<p>if racism works both ways, then we should understand each other at least a little...</p>
<p>screwed in college admissions >= racial persecution</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>whatever. this isn't going anywhere.</p>
<p>Also, I don't understand why AA for race gets all the heat when Legacy and Athletes get similar advantages.</p>
<p>It all cuts both ways.
Perhaps I may not understand how you feel, but you certainly do not understand how I feel. Does that mean I complain, since your rejection from college is somewhat analagous to the rejection of my legitimacy by others. You constantly seek to separate US from YOU.</p>
<p>that makes you a racist. Perhaps the adcoms are racists too, but then again, I don't see why they would want someone who overtly suggests their being so at their university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
i actually pity you. </p>
<p>i could explain why. but a long-winded explanation would likely be a waste of time, as some things can only be understood through life experiences. </p>
<p>all i can say is, you have a long way to go before you can offer any form of cogent commentary concerning racial matters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
i would hesitate to call it "major".... you can't go by what you see on CC. why not wait and see the admissions statistics first? i guarantee that the percentage of ORMs whose "spots" were taken by URMs will be marginal at best. </p>
<p>i'm sure you had very competitive stats, and i'm also sure there were many other ORMs who had identical or lower stats than you, and many of them were accepted. why do you choose to compare yourself to the small % of URM applicants, as opposed to the hundreds applicants identical (or "subpar") to you that got in? you really believe you were the perfect applicant, and you couldn't have done anything more to stand out from them?</p>
<p>Read the edit aberdeen, and notice that denying white kids the opportunity to go to a highly prestigious college can have similary effects on whites financially, because they pay for much more, and give you better connections. I never said the two were equal, I was just pointing out that compensating for previous racial injustices by hurting white and Asia kids in completely unfair and socially unproductive as well. This is especially true when you consider that many of the white kids did not have ancestors perpetuating the discrimination.</p>
<p>The character degradation of this thread is almost comical. </p>
<p>If the way you respond to setback is by whining, questioning the merit of others, and scapegoating minorities, who make up 15% of the early applicant pool, you may very well prove that Stanford made a good judgement call in hesitating to accept you.</p>
<p>The lack of humility on this thread that is suppose to be for celebration and condolences is disgracing to all of the applicants on this board who choose not to bring everyone else into their bitterness. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to be rude, i understand that many have said things on this post that they wouldn't had they not have been denied the thing they wanted. </p>
<p>But many on this thread are so quick to point the finger at everyone around them and every factor they can't control, instead of looking to themselves for what they can. Many are in need of a reordering of life priorities. </p>
<p>But, to return this thread to its original intent. </p>
<p>Congratulations to everyone accepted. Stanford clearly saw you as a part of its vision for a better student body and a better future. To others, you'll end up we'll you were meant to be, which from the stats on this board is clearly someplace outstanding!</p>
<p>Frankly, blu_g8orade, short of curing cancer there isn't much more I could have done. Perfect SATs, valedictorian, excellent recs and essays, strong extracurriculars. I'm comparing myself to the URMs because, while I can't really comment on how certain ORMs got in, I can explain why certain URMs got in...that is to say, while I can't explain puzzling ORM acceptances, I can explain puzzling URM acceptances, and that explanation is infuriating.</p>
<p>btw, there is a Race and Admissions thread on the Admissions board for those of you that want to talk about AA, I'll ask tokenadult to have all of your posts moved there.</p>
<p>I would like to preface this by stating that any argument with minorities regarding affirmative action is almost as stupid as trying to argue with a woman on abortion. That being said, I deserve the opportunity to vent, and I kind of enjoy this argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It all cuts both ways.
Perhaps I may not understand how you feel, but you certainly do not understand how I feel. Does that mean I complain, since your rejection from college is somewhat analagous to the rejection of my legitimacy by others. You constantly seek to separate US from YOU.</p>
<p>that makes you a racist. Perhaps the adcoms are racists too, but then again, I don't see why they would want someone who overtly suggests their being so at their university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you for implying you don't deserve it either... Anyways, they are not analogous at all, especially since I don't reject you for anything but your lackluster (as in, not differentiated) statistics not being an impediment in your admission. I'm sure Native American's have been historically discriminated against. So have Jews.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i actually pity you.</p>
<p>i could explain why. but a long-winded explanation would likely be a waste of time, as some things can only be understood through life experiences.</p>
<p>all i can say is, you have a long way to go before you can offer any form of cogent commentary concerning racial matters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The pretend you are an expert but don't want to discuss because it below you is a time-honored, but wasteful tactic. Please, share with me. As a Jew, I'm certain I can partially understand your perspective. Just so you can understand, Jewishness is more an ethnicity than an religion, as I would argue most Christians are as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I don't understand why AA for race gets all the heat when Legacy and Athletes get similar advantages.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Legacy I can understand your hatred for, athletics is a qualification that differentiates you for other applicants. But I don't have an issue with Stanford's acceptance of legacies, especially considering that someone with over 7 connections, and the same high stats, was rejected.</p>
<p>Tyler, go watch that episode please. And don't move these post to the AA thread, because it is half-related to Stanford, and especially their criteria for acceptance.</p>
<p>Also, don't pretend you know what its like to be bitter, because you can't. If the admissions policies had been fair, perhaps I wouldn't because I would be in. Currently, because of them, I feel I was rejected almost unfairly, and thus have the ability to rant. In regards to humility, it is only the URMs pretending their race wasn't a factor that aren't humble. You are currently one of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, blu_g8orade, short of curing cancer there isn't much more I could have done. Perfect SATs, valedictorian, excellent recs and essays, strong extracurriculars. I'm comparing myself to the URMs because, while I can't really comment on how certain ORMs got in, I can explain why certain URMs got in...that is to say, while I can't explain puzzling ORM acceptances, I can explain puzzling URM acceptances, and that explanation is infuriating.
[/quote]
but you aren't a URM. you're an ORM. </p>
<p>so what good does it do you to worry yourself sick about the circumstances of the acceptances of URMs?</p>
<p>Because if I were one of them...had I simply been born a different race...with my stats, I would presumably have gotten in. The fact that I didn't because I wasn't a minority while less qualified minority applicants did is downright infuriating. There's nothing I can do to change the situation, but I feel the need to at least point it out.</p>
<p>I agree blu, people on this board have made massive assumptions. When it comes to Stanford, people make decisions based on more than stats (that is why it is such a great school). This has been said before, but no one has read the essays of the applicants. Many of the people here assume they have a right to go to Stanford or wherever, but 1) stats are NOT EVERYTHING and 2) a Stanford representative said that decisions are very random. I honestly did not expect to be accepted and was prepared ever since I submitted my app for a rejection.</p>
<p>"I would like to preface this by stating that any argument with minorities regarding affirmative action is almost as stupid as trying to argue with a woman on abortion. That being said, I deserve the opportunity to vent, and I kind of enjoy this argument.</p>
<p>what's with the abortion comment? there are plenty of women who disagree with abortion. likewise, there are plenty of minorities who disagree with AA (Clarence Thomas, for one). so that preface was stupid in itself. you are generalizing.</p>
<p>Blu, your last post was the perfect indication you should shut up and not get mad at us for whining regarding our admissions circumstances. You clearly don't understand our thought processes regarding it.</p>
<p>aberdeen, there are plenty of women who do disagree, but many conservative women don't. Also, that Clarence Thomas disagrees with AA shows how ungrateful he is, since that is the only reason someone like him made the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>amciw:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would like to preface this by stating that any argument with minorities regarding affirmative action is almost as stupid as trying to argue with a woman on abortion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So women can't hold valid opinions on abortions and minorities can't hold valid opinions on affirmative action? Wow, the ignorance of that post is just mind blowing. Why don't you believe either of those groups have the mental capacity to logically evaluate the merit of a system that directly affects them? And why would a non-minority who believe they are hurt by AA (i disagree that they are "hurt") be in any better a state to evaluate it then a minority who believes they are helped by it? The holes in your logic are glaringly wide.</p>
<p>This whole "if i were a minority" game is equally illogical. If you were a minority you would be a completely different person. And if all of you were minorities, than they definitely wouldn't be under represented. </p>
<p>Additionally, I guess you guys need to call and let Stanford know what "more qualified" means, because it looks like you guys are operating on different definitions, and you apparently believe that you know what's best for Stanford better than Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perfect SATs, valedictorian, excellent recs and essays, strong extracurriculars
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, references to test scores, GPAs, and other "stats." By the way, what made you define your own essay as "excellent?" Just curious.</p>
<p>Amiciw, I seriously suggest that you take a break and go to sleep for the night; maybe you can return to this discussion tomorrow after you've had some rest. I understand that you're upset about who did/didn't get admitted, but your previously cohesive, understandable arguments have completely deteriorated into vague generalizations about others and offhand, offensive comments. </p>
<p>For your sake, please, give it a rest. At least for the night.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So women can't hold valid opinions on abortions and minorities can't hold valid opinions on affirmative action? Wow, the ignorance of that post is just mind blowing. Why don't you believe either of those groups have the mental capacity to logically evaluate the merit of a system that directly affects them? And why would a non-minority who believe they are hurt by AA (i disagree that they are "hurt") be in any better a state to evaluate it then a minority who believes they are helped by it? The holes in your logic are glaringly wide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have noticed as a general rule that most women will defend abortion, even if they are conservative. They will result to "my body, my choice" is necessary, but defend it regardless. URMs, I've noticed, are much the same way with policies that benefit them. Your statements are nearly as ignorant as you claim mine are.</p>
<p>Ykim, its good and I thank you that my earlier arguments were cohesive, but I think that my latter one that you are referring to was only so because I failed to adequately explain it.</p>
<p>amciw, you have just admitted how much you are generalizing... </p>
<p>a "general rule" for women. right.</p>
<p>"aberdeen, there are plenty of women who do disagree, but many conservative women don't. Also, that Clarence Thomas disagrees with AA shows how ungrateful he is, since that is the only reason someone like him made the Supreme Court."</p>
<p>Wow, "Someone like him" what does that mean ? I guess Earl Warren definitely deserved it right?</p>
<p>This thread has gone from understandable frustration to pretty offensive.</p>