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

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
81

<p>How come no one complains about legacies? Blacks and kids and kids from geographically diverse areas don’t have acceptance rates at ivy leagues anywhere close to the 40 to 60% that legacies have. Blacks and the kids from the Dakotas undoubtedly make no more than 10% of the population at most of these schools–but who is always being complained about? I’m sick of hearing people say that they were rejected for an inferior candidate. If that helps you sleep at night, then fine…but know that there is more to people than whats on paper and what defines you as a person is not necessarily the events of your life, but how you respond to them. </p>

<p>If you think that most legacies are qualified at the time of application as opposed to particular candidates, please go here:
[Gawker</a> — Today’s gossip is tomorrow’s news](<a href=“Gawker”>Gawker)</p>

<p>JFK would obviously reach great heights, but there obviously was no indication of this on the application. Why don’t we challenge when the most socioeconomically advantaged people in are society our allowed to reach great heights, when they don’t have the credentials?</p>

82

<p>^Wow what an ignorant post. I don’t even see how the JFK thing supports your point. You brought it up to discredit the notion that “most legacies are qualified” but this is just one example. Even if he were not qualified, I doubt his legacy status was the biggest thing he had going for him (he was very wealthy and in a very connected family on both sides). He also attended Princeton, where he didn’t have legacy status. Next time maybe do some research first and you won’t look so smug. </p>

<p>

Not true. There was a very good indication that he would carry on his relatives’ legacies and become either a prominent politician or businessman. He had connections. He had money. He had good marks in English and History. </p>

<p>You can’t rewrite history. You also can’t generalize from one historical example. You’re not going to get away with that here.</p>

83

<p>Without generalization, this thread is about entitlements. OP believes her kid is entitled, the nemesis darker skinned classmate feels the same way. Class dismissed.</p>

84

<p>^lol. Pretty good. Very concise. The OP definitely believes her kid is entitled. But where is there a nemesis darker skinned classmate in this thread who feels the same way? Did I miss this dark stranger?</p>

<p>Otherwise, I agree. That’s EXACTLY what this thread is about – entitlement. And I guess that’s why I got involved. I tend to bristle at entitlement.</p>

85

<p>^You have your agenda, and applaud even the most ridiculous and baseless remarks that tend to support your irrationally mean attack. I don’t get it? Do you know her? Or are you just jealous of the profile she presented. Never did she say she felt entitled to get into Stanford. She specifically said she never even questioned the decision until a truly marginal candidate got admitted from the waiting list. You’re entitled to be mean and petty, stupid and narrow, but don’t abuse the privilege.</p>

86

<p>Even I agree that the parent feels as though their child deserved a place in Stanford’s incoming class that year. But guess what? I bet 20,000 (random number) other parents felt the same way for their children that year. Yeah, s/he wasn’t the only parent whose child was rejected that year. Also, it’s the OP’s undertone in general.</p>

<p>Life just goes on. Can the OP not accept that? There’s any number of reasons that could have been the deciding factor for the child. We’ll never know, as Stanford’s admissions policy is opaque.</p>

<p>My 2 cents. I won’t get involved further.</p>

87

<p>waaah waaaah waaaah, somebody call the waahmbulance!</p>

88

<p>It is all so crazy. We spend hours on threads trying to decipher the decisions of these admissions committees.
They have so much “power”- it is insane in many ways!
It can seem dangerous that such a small number of people do have so much impact on the direction of so many lives… And that their actions are basically hidden. We buy into the system anyway, because we believe in the prestige of being accepted by these people, which is somewhat absurd, and the growing number and high quality of the candidates just makes it all keep happening!
To really stop the system from continuing as is, we would need to stop APPLYING to the schools who operate this way…
I do fear that the huge number of applications at this point may make it severely challenging for these Ad Comms to be “fair” and “thorough”- it would seem very tempting to use cut-offs and quota-type systems if not just a lot of piles to help get through the huge deluge these days…
To me, the issue is about the fact that we are all people, even the admissions officers, who no doubt, even if they are trying to be totally fair and unbiased, must certainly as individuals and as a group (by judging candidates, comparing them to one another, by creating what they consider an “ideal” class, by labeling one candidate as privileged and another as under-privileged, etc.), evince bias each step of the way.
The actual techniques that are used each year by each school in reviewing applications automatically set up the primary biases (euphemistically called criteria) unique to that school.
Do they compare all the students from the same school? same geographic regions? do they break them into smaller categories (socio-econ, gender, race, interests, major…)? Do they set a limit on the numbers accepted for each category? Which attributes are most important (GPA, rank, scores, essay, EC’s?), and are these ranked the same for all the “types” of candidate? Do they try to create a class that mirrors the applicant pool or the nation or the resources offered at the school, or just someone’s utopian idea of what a class should be? How do they screen for personal biases (either way!) about, say, wealthy kids or Asian kids or URM’s or blondes?!
At what point does a candidate get reviewed by an individual admissions officer? by other individuals? by the group?
All these methods, not known by the applicants, vary by school, and probably change year to year. And we can only speculate about what really goes on.
I am amazed at how little info we really get from the Admissions Offices, and that there are not more leaks.
Please help me- are the methods used at the public schools openly described? Perhaps this opacity is just a private school phenomenon…
I guess transparency (HONEST transparency) as to the exact methods and numbers used would be most appreciated- as it is, it is a “secret formula” which can feel unfair and feel subject to abuses of power and bias, even unintended.
At least for the private schools, the methods used are a given institution’s choice in how to build a class NOT based on pure merit, and with “merit” defined subjectively.
We have so many great colleges and universities- and even more kids who qualify for them. Amen to that. I just wish the system of getting a spot somewhere did not feel like such a game.</p>

89

<p>Anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in any of the ensuing responses. The majority of it is based off memory, and even if I remembered correctly the process may have been modified since I learned about it.</p>

<p>As far as Stanford goes…</p>

<p>

No.</p>

<p>

Yes.</p>

<p>

Only athletes get a different process.</p>

<p>

No.</p>

<p>

I don’t know the answer to the first part. Stanford has a list of things that are “important”, “considered”, and “not considered” (or something of that sort) but that’s as specific as it gets. For a particular category (academic, HS, test, etc.) the ranking (small integers, 1 being the best) given to each applicant is the same for all candidates. </p>

<p>

No. Somewhat. Somewhat. Yes. </p>

<p>

By having extensive training beforehand in addition to multiple readers for every applicant. </p>

<p>

All applicants get reviewed by at least two readers. </p>

<p>

Borderline cases are presented to the committee to be evaluated and voted upon. </p>

<p>Most of this stuff can be found with a simple Google search. I’m sure other schools have information available as well, you just have to know where to look. In Stanford’s case, Faculty Senate minutes are very valuable for instance. Though outdated, there has also been a lot of investigative journalism into college admissions. It’s not really as mysterious as you make it seem.</p>

90

<p>

</p>

<p>lol, portia. It seems to be difficult for you to accept that I disagree with you. Ironically, between the two of us (perhaps between the whole slew of responders on this thread), you’re the only one who has been “intentionally mean” or made any sort of irrationally personal attacks. Just this comment alone is mean and petty, stupid and narrow.</p>

<p>I don’t have any agenda, whyportia. I simply disagree with you.</p>

91

<p>@senior-
your responses really beg the question/miss the point of my post…you fed back basically what is available at most info sessions.
i am getting to the mystery of what is said about each candidate, what happens when they end up with too many kids who really qualify-how do they compare? decide?
what underlying beliefs are assumed when they deviate from the ratios and types found nationally or in the pool?
this is where the rubber meets the road.</p>

<p>my point is that AdComms are made up of humans!
yet they present themselves as (and we want to believe that they are LOL) fair and objective automatons.</p>

<p>anyway… the system is what it is, at the moment. It has a fairly high level of obscurity beyond the obvious, and is inevitably biased. I think knowing what the biases are would be fairer.</p>

<p>for example, the kid who wants to go to a highly selective college has only so many hours in the day. yeah yeah- he should follow his passions… BUT he does have choices- should I spend my extra time studying for the SAT or getting better grades? creating a community service activity or practicing my instrument? or playing my sport? and so on… should I express interest to the AdOffice? do an Alumni interview? etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>Life is not fair so college admissions cannot be.
But maybe it would be fairer to know that xxx is preferred or more important- then the HS student can choose to follow his heart knowing this. And prepare himself for a big challenge, if there is one.</p>

<p>To wit, if things were so transparent, then there would not be so much shock and surprise at the results, or so much pre-game and post-game analysis.</p>

<p>Maybe you just like it to to be so mysterious? Or really believe that is is an objective and fair process?</p>

<p>I try every day to believe that this college process (which basically dominates much of the last 2 years of HS) is teaching my kid useful things, and is a great journey to self-knowledge for him. Imperfection in competitive selection processes and bias are inevitable parts of life. Learning how to play the game strategically without losing one’s self, dealing with rejections without losing one’s self-esteem, winning with modesty, working hard even with the deck stacked against you, setting limits while also reaching for the stars- all important lessons, but it just seems hard to believe that this is the time to learn about so many things like this all at once!</p>

<p>Simplification might really be obfuscation- who knows!
Do you think it should be up to the individual candidate how much he wants to “game” the system vs. follow his heart?</p>

92

<p>It doesn’t sound like many of you have come across the book “Admission Matters” have you? One of the main authors is Jon Reider who was the senior associate director of admissions at Stanford for 15 years. He gives a very clear, pretty in-depth behind-the-scenes look at what the admissions counselors at elite universities (especially Stanford) are looking at in an applicant and thinking about when they choose whom to accept. They absolutely do take into account all those items mentioned above: candidates compared to one another from the same school, region, intended major, etc. Sometimes, he says, an applicant just comes across as more “likeable” and that determines the decision. He talks openly about legacy percentages at specific top schools and how much weight is given to various hooks. It is the most enlightening book about what goes on behind the admission’s scene that I’ve ever come across. He also has a hilarious take on all the extra “stuff” that the applicants send in. Yes, most of it goes in the garbage can. But, it can hurt some applicants if they come across as annoying. He doesn’t use the word “Stanford” often because he’s trying to keep the info general to top universities, but it’s obvious which school he’s talking about because of where he worked. The second edition of the book was published in 2009, but it is still very relevant, I think.</p>

93

<p>Phantasmagoric said: </p>

<p>Why do you think this is? It’s because those who are more wealthy inherently have immense advantages. For one, their parents likely attended college, so growing up, they were in a very intellectually stimulating environment. These students have the money to pay for music lessons, ballet, travel to chess tournaments, and so on. They can pay for SAT prep classes or SAT prep books, AP exams and AP prep books, tutors when they struggle, expensive tuition to a private school that affords them advanced classes that challenge them and extracurricular activities that give them the opportunity to test and show their passions and school counselors that aren’t inundated by students and can actually help them. They often will pay college consultants to help them write their college essays, polish their applications, putting them in the best light possible.</p>

<hr>

<p>I’m suddenly feeling much better at my white male son’s chances getting in at Stanford. See, both my wife and I merely went to second rate [and I’m not kidding] Cal State “fill in the blank” schools and never had the grades or drive to attend graduate school. We’ve always thought of our son as somewhat a freak of nature to have come from such B-flat Lake Woebegone [very average intelligence] parents. </p>

<p>Perhaps Stanford will view our son as one that has been able to pull up his boot straps out of the mediocracy of middle middle class with good chances to make it and the drive to do anything he wants. </p>

<p>I guess we’ll know in less than a week.</p>

94

<p>Performersmom-</p>

<p>

Again I don’t think it’s that mysterious. All these biases you talk about, how different schools will view things differently, exist in any subjective evaluation system. So I don’t really see your point about how schools prefer one category over another is that shocking or pernicious. </p>

<p>I also never claimed it was an objective process. But it is definitely more objective than a lot of applicants think. Dean Shaw says it’s a “science”, not an “art”, and from what I’ve seen I tend to believe him. Again any time there is not a set metric used to rank someone, it can’t be completely objective. Readers must decide, for instance, what number ranking to give an applicant for his extracurricular activities. But by giving extensive training and having multiple readers, the admissions office ensures that this ranking is as objective as possible. It’s like AP essay grading. It just works. </p>

<p>Do I believe it’s fair? Fair in what sense and to whom? That’s a pretty loaded question. I never really saw how legacy was a fair advantage. In that way it’s not fair in my opinion. But are decisions fair to applicants (did each applicant get the proper decision)? Yes. The committee has broad guidelines on who they want to admit, and no one reader has the power to admit someone who is undeserving of a spot. If two readers can agree that a candidate deserves admission, then the system says that that person deserves admission. I don’t see how you can argue with that. </p>

<p>I think colleges could definitely make the process more transparent. Is that something that is desirable though? If HS students got all the data, I can’t imagine what would happen. Say schools actually don’t value extracurriculars that much. If that were the case, many students would drop out of activities and focus more on academics. Or say schools put way more emphasis on the essay than anyone expected. If that were the case, the writing tutor industry would flourish. </p>

<p>

I never saw it that way. College admissions to me was something that I considered when deciding between classes starting junior year. It was never a determinant, but rather a minor factor in my decision. After that, I hardly thought about it until the start of senior year. I visited one school beforehand, did some research on others, then picked out some schools to apply to and filled out the applications. The applications took time, but apart from a couple weekends it never consumed my life. When decisions came in I thought about how great it would be to go that school, and I never really thought about schools I hadn’t heard back from yet. The waitlists and rejections hurt, but the most they ever did was ruin my day. </p>

<p>I just let things flow, and it worked out. I probably could have gamed the process more and gotten into a few more schools, but I was perfectly content with my safety school so that really didn’t matter. For me, the admissions process did not define my senior year (and definitely not my junior year). Maybe for some applicants it does. But it doesn’t have to. </p>

<p>And the more colleges reveal about the process, the more it will consume the lives of HS students. So it seems you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you want more information, but on the other you express a desire for students not to feel a pressure to game the system. Well, in a world where students knew nothing about the system, there would be no way to game it.</p>

95

<p>Senior,
While you claim that the college process did not “consume” your last 2 years of HS, you were a pretty active participant on CC!
My last sentence is the answer to your last question- I feel it would be best to give the students a choice!
The system is gamed already. It is just in this weird spot where it is pretending not to be as gamed as it is. Some applicants really are genuinely special, no doubt. But there are many many great kids out there who might like more of a sense of what matters to the ADComms. I think that this is the reason for the growing number of apps per student- it feels like a lottery. Yet, the growing number of apps makes it even more of a lottery!
As another example, when my older child was applying to smaller LAC’s, it actually turned her off to certain schools when she learned that some of them did not offer or require interviews. She felt that this indicated that the small community might actually have a bunch of less than nice kids. But another person might have welcomed this, saying that interviews would allow for less objective factors to enter into he process. Who knows? It really depends on what the thought process is about the interviews by the AdComm and the interviewer at a given school…
You had good results on your applications. Your ego is intact. Good luck!</p>

96

<p>

Why don’t you check my join date? I joined in the middle of March my senior year so that I could post my stats on decisions threads. </p>

<p>

Well I disagree with you here. If enough info is out there so that students could start successfully gaming the system, then those who don’t will be at a disadvantage. They may want to follow their heart and not game the system, but if everyone is doing it they may feel pressured into doing so. It’s just like the steroid era in baseball. Left on their own, I doubt many athletes would have done steroids. But once some teammates did it, and had great results, it pressured others into taking steroids. Yes, baseball players still technically had a “choice.” But those who stayed clean were at a disadvantage. </p>

<p>

Somewhat. However, I think schools like Stanford do a good job at distinguishing the applicants who are truly passionate about their endeavors. Yes some obviously slip through the cracks, but from my experience here not many have. As of now I think the process is enough of a mystery that the majority of kids will not shape their lives around college admissions. We know grades, test scores, activities, and essays are all important, but that’s pretty much it thankfully. Again, if students knew that, say, ECs counted for almost nothing at top schools, imagine how much more the system would be gamed. </p>

<p>

This may contribute to a few more applications, but I doubt it’s a main factor in the increasing number. Schools are publicizing themselves better; the internet makes it easier to research schools and fill out applications; the common app makes it easier to apply to additional schools; financial aid uncertainty makes it advantageous to apply to many schools as well. As much of a crapshoot as it may seem, I think for the most part students generally know whether they have good chances or not at a specific school.</p>

<p>

What are you trying to say here? I had a good result on my applications not because I got into Stanford but because I got excited about my safety school. It wasn’t the result for me but what I made of it, and I think the vast majority of applicants could feel the same way if they don’t already. And where in my posts am I egotistical? Thank you for feeling the need to resort to an ad hominem attack.</p>

97

<p>

</p>

<p>Clearly, the two of us have distinct definitions of equality. I define the racial equality of an admissions committee by the fact that they don’t consider race, thus giving equal consideration to applicants regardless of race. The outcome of this process is irrelevant-- whether 10 or 20 or 30% asians are admitted-- because no racial discrimination took place.
By my criteria, an admissions process without AA will always more fair than one with AA.
How do you define equality/fairness/etc?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Allow me to deconstruct this post: you begin by telling me that I’m wrong, then you make a statement affirming your position, then saying that anyone who believes otherwise is unequivocally wrong. Essentially, you repeated yourself thrice. You only stated THAT I’m wrong, but you never provided a reasoned argument as to WHY I’m wrong.
Of course, your assertion that “skin color still matters in America” is confusing in and of itself because of vague wording (skin color “matters”? To whom and in what ways?) and because it’s unrelated to my post. I don’t think that we live in a postracial society, I just don’t think that continuing to racialize supposedly meritocratic processes will diminish this problem, or that punishing Asian people for their skin color is an acceptable way of achieving anything.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>performersmom said it best: “there are many many great kids out there who might like more of a sense of what matters to the ADComms.” This is really about a sense of frustration because of the opacity of the process. OP writes that she feels misled by Stanford with regards to how they choose applicants. Students and parents don’t have a clue to what extent subjective factors and hooks (or lack thereof) will affect their decision. Perhaps it’s the lack of control over one’s decision that is particularly painful.
In any case, I would advise future applicants: “Apply to be accepted, expect to be rejected.” Adcoms can reject or accept you arbitrarily, so whyinvest any more time than necessary? Unfortunately for OP, she figured this out too late.</p>

98

<p>

Yes clearly we do. I take a Rawlsian approach to equality in that I believe any hypothetical society derived from the original position is just/fair and equal due to the strict egalitarianism necessitated in the original position. You can Wikipedia the rest to fill in the details, as it can summarize it better than I can. </p>

<p>

With regards to that comment, I felt no further justification was necessary. Not everything needs to be supported by a reasoned argument. Could you provide me a reasoned argument as to whether or not the sky is blue? No. If I don’t see it as blue nothing you say will convince me of that. But it is blue. We all know it’s blue. </p>

<p>

Of course it won’t. But some problems just can’t be fixed. I’d argue that this is one of them. </p>

<p>

That’s your opinion. I tend not to think of it as punishing Asian people, but leveling the playing field in the grand scheme of social justice. Is it punishing wealthy people to levy more taxes on them than the poor? Maybe, but punishing is again a pretty strong word that I tend to avoid.</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>I hate to butt in here, but colors are ineffable, intrinsic “Qualia”. I can show you scientifically why the sky is blue (Rayleigh scattering + human perception of color based on wavelength distributions, hence the color of light blue), but i cannot communicate to you the essence of “blueness” (not the word, but the actually color). So of course i cannot convince you the sky is “blue” if you do not see “blueness”</p>

<p>Now, to say that racial justice in the form of reverse racial discrimination is a type of universal qualia, or even just a self-evident truth is quite a large stretch. (both your original argument and the color analogy still suffers from irrelevant conclusion fallacy)</p>

<p>

As a utilitarian, I fail to see why the hypothesis of the original position should lead directly to affirmative action. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Asians are not a homogeneous group. Equating Asians to wealthy people implies that Asians have some innate societal privilege due to race, which is shaky at best.</p>

<p>

And QB match people. (not necessarily easier to get in, but their process differs from ordinary EA)</p>

100

<p>

As do I. If anything, it seems to denounce affirmative action.</p>