<p>Shaina, my full ride is a result of the Gates Millennium Scholarship, not because of Stanford Financial Aid Office.</p>
<p>I disagree with what you said, statics. </p>
<p>""This speaks to a more general underlying truth of things at stanford: people in different racial groups, LGBT, crazy feminazis and various other categories of people will often tend to cluster together." lki is right, as you say, but it does not "happen[ ] everywhere" to nearly the same extent. And the Stanford administration, by establishing these ridiculous "theme houses" encourages its development. </p>
<p>"Yet, the I-Hum freshman class ostracizes us SLE kids because we choose to partake in a program that challenges us to utilize the great works, to question our thoughts and expand our worldview. Isnt that why most of us came to Stanford? The irony."
That is awfully arrogant, statics. For someone who argues, wrongly, that everyone here is an "intellectual," you seem to be contradicting yourself. You entirely discredit IHUM, which is a tad too much I think, and seem to believe that SLE is the end-all be-all of freshman humanities program. SLE is a great program, but it has its flaws, nor is it as rigorous as it appears. </p>
<p>"Let's admit it, all of us were some type of nerd in high school: a lit freak, a music prodigy, a science nerd, an art dork, a language lover, a politics guru, etc. You wouldnt be here at Stanford if you didnt take all the Honors or AP classes, participated in the Academic Decathlon or joined the National Honor Society. (Or did RSI). We are all intellectuals."
And that, especially your last sentence, is simply wrong. Intellectualism is something very different from doing well in school, and I know brilliant kids who go to MIT, Princeton, Stanford, whatever, and are not intellectual in the least bit. Many kids simply do things for their college applications (like RSI perhaps), because it is expected of them, or because they have nothing better to do. Doing RSI, for example, does not make you an intellectual in any way.</p>
<p>"Many kids simply do things for their college applications (like RSI perhaps)"
To see that directed to Static is probably the biggest, baddest, burn I've seen on CC.</p>
<p>In response to Static and in agreement with zephyr, that whole SLE is IT for anyone who learns for the sake of learning banter was pretty unwarranted. You knew what stereotype you were getting into with getting into SLE. FroSoCo gets made fun of all the time, too. One big scream of agitation on CC isn't gong to change the way things work at Stanford.</p>
<p>As for the intellectual side of things, you CAN'T forget the athletes. Sure there are smart athletes, but then again there are the ones who (like the football players in my summer anthro class) who are just dumb as rocks.</p>
<p>And Static, have you ever looked at medical anthropology? Cause from what you talk about on CC, it seems like a great fit for you.</p>
<p>"Sure there are smart athletes, but then again there are the ones who (like the football players in my summer anthro class) who are just dumb as rocks."</p>
<p>I know a football player down the hall who's a really bright guy. There's a wrestler in my IHUM section that contributes more than most of the regular admits. Overall, I'd say are athletes are generally pretty smart. I think I read a statistic somewhere that of the 100 top football players who are high school seniors, only 5 would have the grades to get into Stanford as athletes.</p>
<p>It wasn't directed at statics at all. It was merely an example. No high school program, club or activity is free from those who have no intellectual interest in it and merely do it for the accomplishments. </p>
<p>That being said, one must concede that an attractive factor for RSI applicants is the de facto guaranteed admission for RSI and other top institutions. Those types tend to get rejected, and statics certainly cares about science research more than almost anyone else I know.</p>
<p>"And the Stanford administration, by establishing these ridiculous "theme houses" encourages its development."</p>
<p>These communities are needed so that an identity can be established. How would you feel if you were an underprivileged minority talking to a bunch of rich snobs? How out of place would you feel? Not all of us have the privileges that many have here, so by establishing these "theme houses," the stanford administration is giving them support and easing the college transition. </p>
<p>How did I discredit IHUM by praising SLE? Don't make assumptions. Just because you're not having a good time in SLE doesn't mean you gotta take it out on the program.</p>
<p>"because they have nothing better to do."
When they have nothing to do, they do JSA...kinda like you did.</p>
<p>Sorry, but you deserve this post.</p>
<p>I didn't know that the URM houses were for poor URMs... How much does a theme dorm REALLY construct your identity for you?</p>
<p>I'm just using it as an example. All the houses are centered around ethnicity. It doesn't really construct your individual identity. When I said identity, I meant collective identity.</p>
<p>"How would you feel if you were an underprivileged minority talking to a bunch of rich snobs?"
Is the disparity really that evident? Or were you just being a bit hyperbolic for the sake of argument. (honest question)
Also I don't know why we're endorsing identity politics- we all know it's not going to significantly change anything, and it only fuels a notion of grassroots change when nothing is structurally changing in the capitalist hierarchy (joking pomo reference...but does anyone recognize which author this is?).</p>
<p>true that ashveer... i'm not big on ethnicity dorms.. why can't we just blend and mix and be cool</p>
<p>icefalcon7. It is a hyperbole for the sake of the argument.</p>
<p>Yeah, I lived in the African-themed dorm over the summer and ppl always said "ooooh the party dorm," not like "oh they have really cool African dance seminars" or something...</p>
<p>You deserve to be proven wrong. </p>
<p>"These communities are needed so that an identity can be established. How would you feel if you were an underprivileged minority talking to a bunch of rich snobs? How out of place would you feel? Not all of us have the privileges that many have here, so by establishing these "theme houses," the stanford administration is giving them support and easing the college transition."
Nothing could be more be fallacious. Just because someone is from a "minority" does not mean they are underprivileged--that is a terribly crass statement to make. Almost everyone at Stanford is from the upper third of income. And if even if they are "underprivileged" does not mean they need to form a separate racial identity by any means. Forming identities by race is hardly the right way to go about things, and it segregates certain groups of people from society. What about "underprivileged" white kids, statics? How come they don't get their own theme house to "transition" to college life to?</p>
<p>As for your passing remark at JSA, well, certainly someone is bitter at missing out at what would have probably been THE best experience of his high school life, a certain summer program included. If you need to keep on talking about that summer program to make yourself feel better, well, that's your own choice.</p>
<p>if you have some sort of decency, insult me in front of my face instead of taking this argument out on a petty online forum.</p>
<p>5 4 3 2 1 I'm over it.</p>
<p>Let me just remind you that you were the one constantly bringing up RSI to my face for the 1st two weeks at Stanford. Let me also remind you that YOU also brought up RSI in this argument which HAD NOTHING to do with RSI. ["Many kids simply do things for their college applications (like RSI perhaps), because it is expected of them, or because they have nothing better to do."]</p>
<p>Because you're white and better off than most people, you have no rights to speak for the minority or the disadvantaged (if you want to separate them into two groups). </p>
<p>You called me out on making "crass statements." What type of statement is this: "Almost everyone at Stanford is from the upper third of income". Hmm, nothing could be farther from the truth. "Almost everyone" means more than the majority, which is 50%. Let me pull up some data. </p>
<p>Number of Enrolled Students Receiving Aid:
a) Number of degree-seeking undergraduate students 6,654</p>
<p>b) Number of students in line a who applied for need-based financial aid 3,750</p>
<p>c) Number of students in line b who were determined to have financial need 3,208</p>
<p>d) Number of students in line c who received any financial aid 3,139</p>
<p>e) Number of students in line d who were awarded scholarship or grant aid 3,070</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/</a></p>
<p>"Upper third of income" is an ambiguous statement in itself which means absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>p.s.</p>
<p>"As for your passing remark at JSA, well, certainly someone is bitter at missing out at what would have probably been THE best experience of his high school life"
By best, you mean mediocre. JSA is more accessible to high school students than RSI just like a community college is more accessible to the public than a private university.</p>
<p>"If you need to keep on talking about that summer program to make yourself feel better, well, that's your own choice."" Again, I want to reiterate that you were the one that always brought up RSI, and clearly you did it again this time. So you're just a walking contradiction. But zephyr, at least I don't have a pathetic teacher's letter of recommendation hanging over my desk to make me feel like I deserve to be at Stanford. That is pitiful.</p>
<p>And you wonder why people don't invite you anywhere. Hmm.</p>
<p>stanford does have a very cluster-ish feel. it seems like they want to accomodate everyone and make a niche for them, which has definite benefits but also the drawback of a lack of unity on campus (evidence would include all the different options for freshman housing). the good things are that most people feel that where they are is the best (ie static's defense of SLE, stan's "larkin is the best dorm on campus") so something's working.
On the other side, just because there is clustering doesn't mean everyone does it. There are SLE people in band (which, according to stereotypes, seems like a walking contradiction) and people who make friends across dorms/activities. Stanford seems to be what you make of it, so if you want to find a lot of people with a similar passion, you probably can. if you want to bond with your dorm, you probably can. etc. etc. etc. Of course there are exceptions and some times you can just get unlucky, but Stanford really does an excellent job of providing you with opportunities.</p>
<p>and guys, cut down on the personal argument. I have learned from experience that this sort of fight is NOT the best way to resolve issues or even to argue them. take a chill pill. (to prospective people...no, this is not what stanford students spend their time talking about)</p>
<p>oh, and solidarity with the other math 51 kids! We're almost done!</p>
<p>"5 4 3 2 1 I'm over it."
Apparently not. </p>
<p>You, my friend, have crossed the line into petty remarks. I'm not the one who on his LJ goes on and on about his advanced Humbio course or how he can take classes at GSB. I don't think anyone really cares. </p>
<p>"Because you're white and better off than most people, you have no rights to speak for the minority or the disadvantaged (if you want to separate them into two groups)."
I have no more right than you. I didn't attend a private high school, and I'm a minority in more than one sense. So what, you, being non-white, can speak for the "disadvantaged"? That is completely erroneous, and you don't even attempt to defend that position. </p>
<p>The relationship between financial aid and income isn't established by your data. I know many well-to-do kids receiving very nice financial aid packages. I quote The Atlantic Monthly: "only three percent of [146 top colleges'] students came from the bottom economic quartile...whereas 74 percent came from the top one." That would render me correct and you wrong, right?</p>
<p>"By best, you mean mediocre. JSA is more accessible to high school students than RSI just like a community college is more accessible to the public than a private university."
That's quite an elitist statement. "Accessibility" has nothing to do with it, and your attitude seems to be out of line with the standard RSI outlook. That is why JSA is good, because there are not only arrogant, prestige-obsessed types as yourself but also those with more humility. Just because something is elite and selective doesn't mean it's good, and you haven't established that. And RSI didn't help you with your early-admission and first choice school, anyway, now did it? </p>
<p>"And you wonder why people don't invite you anywhere. Hmm."
Care to share the meaning of that one, my socialite friend? </p>
<p>What I love most about your comments is that you drop all pretensions to actually discussing matters with me, essentially concede my points, and attack my credibility instead.</p>
<p>"if you have some sort of decency, insult me in front of my face instead of taking this argument out on a petty online forum." Same goes for you. </p>
<p>As for the no-longer-there teacher's letter, it was something from someone I greatly admire. Considering our respective college-admissions experiences and application strength, YOU can't possibly say that I don't deserve to be here.</p>
<p>how big are the dorms.... ? like how many people in each house or whatever its called</p>
<p>can we all just take a chill pill</p>