<p>I just ran across this article. I think it shows the real world beyond the fairy dust of holistic admissions and need blind aide. </p>
<p>Inside</a> Stanford?s Exclusive Admission Path - Schools - Palo Alto, CA Patch</p>
<p>I’ve known it before…But that’s it,what I can do is just try my best…
Stanford is my dream,btw</p>
<p>How many spots do you think would be “blocked” like this? 1, 10, 40? How many professors are there at Stanford who have college age kids, who would like to go to Stanford, and who are admissable in terms of grades? How many of these Stanford professors would actually play it dirty and threaten to leave if their kid is not accepted? </p>
<p>The disadvantage this represents for a “normal” applicant is statistically minimal, even negligible I’d say. The practice, whatever you think of it, is not a game changer.</p>
<p>Faculty offspring get a boost at all private colleges. Read the book “The Price of Admission” by Daniel Golden for a detailed exploration of this topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know, but I imagine it’s a lot. Per the article the Stanford rep stated that it did not keep track of the statistic. I though that was a bit disingenuous. If I were to guess then a few hundred seats seems within reason.</p>
<p>Legacies at top colleges usually can reach 10% or more. Staff children OTOH, can’t reach a very high number. My guess would be varies from year to year and does not exceed 2-3%.</p>
<p>I wondering and have been wondering how Stanford can claim to be need blind with such preferences. It can be generous but it seems that the generosity is limited and curbed by preference. Is that really need blind?</p>
<p>What has giving seats to who they want got to do with need blind? OTOH, legacy is recognized since money raised is funding the need blind policy.</p>
<p>They also give 300 seats to athletes.</p>
<p>Typical “journalistic” drivel. Did this clown (Adam Swart, a UCLA student and Patch intern) masquerading as a reporter bother to check the background of one of his “insiders?”</p>
<p>Did the reporter scrape the bottom of the barrel to find an “insider source” with more than a peripheral knowledge of admissions, or someone described as “another former Stanford Admissions Officer and College Admissions Consultant”</p>
<p>[Irena</a> Smith | LinkedIn](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/pub/irena-smith/5/6a1/116]Irena”>http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/pub/irena-smith/5/6a1/116)</p>
<p>Should we believe that the part-time hired guns that read applications have knowledge of the “scaled advantages” given to specific classes of applicants.</p>
<p>As far his other source, here’s what she had to say “Marci •
As one of the sources for the original article, I would like to comment that information given during the source interview was misreported and also quoted out of context.
Quotes such as the faculty student “x-factor” boost and “informal agreements between large donors and the admissions department” were not made by me.”</p>
<p>Just as it has become so typical, reporters love to twist and churn the words of the persons interviewed that, by the time, the article comes out, they have hard time recognizing their own words, and realized that they felt into a trap. </p>
<p>Of course, that reporter denied having twisted the words and having an agenda. Yep, I will buy that!</p>
<p>PS By the way, children of faculty and children of donors are indeed accepted to Stanford. But why should this be surprising as the come from an environment that has prepared them well for the steps beyond high school. It would, however, be a mistake to think that all the children of faculty get a “free pass” to the next class at Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Way too harsh- Everyone has to start somewhere. BTW a call to the managing editor will verify whether or not the facts were checked. Also, didn’t the president of the university admit to these things? I thought the article was posted on CC. Anyway if so, the journalist seems to have gotten this one right.</p>
<p>No! Probably not harsh enough.</p>
<p>This so-called journalist did not get it right. He just went on a fishing expedition to find someone who could “confirm” some of his agenda points. He quoted someone who has zero knowledge of the issues covered in his article, read applications years ago, and surely would not have been part of any discussions about faculty of development admits. It is also highly unlikely those types of applications would have been in her stack. Not to mention, if they were, that would undermine the theory of special treatment. I guess you do not “get” what outside readers do for Stanford. </p>
<p>The other person quoted shared she was misquoted. So, that is how far this “story” goes. A call to the editor of the Patch is not necessary. The fact they let someone like a UCLA intern write stories speaks volumes about the integrity and capabilities of that rag. </p>
<p>Next!</p>
<p>It’s all just a game anyway. Money can buy you whatever you want</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi: Please cite your source(s)</p>
<p>The best jokes are short. You dug some garbage article from the media gutter. Do your own fact checking. It ain’t that hard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi-The journalist is right. You are wrong. I’ll be generous and simply ask that you get your facts straight. Here it is from the Stanford’s president’s mouth. BTW this article was previously posted on CC.</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> Daily | Connections to University can affect admissions decision](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12/connections-to-university-can-affect-admissions-decision/]Stanford”>Connections to University can affect admissions decision)</p>