the applicant pool, but they tend to be more qualified, etc. The same sort of logic is difficult to apply to other races for the same reason: proportion of the US population vs. proportion of the student body does not tell you what the proportion of the applicants are. And it says absolutely nothing about the qualifications or socioeconomic background of the people.</p>
<p>@Dad2</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re misunderstanding the “passion” that Stanford’s looking for. They don’t expect these 17-18 year olds to know what they want to study, or what their major will be; in fact, they fully expect you to change it from what you put down on the application. But they do want to see you engaged in something that you seem to really care about. Let’s face it: most applicants have a laundry list of ECs and can’t speak about them in an engaging way, which suggests that they just joined them to get into college. When a student seems to really love what they’re doing, whatever it is, and shows that “intellectual vitality,” it’s a real boost for their application–nay, it’s a requirement for their admission. Stanford doesn’t call it “passion”–it’s the “vitality” (the life and vibrancy) of the applicant in what he/she does. Their commitments become obvious in the essays.</p>
<p>That said, I think you also underestimate how often these students do know what their passions are. I discovered mine when I was 13, followed it through high school, did it throughout college, and am soon starting a PhD program in it. I’m not typical, but I don’t think I’m quite “atypical” either.</p>
<p>OP –
Glad your D had so many wonderful acceptances to choose from. I hope I will not come across as brutal as some others on this thread, but … as stated by a few others, it may just have been that there was nothing in your child’s application that made her stand out from all of the other outstanding and brilliant candidates to HPS. Her essays may not have made the leap from extremely well written and interesting to memorable. Same for her recs. </p>
<p>Clearly, she worked hard in HS and had many amazing accomplishments. The problem is that there are so many who apply to the top tier schools with similar backgrounds.</p>
<p>Just finding it interesting that, in spite of great stats and accomplishments, she was not outright admitted to H, S or P.</p>
<p>How many times did she take the SAT? Although there are some on the admitted threads who took the SAT many times, Stanford seems to be one of those schools less concerned with stratosphere SAT scores. There are some of the opinion that Stanford actually shows some admissions preference to kids who “settle” with 1 sitting, mid-700 scores.</p>
<p>Did you use an outside college counselor? If so…maybe the admissions staff felt she was too well packaged.</p>
I may have missed something, but exactly how do they account for race-blind admissions?
In terms of the convergence of income, doesn’t it deal with the projected income increase in 2025? Does the convergence necessarily mean equal income for these charts seem to illustrate that in 2025, blacks will have an income increase, but not necessarily an equal income. In accordance with this, the abolition of AA may still lead to a disproportionate number of Blacks because socioeconomic status still would have a degree, despite the holdings of a status quo. In terms of the modern day where status quotas have been rendered illegal, it may serve to show that socioeconomic status is of a much larger consideration than race itself as while one may consider race/ethnicity, they cannot use it as a point that MUST be met, only individual considerations, though socioeconomic individuality both reveals greater traits in a person than race AND allows for diversity both in terms of exposing students to those of different background and races. Though I am curious, were the quotas only for URMs, or did it include Whites and Asians as well? If Asians held a quota, this would mean Whites did as well and possibly a much larger status quo which could be seen to discriminate against URMs as there may have been competitive applicants (from mainly lower class who showed perseverance through strife) not considered as the quota for URMs had been met.</p>
<p>You’re missing the point of the paper and my posts.</p>
<p>And btw, are you talking about Racial preference? or race-blind social-economic AA?</p>
<p>I am all for social economic based race-blind AA.
You can try to red herring it by asking how to enforce it, so I would suggest taking a look at how the public schools conduct their admissions.</p>
<p>My post that you quoted were merely the response to phatasmagoric’s earlier statement that “Stanford does not mention race in their admissions policies”. So I believe you’re taking my words out of context. The questions I asked were purely hypothetical, and yes, the data I cited were weak at best, but that was the only data available.</p>
<p>Ultimately, Race matters to top privates, we can all agree on that. Verbose debates on an internet forum will not change reality. Perhaps one day the data will be leaked or released, and then we can truly understand how much it matters. But till then, such wild extrapolations based on population sizes are moot points.</p>
<p>For the record, that’s not what I said. Specifically, I posted the reply to the FAQ that asked about AA, and went on to say that “there is no mention of race, ethnicity, or skin color” (which is true, but the point being that even in discussions of AA, Stanford emphasizes socioeconomic factors over race). Before that, I had already said that race was a consideration, and later pointed to the portion of the common data set where all of Stanford’s admissions factors are ‘rated’ (and obviously where race/ethnicity is ‘considered’).</p>
<p>I actually believe you misinterpreted my response. My response mentioned that considering that phantasma had already clarified his point in that he never said race is not taken into consideration, I then responded to your offered possibilities as to why race matters in the degree that you offered. It was not an argument for or against AA, simply presenting rebuttals or other hypothetical in response to the degree race is taken into the consideration you offered. Such as your rhetorical questions of “why does socioeconomic background not account for the disproportionate representation of URMs?” In regards to the paper, it was presented to phantasma to show the data supporting your aforementioned rhetorical question, correct? I questioned the paper as to how exactly they measured that and the fact it was based on a policy now made illegal. </p>
<p>In regards to the paper or my first response? In regards to the paper, it mentioned race-blind admissions and I was questioning whether this race-blind was based on other schools or what they assume a status-quo school would have as their percentages if it had race-blind. Also, this was specifically Berkeley, correct? If you meant my first response, I was simply viewing how heavily racial preferences may be weighed. </p>
<p>This may have stemmed from a misinterpretation of my points, but I did not mean to, in any way, argue your preferences nor the morality of such AA. I did unfairly accuse your categorization of top tier as being academic-based, but I apologized and stated that I simply meant to present how people hold different views of what it is to be top tier. </p>
<p>I understand your post was meant to, first and foremost, address phantasma’s comment (that he/she clarified) and you raised hypothetical questions and provided some data. I merely analyzed the data you admitted was weak and provided hypothetical answers in response to the factors you have included in the hypothetical questions. </p>
<p>Precisely. Population size does not provide an fair and adequate way to measure the degree of racial preference in universities.</p>
Haha but what school’s admission office is “completely honest”? At a majority of schools, if not every school, there’s a lot that goes on behind closed doors that the university/college would prefer to keep under wraps. The OP’s situation is nothing compared to some of the stuff that’s happened before, whether at Stanford or other institutions.</p>
<p>1- college admissions is an opaque process; we do not have all the information about what goes into a college decision and schools have no interest or responsibility to tell us in advance what all its decision rules for admissions are</p>
<p>2- that lack of information causes great anxiety as we try to ensure that our kids getg the widest possible opportunities for life</p>
<p>3- we overrate a specific institution’s importance for getting our kids the widest opportunities in life, believing that the HYPed schools can be accurately considered “the best” w/o regard to their fit with a kid (seems to me that OP’s case is a bit different)</p>
<p>4- those HYPed schools routinely say no to extremely talented kids; e.g. 80% of valedictorians and those with 800s in English SAT and 3/4 of those with 800s in Math; MOST well qualified kids are denied admissions to HYPed schools</p>
<p>My cut is that the problem revolves back to our irrational push toward HYPed schools, as if admissions into them is magical and admissions into almost all others is, well, going to college; there is no such thing as “the best” schools independent of the student, just as there is no “best car” independent of the driver; we need to stop our white knuckled behavior and look more to what’s best for our kids</p>
<p>Look, guys, Stanford is really mostly about athletics. It is wholly transparent on this point. If you are a State or Nationally-ranked athlete, you have a huge, huge, huge, huge kick in Stanford admissions. They can say all they want about the variety of things they consider, but athletic prowess is about 75% of the weighting. Of course, there are exceptions, but if you’re talking probabilities of acceptance, your probability is highly favorably weighted by sports – this is really the bottom line at Stanford. Really.</p>