<p>well, first, two applicants from different school having exactly the same opportunities is hard to come by... but i understand what you are saying.</p>
<p>low sat scores? not everyone is good at testing, especially standardized testing. i don't believe there should be a cut-off score.</p>
<p>lackluster ECs? your experiences with a certain type of EC could very tremendously from the experiences of another in the same EC. it's easy to say, "ha! president of NHS! that's not dedication!" well, it depends on the school - it may take more than you think in other places.</p>
<p>not enough ECs? its all about passion. for example, my main EC was my sport because it takes up most of my time and energy (no, i am not on athletic scholarship or anything like that). personally, i did not feel i could handle that and being president of this and co-founder of that. but my dedication (i think) showed in my essays and such.</p>
<p>which brings another point: we do not see/read essays and recommendations... perhaps a supposed "weakness" in ECs or SATs is very well explained in one of these other resources asked for by universities. we just don't know so you can't pass judgment.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic AA is fair to a greater extent than racial AA. Some kids from my school is applying during RD, with a 33 ACT, 2240 cumulative subject tests, and a ton of dedicated leadership and music. He is black, and I am 75% percent certain he will be a Cardinal next fall. But...both his parent's are doctors, and his family makes much more money than I do (for reference, a trip to Paramount Great America, the one in Santa Clarita, he was throwing money right and left all day, buying a $15 dollar DVD of a two minute roller coaster ride, and paying $45 dollars for a three minute fake sky diving ride, while I spent $7 dollars on lunch and nothing more.) The point is, he had way more opportunities than I do. He could afford more prep books for the AP tests and SAT I/SAT II than I could, as well as all the private piano lessons that made him truly good at it. Is he more deserving to get in solely because of his race? I don't think anyone in their right mind would say yes. He is essentially a white person with black skin, and AA is not benefiting him in any way here, except giving him an unfair advantage to a top university. He deserves to get in anyways, I think, because he truly cares about the leadership he does, but he shouldn't get special consideration because he is a different skin color than the rest.</p>
<p>I'm not talking about individual categories being worse...I'm talking about rejected applicants who were better than accepted applicants in nearly every area, which is what I'm seeing. That bothers me.</p>
<p>OK, well evening the playing field for all is hard as we have proved through this discussion. I'm sure if universities did use socioeconomic AA, as you call it, people would yell and bicker and cry over it as well...although I personally think I could agree with that type of AA.</p>
<p>and though I haven't seen it, if you have seen candidates who are better in every area, and yet still get rejected, then I would agree with it being unfair. but i still find it hard to make that judgment without viewing the complete application.</p>
<p>tbh, all this AA stuff is political. the universities need URMs to improve their public perception, and without AA it would be terribly skewed (we can agree on this, right?). and even with AA, acceptance rates still heavily favor ORMs.</p>
<p>one thing i disagree with: money does not make skin color. he isn't "essentially a white person" because he has money.</p>
<p>I would rather see class distributions skewed in favor of more qualified ORMs than see less qualified URMs get in largely by virtue of genetics. That statement sounds horribly prejudiced, but I think it's reasonable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Weak in comparison to the applicant pool, blu_g8orade. Take the stats of a random accepted URM and compare them to a random rejected ORM, from what I've seen here it's likely that the ORM will look better in nearly every area save ethnicity.
[/quote]
Stanford's applicant pool is the best in the country. a lot of intelligent and qualified students would look weak in comparison. so let's refrain from implying that students are "weak" or "unspectacular" for falling below Stanford's averages.</p>
<p>the fact of the matter is this: </p>
<p>Stanford is willing, more than most top schools, to dip below their average test scores/GPA/academic resumes to get qualified students who will go a longer way in diversifying their student body. and that's it. my perspective is, if you aren't with that, then fine. Stanford is likely just not the school for you. </p>
<p>but what they are doing must be working, because they're one of the most prestigious schools in the country and receive high praise. you'd only be a fool to attempt to denigrate the quality of Stanford's education or their reputation.</p>
<p>edit:
[quote]
"He is essentially a white person with black skin"
<p>the term "qualified" is a more complex definition than you give credit, CI180. it involved more than just numbers and statistics. it's much more subjective and personal. and obviously admissions at stanford has different opinions than you do on what "qualified" means. perhaps stanford isn't the ideal place for you then. and i don't mean that in a derogatory way. but maybe (assuming you were rejected?) this is for the best.</p>
<p>The two people bashing me over the comment concerning his color, please reconsider what I implied by it. Maybe I meant the only real diversity he would bring to any university was the colors of his skin, rather than any unique intellectual or cultural insights. I favor, truly, completely ignoring skin color, because it doesn't define a person at all beyond a superficial level. If that is the case, if someone who is black acts with what is universally agree upon as "white culture" or acts no differently than the rest of the white kids around him, he has black skin, but is for all intents and purposes a white person. Consequently, he should be considered as such.</p>
<p>Ok as a URM, I would like to mention that chalking up everything to AA is extremely painful. For example, two days ago, a friend of mine who had lower test scores, gpa, and EC's said I was only accepted because I was a URM. I have a 2300 (2290 actually) and constantly being second guessed despite achieving at a high level really hurts. Also, many people mock being my status as a URM saying I have lived an easy life (not to insult, but similar to story amciw described) despite the fact that my father was an illegal immigrant, both of my siblings dropped out of high-school and were in gangs, and I have had little of the opportunities that my friends have had (i.e. I couldn't apply to the one of the most academically rigorous high-schools in my city because it was far and no one could take me). I may not have a 2400, and my GPA is not 4.0, but I have some good EC's, have good test scores, and a rigorous course load at a difficult school. Did AA have a role in my acceptance? I will never know, but for people to constantly judge someone and say they were admitted because of race is really discouraging and painful as it seems I can never really accomplish anything (I went through this whole debate with my friends when I got into hs). Not to say college admissions are fair, because they are flukey and we all know this, but some of the things posted on this board have offended me.</p>
<p>You obviously didn't have the same opportunities as described above. Additionally, your family situation also warranted special consideration. That being said, you father was still an illegal immigrant, which is really what people should be mad about. You URM status was less influential than other acceptances.</p>
<p>Talkobeach55, I may have come off as overly harsh...please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that all URMs are underqualified and got in solely because of AA. There are many URMs who were fully qualified and, in my opinion, truly deserved their acceptance. It sounds to me like you very much earned it. What bothers me is the URMs who got in because of their race, not their actual qualifications. While you are clearly not among them, they clearly exist, and that is troublesome.</p>
<p>my point exactly, talkobeach55. circumstances vary across the board. you can't look at the stats posted here and get the full story. you can't say one person is more qualified than another by what is on a forum because you don't know what else is on the application.</p>
<p>it's frustrating to see people making such broad assumptions and then making decisions based on such assumptions. it's misleading. being upset on your individual decision is understandable but turning that into a bashing session on a specific type of applicant is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Not really, considering the prevalence thereof. You also have to remember that many equally qualified URM got in simply because of that; it was the tipping point between them and a white or Asian applicant.</p>
<p>aberdeen15, it's a legitimate complaint about that type of applicant, though. They are given an inherently unfair advantage by virtue of birth. If the circumstances were reversed, and white applicants were given preference over URMs, there would be complete outrage on these forums. Hell, I would be outraged. </p>
<p>The facts are clear: AA played a major role in Stanford's admissions this year, resulting in numerous qualified ORM applicants being passed over in favor of less-qualified URMs. Many admitted URMs were fully qualified and I do not take issue with their acceptance; it's just the fact that people got in because of the color of their skin instead of the quality of their work that makes me sick.</p>
<p>I admit, I'm upset, I'm bitter. I just got rejected from my dream school. I thought I had done everything right, I thought my application was solid, but I'm not a URM so here I sit with a rejection letter. </p>
<p>If the 750 or so early admits were all spectacular applicants whose qualifications make me and the others in my situation pale in comparison, I wouldn't be bothered. But that, sadly, is not the case.</p>
<p>I'm sorry that these decisions are upsetting and I understand the frustration everyone must be going through (I went through the same thing when one of my friends was sure of his destination months ago based on athletic recruitment). I think people just need to relax a little and understand that with the level of achievement that the people on College Confidential have demonstrated, I am sure they will all get into amazing schools.</p>
<p>well, I could go into a "virtue of birth" tangent now, but that would go way past the topic of college admissions. it may even devolve into an argument on racial history, slavery, laws from the past made specifically for exclusion of certain races, etc., so i'd rather not. we can just... "agree to disagree" then. i should probably get some sleep anyway, ha.</p>
<p>Again, CI180 finds a perfect way to articulate those rejected's general feelings. And, to establish this:</p>
<p>ANY URM WHO TRIES TO PRETEND THEY UNDERSTAND HOW WE FEEL SIMPLY CAN'T. DO NOT EVEN TRY. RACISM WORKS BOTH WAYS, AND ITS NO MORE FAIR TO BOOST A URM THAN IT IS TO BOOST A WHITE PERSON.</p>
<p>(Sorry for all caps, but its was necessary to prove the point.)</p>
<p>Seriously, any URM, go to South</a> Park Studios and watch With Respect to Jesse Jackson, in season 9, 10, or 11, the first episode. Notice the point they are trying to make near the end. It applies to white people completely screwed in college admissions as well as black people persecuted for their race.</p>
<p>Also, compensating for past injustices should only promote equality, not advantage for those historically damaged. While I obviously sympathize with what other whites put your races through, it doesn't justify hurting whites now. I'm Jewish, too. My great-grandparents lived in Russia and Austria, and were the subject of all the persecution to Jews then. Does that mean, since Christians were invariably the ones doing the persecuting, that I should receive a special favor from the mostly Christian admissions committees? What about to descendants of Holocaust survivors, whose case is significantly more compelling than mine. Obviously, you are going to think that it is unfair. In reality, it is exactly the same thing.</p>