oos

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
21

<p>
[quote]
For what it's worth, while I was visiting Stanford, I spoke with an admissions officer and asked her about how much Stanford pays attention to geography. She explicitly stated, they do not try to fill "quotas" or make sure to get students from every state; their goal is to admit qualified students, and being from one area won't advantage or disadvantage you. The fact that Stanford ends up having wide geographic representation happens naturally.

[/quote]

I don't think that person was being completely truthful. Technically they are telling the truth but you have to think more analytically. Of course there are no "quotas" for "quotas" are unconstitutional. Also, I have already said it's not based state-by-state but by regions. Anyways, just think about it. Stanford could easily fill it's entire class with highly qualified kids from California, but they don't. If there are two applicants with identical applications, who do you think will get in, the kid from Iowa or the kid from Boston? Geography is considered by the holistic admissions policy because geography and opportunity are related.</p>

22

<p>Not to hijack this thread, but would it help if you came from Ohio.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Stanford could fill it's entire class with qualified kids from California alone if it wanted. So, no, geography does play a role in the admissions decisions. And, no, they don't do it by state; they do it by region.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what the admissions representatives said when they came to my school. Each rep/officer is in charge of a single region I believe and they attempt to maintain geographic equity. i.e. if Americans are split up: 30% New Englanders, 20% Californians, 10%South-Easterners, 40% Mid-Westerners, then my understanding is that Stanford attempts to maintain that balance in their admissions. But who knows? That's what I recall, mind you they may have changed their rules.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
Not to hijack this thread, but would it help if you came from Ohio.

[/quote]

There are a lot of factors that play into this. The main two are how many kids apply from that area, and what kind of opportunities do applicants from that part of the country typically have access to.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
there are no "quotas" for "quotas" are unconstitutional.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Race-based quotas are unconstitutional.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Stanford could easily fill it's entire class with highly qualified kids from California, but they don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm well aware. But it doesn't make your point any more valid.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think that person was being completely truthful. Technically they are telling the truth but you have to think more analytically.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You claim to know much about how they evaluate applicants with regard to geography, yet when I present evidence straight from the horse's mouth otherwise, you write it off as a lie? That's a poor strategy.</p>

<p>Really, if Stanford is considering geography, it's minimal. And again, how do you know that it's by region and not by state?</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Race-based quotas are unconstitutional.

[/quote]

They would not hold up in the court of law, though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm well aware. But it doesn't make your point any more valid.

[/quote]

What is your explanation then?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You claim to know much about how they evaluate applicants with regard to geography, yet when I present evidence straight from the horse's mouth otherwise, you write it off as a lie? That's a poor strategy.

[/quote]

I never said the person was lying. I just said that you cannot take his or her statement at face value. You need to be more analytical.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Really, if Stanford is considering geography, it's minimal.

[/quote]

Stanford's admissions policy is holistic in that it admissions decision are based on achievement in context. Because geography will no doubt affect an applicant's context it is considered. (By context I mean the opportunities provided to an applicant.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
And again, how do you know that it's by region and not by state?

[/quote]

Because there are regional admissions officers and not state admissions officers.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
They would not hold up in the court of law, though.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I'm sure you have the legal knowledge, right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
What is your explanation then?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I already did; please read more analytically.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I never said the person was lying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what was this?:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think that person was being completely truthful.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
You need to be more analytical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you need to be more precise.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because geography will no doubt affect an applicant's context it is considered. (By context I mean the opportunities provided to an applicant.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now you're changing your argument. Previously it was on a macro scale--states or regions. Now it's very specific parts, like inner-city? Or the middle of Oklahoma? Yes, these sorts of things affect context, but again, the mere fact of being from an underrepresented state or "region" won't provide much help, if any.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because there are regional admissions officers and not state admissions officers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Non sequitur much? There are regional admissions officers because there are many applicants from all over the place, and by dividing them up by person/area, it makes the process more efficient. That does not mean, however, that they are more willing to accept students from underrepresented areas simply because they have an admissions officer there. (In fact, the places where they receive few applicants will probably NOT have their own admissions officer--that would be wasteful--but instead are grouped with other, more populated areas nearby. And so the admissions officer wouldn't feel "compelled" to accept them because they are from where they are.) I hope you see the poor logic in your assertion.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I'm sure you have the legal knowledge, right?

[/quote]

Read the rational behind the court's deciding that racial quotas were unconstitutional.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now you're changing your argument. Previously it was on a macro scale--states or regions. Now it's very specific parts, like inner-city? Or the middle of Oklahoma? Yes, these sorts of things affect context, but again, the mere fact of being from an underrepresented state or "region" won't provide much help, if any.

[/quote]

No, I have stayed consistent throughout. Again, be more analytical.</p>

<p>Anyways, I'm done with this. I already made my point, and I have no idea why you care about this so much. You fail to realize that educational opportunities are related to geographic location. (Is it just a coincidence that National Merit qualification scores vary from state-to-state?)</p>

29

<p>I'm well aware that educational opportunities are related to that, but you have changed your argument from a macro scale to a micro scale, and it's a poor strategy. I'd rather you not mislead students, prospective or not, with your ill-informed knowledge.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
I'm well aware that educational opportunities are related to that, but you have changed your argument from a macro scale to a micro scale, and it's a poor strategy. I'd rather you not mislead students with your ill-informed knowledge.

[/quote]

You're not understanding what I am saying, so it's really your problem. Hopefully those who read this thread will, though. Also, if it adds anything to the discussion, I got all of my information from various college admissions representatives too.</p>

<p>EDIT:
Why do you keep talking about "strategy" and "tactics" as if this discussion were some kind of competition? It seems to me you think there has to be a winner and a loser.</p>

31

<p>Because you're presenting an argument, and you're presenting it badly. The tactics you use are transparent and, frankly, nonsensical--changing your argument, professing legal knowledge, claiming that others are lying, etc.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
Because you're presenting an argument, and you're presenting it badly. The tactics you use are transparent and, frankly, nonsensical--changing your argument, professing legal knowledge, claiming that others are lying, etc.

[/quote]

I never changed my argument. I have not claimed to have any substantial legal knowledge. I never claimed others were lying.</p>

<p>You may have thought I changed my argument because you did not understand what I meant in post #21. Sorry, but I took it for granted that you would be able to piece together what I was saying so I would not have to.</p>

<p>You may have thought I claimed to have substantial legal knowledge because... I am not really sure why actually. In case you didn't know, anyone can access Supreme Court Justices' opinions.</p>

<p>You may have thought I accused the officer of lying because I said they were not telling you the whole truth. It's sort of childish to equate "not telling the whole truth" with "lying" when the two are not the same, but I can see why you tried to use that "tactic." Would you consider it lying or telling half of the truth if an admissions officer told you that SAT scores and grades were the most important factors in making admissions decision? (Answer: It's half of the truth, because having better grades and test scores than someone else who is "less" qualified does not necessarily mean that you will get in over them.)</p>

<p>I will admit that I am being a bit lazy in explaining how Geographic Affirmative Action works, though. I guess I am taking it for granted that everyone understands the concept of "under-representation."</p>

<p>Kyledavid80, I think your problem is that you assume I am saying that geographic locations carries significant weight as in can make up for less than stellar grades, etc. That's not what I am saying and it's kind of foolish to think that, since nothing can make up for not being qualified. Anyways, all I am saying is that being from an "under-represented" state/region can help you out in the admissions process. Mainly because the schools want to promote diversity of all kinds and because certain parts of the country are less competitive academically (since they have fewer educational opportunities) than others.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
I think your problem is that you assume I am saying that geographic locations carries significant weight

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, my problem is your pretending to know more than you do; you don't, so stop trying.</p>

<p>Again, you try to downplay the other person, rather than his or her argument, and that's another weak tactic.</p>

<p>"Sorry, but I took it for granted that you would be able to piece together"
"It's sort of childish to equate 'not telling the whole truth' with 'lying'"
"I guess I am taking it for granted that everyone understands"
"it's kind of foolish to think that"
"You need to be more analytical"</p>

<p>And it doesn't work--your argument is still as ill-informed and nonsensical as it was before you said those things.</p>

34

<p>guys...it doesn't matter. You'll apply and be accepted or rejected or waitlisted or deferred (iff SCEA) and that's that! How or why or where universities make their decisions is much less important than merely talking candidly in your essays.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
Again, you try to downplay the other person, rather than his or her argument, and that's another weak tactic.

[/quote]

Why do you insist on being confrontational? I am not downplaying what you are saying at all. I was merely saying that I thought you thought I was insisting that colleges' desire to seek geographic diversity significantly impacts college admissions decision, which is not what I am saying at all. However, being from under-represented areas of the country has its advantages. Whether it's slight or significant, an advantage is an advatage.</p>

<p>Anyways if anyone has been less than polite in this thread it's you. "And it doesn't work--your argument is still as ill-informed and nonsensical as it was before you said those things." On what basis are you saying I am uninformed? You are the one who conveniently quoted what a Stanford representative supposedly said to argue your point. That's the only evidence you have. In addition, two people in this thread have heard Stanford representatives say that they take geographic into consideration when making decisions.</p>

<p>You said, "The fact that Stanford ends up having wide geographic representation happens naturally." How does it happen naturally? Are you saying it's just a coincidence? Are you saying that the admissions officers don't try to make sure their class is representative of the larger society? I am pretty sure you are wrong there. </p>

<p>In fact, you tried to redeem yourself by saying, "Really, if Stanford is considering geography, it's minimal." That statement pretty much clarifies that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and suggests that I, who you accused of being uninformed, am actually more informed than you are on this issue. It also shows that I was right when I said, "I think your problem is that you assume I am saying that geographic locations carries significant weight." According to your statement, that's where this misunderstanding originated from.</p>

36

<p>Just keep on arguing with yourself... rinse and repeat.</p>

37

<p>Kyledavid80, you haven't exactly been cordial in your responses and rebuts either, so I'd be careful Sir Kettle.</p>

38

<p>And I was with reason--due to his combatant attitude. (Who made you arbitrator?)</p>

39

<p>No one. But I hate to see wasted band-width.</p>