<p>^ Agree. The closest thing to Stanford on the east coast is Duke (although the Duke campus is more spectacular). S. really isn’t a sunnier version of HYP.</p>
<p>Sorry, placido, but you’ve got it wrong. Stanford does have great athletics, but it is simultaneously an absolutely superb academic institution. And ivydoc, since Stanford is alone in its ability to offer both stellar academics and across-the-board top athletics, you’re right: we’re not just a sunnier version of HYP, but in a class by ourselves. Duke’s a fine place in its own right, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence to support this? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is really the bottom line at all colleges. Yes, Harvard and the other Ivies too. They recruit heavily. Did you know Harvard has the same proportion of intercollegiate athletes as Stanford? If wikipedia’s correct, also the largest # of intercollegiate varsity teams in the NCAA division 1 (supposedly 41 – Stanford has only 34)?</p>
<p>Remember that the Ivies can’t give scholarships for athletics, whereas Stanford can, so it likely recruits the best student-athletes (the ones who excel in both) first, and HYP have its “leftovers.” Not supported in numbers (none released), but if you’re going to base it on general bias, this is a better explanation.</p>
<p>This has been linked to before, but articles like this one specifically discuss how Stanford recruits from a much smaller pool of athletes, only the ones that meet high standards for admission. Interesting read:
[Stanford</a> Football Recruits Corner the ‘Smart’ Market - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html]Stanford”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html)</p>
<p>Name any ‘measure’ you have of top academics (say, professors, or class sizes), and I bet Stanford would beat most if not all the Ivies.</p>
<p>Duke is great, but it’s a whole “league” behind the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT.</p>
<p>Placido you have no idea what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>And what is Ivydoc even saying?</p>
<p>You only have one chance to apply to a school ED or REA. It’s a valuable commodity, and most of my friends, even the ones who were slightly below average for their school, got into their ED choices. i wouldn’t have applied REA to Stanford if I knew what OP posted about Stanford’s secret policies. I wish she had posted a few months earlier, if she was going to wait two years to complain, anyway.</p>
<p>That said, some people on this thread are ridiculous or just plain mean. It’s easy to play a sport every season, if you’re good. Most days you’re done by 5 or 5:30, and most kids haven’t started homework by then. I play sports year round, and it’s play, not work. It’s fun. Same with music. If you are good at an instrument, it’s easy to pick up another. And you can practice/take lessons at your convenience. music is a great second activity. Some kids at my school have over 1000 hours of service in a year. 200 hours a year isn’t even a Presidential Service Award gold medal. Also, summer activities count, and I got over 100 hours doing Habitat for Humanity. I don’t think OP’s kid has a hard life, sounds like she has a lot of fun. I also work 30 hours a week, 20 of them on the weekend, and I have a great social life. The more you do, the more you can do. OP’s kid is perfectly normal, and based on the tone of the posts, I’d rather have OP as a mom than SimpleLife, who sounds “simple” lazy and mean.</p>
<p>Also, the ivy’s are a long shot for anyone. OP didn’t say her kid deserved to get in. There’s no need to rub her face in the rejections. She gets it. Her point was that the kid from the same area who couldn’t get into any good schools got waitlisted and then admitted to Stanford. OP is bitter because her kid didn’t have a chance at the waitlist because Stanford isn’t open about their policies. If they’ll lie about that, what else do they lie about/hide?</p>
<p>Bottom line, OP is wrong about some of the things she thinks Stanford does, but is right about others. I’d personally admire Stanford if they declared no legacy advantage, but they haven’t done this, and so people are misled. Also, borderline candidate (almost everyone) is better off applying RD than ED. it’s true that most legacies get rejected, but a legacy with stats well above average can reasonably expect to get a boost, knowing that most legacy applicants have lower stats and are just hoping to benefit from legacy. Either way, there are lies out there. Bitterness is bad, but understandable.</p>
<p>^
</p>
<p>Despite the fact that the OP said she was writing for that reason, her post sounded kind of like this to me:</p>
<p>"My daughter didn’t get accepted to Stanford. Her qualifications were absolutely amazing. The less qualified African American girl she knows got in. The Jewish white girl with significantly lower stats got in, probably because the adcom is Jewish too. Otherwise, the Jewish girl didn’t have a chance anywhere but at our state flagship. We felt screwed. So we researched some more and discovered that men have a better chance than females, as do in-staters (we’re OOS).</p>
<p>In a nutshell, it seems that my daughter’s rejection had nothing to do with her or her application. Instead, she was screwed – by Stanford’s policies and by all the unfair advantages given to less-qualified people. Now I’m bitter. Am I wrong to be bitter?"</p>
<p>She did say, “If I am wrong to be bitter, please tell me why.”</p>
<p>I see that a reader might not understand the connection my thoughts had to the OP’s post. In answer to her question, “Am I wrong to be bitter, and why?”, the connection I was trying to make was this:</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons that a college can reject any applicant. Those reasons may well have nothing to do with unfair policies, or the color of her skin, her culture or faith, her state of residence, or her gender. It IS possible that she was rejected for other reasons that had something to do with her or her application. I presented some OTHER possible reasons for a deferral followed by a rejection. I was being genuine. I really think her resume looks … well, like too much, the way it’s stated. She would not have been at the top of my list. It’s just one person’s opinion. To me, a lot of kids these days are too pre-packaged, and a lot of parents are over invested. The OPs case struck me like one of those cases.</p>
<p>I did not intend to be mean, though I guess I can see why you may have “read me” that way. And that’s okay.</p>
<p>Have you ever considered the reason why colleges have interviews? It is to know more about the students interests, outgoingness and personality. Maybe the bitterness and entitlement oozed into the interview…While you think your child is the perfect student who deserves acceptance, at the end of the day less than 10% of people get accepted. If the college wanted to “diversify”, then it has good reason. Different people bring different experiences, perspectives and mindsets in different situations. Maybe your child, as a double legacy was not performing up to her full potential given your advantageous circumstances. </p>
<p>In life you will find that things are not only about the stats. To be successful you need to have the ability to communicate effectively, demonstrate traits of leadership and most of all at least appear humble at times. Even if you child is scoring 800s in every section of the sat and has a perfect GPA, he is not going to reach his full potential if he feels compelled to remind people of this at all times. No one likes a smart…(well you know), especially one who can only demonstrate his/her effectiveness on standardized tests. Even if your child is not one to verbally express entitlement, you are not the smartest people in the world. When they trust their instincts, humans are moderately good detectors of B.S. Maybe they saw through your child’s generic essay about piano playing, saving the earth or some stuff about sports.</p>
<p>Heck sometimes in life things won’t even be about your traits or grades. Lets say that the African-American child goes to Stanford, and your child go to a state college. They have the same stats. If they apply for the same jobs, guess who studies say will get the job many times over. Your child. Lets say your child and the previous child grow and work in the same place. The black child has a bachelors, your child has only a hs diploma (not saying your child will drop, only hypothetical). Guess who will be offered a higher salary? Your child…You may think you’re getting the short end of the stick with Ivy League admissions, but other groups have been getting the short end of the stick and continue to when it comes to fairness in the real world, especially in wages, even when they have equal or better qualifications. And I’m guessing when those couple of years of college pass, the big deal with ivies is employment and a great salary. Unfortunately, your child will have the advantage over many other kids in the real world, in most situations, for reasons inherent to her–regardless of whether or not she goes to an ivy…</p>
<p>Sorry guys but I have a problem calling a school that has 1/4 Asian population in a country that is probably 4% Asian, a discriminating school. Disproportionately more Asians apply for slots, and disproportionately more get rejected, and disproportionately more get accepted. That’s how math works…</p>
<p>Speaking of math–a 2000 dollar check to a school with a 15 billion dollar endowment ain’t gonna cut it. Aren’t you guys double legacy? Don’t have any more bribe money? Lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AND… Stanford does not have interviews (when OP’s daughter was applying)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disproportionate to what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your post is employing the “just world theorem” as the premise for your argument. In other words, you begin with the assumption that admissions to Stanford is a meritocratic process, and that the OP’s daughter wasn’t rejected in favor of an objectively inferior candidate.Then, to support this incorrect premise, you hypothesize about various reasons why OP’s daughter was rejected. In reality, you have no reason to state (even hypothetically) that the OP’s daughter wrote a “generic essay,” or that her interview went poorly, or that she wouldn’t bring diversity to Stanford. None of us know the qualifications of the candidates in question, and it’s pointless to speculate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Care to provide evidence showing that black and white people with the same educational background and the same jobs receive disparate salaries?
Other cases of supposed “pay gaps,” such as the 75 cents to the dollar cited by feminists, are cases of misconstrued statistics. Older women tend to have lower pay because they are statistically less likely to have a college degree than men of a comparable age. Conversely, the youngest age group of women in the “75 cents study” women earn more than 95 cents to the dollar (which is from almost a decade ago, btw). I would assume that the gap is closed by now, considering that women and men now earn college degrees at equal rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s actually not how math works. Consider UC Berkeley: after ending its Affirmative Action program, Asian enrollment went up from about 25% to about 45%. We can assume that other schools with competitive admissions processes would have similarly dramatic spikes in Asian admits if they were to adopt race-blind policies.
If a school privileges some students over other students based on race, this is by definition, racism.</p>
<p>Wow. I can see why you’re bitter. I hate how the idea of affirmative action has tainted the doctrines of equity and fairness in the admission process. I’m so tired of hearing about unqualified minorities getting into top notch schools. *Sighhh 
I sympathize with you</p>
<p>“If a school privileges some students over other students based on race, this is by definition, racism.”</p>
<p>Yes, this statement is true but probably not in the way you meant it. Racism is the belief that a race is inherently inferior or superior to others and is often interchanged with notions such as prejudice and bigotry. Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism with the perpetuation of the lie that minorities are somehow innately incapable to gaining admission to selective colleges based on their own merit and require some advantage over other races. Consequently, this undermines the efforts of minority students who have worked hard and are perfectly qualified for the institution of their choice. Affirmative Action is one of the biggest reason that successful minorities in America get less respect than successful members of other races with the perpetuation of such stigmas.</p>
<p>Calm down, guys. It isn’t actually racism. It’s racial discrimination that seems unfair to those on the wrong end of it, but since it’s not driven by supremacism but by a genuine drive for fairness it isn’t racism. It may be unfair, but it’s not malicious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should have written “institutional racism” instead of “racism” in my original comment. Then my definition would be correct. Also, I agree that some of the justifications for Affirmative Action are based in racist stereotypes. However, most schools now state that their AA programs are meant to create a “diverse stuent body,” as opposed to being an experiment in social engineering. </p>
<p>Of course, the latter reason is inane, because diversity based on skin color is superficial. Diversity of talents, beliefs, socioeconomic classes and cultures all seem relevant to building the best incoming class possible, but these traits are found equally in people of all races.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Hell is full of good intentions, but heaven is full of good acts.”</p>
<p>In other words, I don’t care if admissions committees have a “genuine drive for fairness,” because the net result of their policies is unfair. If they are truly dedicated to equality, they will no longer use race to discriminate against certain students and privilege others.</p>
<p>Whether or not there is a full-blown affirmative action policy at a given school, one can never assume that they (or their child) did not get a coveted acceptance because a lesser-qualifed URM “took their spot.” </p>
<p>First, nobody really knows whether the URM actually is “less-qualified.” A school’s qualifications are very subjective, and you are not privy to the whole package (recs, essays, personal stories, the school’s or department’s needs, etc) no matter what stats are posted here on CC.</p>
<p>And second, even if the URM WAS accepted BECAUSE he/she’s a URM (with “acceptable-enough” stats), that’s not to say that the given school deemed you (your child) acceptance-worthy. In other words, even if the URM DID take somebody’s proverbial “spot,” who’s to say it was YOUR spot? You (your child) may have been waitlisted or rejected totally on your own merits.</p>
<p>On those grounds alone, I would say that it’s not appropriate (and never helpful) to be bitter. The school gets to choose who it wants in its upcoming classes. They are well-equipped to make good choices for themselves. If they were wrong about you (your child), then it’s their loss, right? There are LOTS of great schools out there, and everybody should be able to be happy at any number of them.</p>
<p>SimpleLife, your argument is simply: my school, right or wrong. what about the fact that Stanford is apparently deliberately misleading on at least two issues – legacy and treatment of REA applications. Bitterness doesn’t arise from rejection, but from being misled and deceived. Change never takes place unless people speak up.</p>
<p>Just what we need, another AA thread!! :/</p>
<p>
Quite the contrary. Though its stated intention is to increase diversity, an admissions process with affirmative action is more fair/equal/just than one without. I’ve already explained this in another thread, so I’d rather not spend thirty minutes typing it out all again, but I can refer you to said posts if you so desire. </p>
<p>
I’m sorry this just isn’t true. Skin color still matters in America. Whether you want to believe that or not, it still does.</p>
<p>The only thing you can do at this point is to STOP donating to a university that discriminates on the basis of race. </p>
<p>Send a contribution to a color-blind college. Then send a copy of that check to Stanford with a note telling them why they won’t be getting any more donations from you.</p>
<p>@OP, same situation happened to me. I know I was qualified; I’m up for a full scholarship at USC. As a result of my Stanford rejection, my relatives stopped donating to Stanford (after having been loyal, significant donors for 30+ years).</p>
<p>^^^^whyportia, I’m not sure what you mean by “my school, right or wrong.” It’s not my school. And I don’t have kids there.</p>
<p>I just don’t agree with most of the arguments that have been put forth.</p>
<p>Regarding the two you just brought up: legacy and treatment of REA apps, I likewise disagree.</p>
<p>To me, it makes perfect sense that Stanford would not want to review an applicant’s file for a 3rd time to make an admissions decision. I know that Stanford is NOT the only school with that policy. We all know how inundated they are with applications. If they review a student’s REA file and decide he/she didn’t make the cut for acceptance, and then they defer that student … well, that student has a 2nd chance at review. If they review that file again, along with all the other RD files, and decide they still don’t want to accept that student … well, so be it. They’ve reviewed her file twice, and they decided they’d rather fill their class with someone else. Nothing wrong with that. That’s their job.</p>
<p>What possible good would it do to review that same file a 3rd time when they have so many other good applicants? I think it’s a reasonable, rational, and smart business choice. They’re swamped. It’s not reasonable to waste any more resources on a student that has already been reviewed twice without acceptance. (I realize a large part of OP’s complaint is that Stanford should have told her that up front … but who says we’re entitled to complete transparency about such things? Very few colleges are transparent with admissions decisions.)</p>
<p>Regarding legacy: As others have pointed out, legacy gives a slight boost to a small percentage of applicants. The majority of legacy applicants do NOT experience the boost. OP’s daughter fell into the majority. What’s to be bitter about? Not a happy thing – but not exactly misled or deceived.</p>
<p>Regarding being misled or deceived: Stanford is as upfront about their admissions process as the majority of schools out there. They don’t have to reveal their hand. It’s always really nice when a school is relatively transparent (MIT), but it’s not required, and we’re not all entitled to it, and Stanford is not, imo, any less transparent than most.</p>
<p>The legacy policy is what it is – no deception. It’s spelled out. Just because she wasn’t accepted as a legacy doesn’t mean she was deceived.</p>
<p>The “2 times, you’re out” policy: well, that IS interesting to know. And it might be helpful for borderline candidates … but would a borderline candidate make it past RD admission in the first place? Probably not. If they do make it through, and onto the waitlist, would they make it off the waitlist after the 2nd review? Probably not. “You pay your monies, and you take your chances.” Everybody gets at most 2 swipes at the process – REA and RD, or RD and waitlist. You get to take your pick. A rejection under either method does not mean you picked the wrong method – you might have been rejected either way – imo, that does not equate to deceptive practices.</p>
<p>I understand being sad about all this. I understand disappointment. But I don’t really understand the bitterness (except for the fact that it seems to be coming from a misguided sense of entitlement), because I don’t think she got screwed.</p>