<p>rejected over here</p>
<p>Lion seriously, dont listen to other people. Just do what your gut says. Not for the sake of any logic, but because if you dont do what your gut says you are going to brew over it for sooo long and it could hurt your next two years at northwestern because you wont give it your all. So, take this weekend to make a decision, dont do anything before then. Think about it, do you want to let it go? or do you want to do something about it? But dont brew about it and go back and forth over it past…lets say… Monday of next week? </p>
<p>PS you paid 75 bucks for app fee, the least they could do is give you a clear as day explanation. no beating around the bush with PC wording. Just say, *Dean Shaw, answer this question in yes or no format: Was I rejected because I accessed the SUnet system? * hehe.</p>
<p>southerncalif, I don’t understand why you think I’m referring to you? I made no such accusations. Where in your previous posts on this thread were you accusatory of me? I don’t see them. I do have the PMs of the person I’m talking about saved. I didn’t even accuse anyone of anything. I simply said “I really hope it’s not because somebody on this forum tried to sabotage me.”</p>
<p>mlt555, I would encourage you to re-read my post (#676). It doesn’t even matter if I was rejected for other reasons in the end. The fact is… they admitted that I was initially accepted but because of the SUNet incident, they had to reconsider. Did they weigh other factors in their reconsideration? Probably-- it was probably hard not to. There were 23 accepted out of 1,200+ applicants. However, this doesn’t change the fact that I was accepted **initially<a href=“again,%20see%20my%20response%20to%20missyujin%20for%20the%20evidence”>/b</a>.</p>
<p>JGee, thank you for your support. It means so much to me. I will make a decision, but most likely, I will let it go. I have a life to live here, and Northwestern truly is an amazing place. I am so lucky and extremely privileged to be here. While I believe I’ve recovered from the Stanford rejection, I just felt the need to state what I felt was unfair (that if I am to be punished, I shouldn’t be singled out at least). I’m only human, you know. Thank you all for listening :)</p>
<p>To others who will comment on why I feel this is unfair, I would encourage you to please re-read my previous posts thoroughly (it seems people keep overlooking the evidence I stated in my response to missyujin, for example). Trust that I would not be doing this if I didn’t believe I have grounds for saying that I was treated unfairly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are not understanding what I am saying. The implication of admission is intentional; like I said, they would not give up on a student competitive enough to be on top 2% just as a “scapegoat”. </p>
<p>But again, lion, I like you. I think you are a highly qualified student, and it’s okay, you’re already at an amazing school. As for the 75-bucks-explanation thing, I’d like to get my explanation then, too, although I’ll probably hear “your SATs are low and your HS things are practically nonexistent.” </p>
<p>I’m thinking of requesting a paper copy of my rejection just to make Stanford pay at least for the paper and stamp. :D</p>
<p>Missyujin, I hope you read post 676 thoroughly (if nothing is changed in the sequence of the posts here). I don’t understand how, after reading it, you can still make the conclusion you just did. How could you just discount the SUNet method, the timing of my decision letter, the fact that they explicitly told me they were still deciding my case a day AFTER decisions were released to everybody else? Again, I repeat that they would not have done those things had I been rejected outright. Why would they put the extra effort? Yes, they did, in fact, reconsider their <em>initial</em> decision to admit me because of the SUNet incident, and they said this in an email. And like I said, you’d have to see our correspondence, but that is private, so I will not share it.</p>
<p>lion, I know they implied it. You said it repeatedly. What I am saying is that this implication was intentional.</p>
<p>But none of this makes any difference now, I guess. 
Best of luck to you whatever you decide to do!</p>
<p>Missy, I don’t understand how you can say that I’m simply reading too much into the email if you have not read the email yourself? I would not be making a case about this otherwise. Sometimes, in your life, you have to stand up for yourself, and I felt this was one of those moments.</p>
<p>I never said you were reading too much into the e-mail.</p>
<p>You said the meaning I deduced was not intentional.</p>
<p>Do you honestly believe Stanford would tell me they’re still deciding my case A DAY AFTER DECISIONS WERE RELEASED if I’d been rejected anyway?</p>
<p>That said, I have to go soon.</p>
<p>No, I said it was intentional.</p>
<p>That doesn’t make sense then. If the implication that I was initially admitted intentional, then how does that suggest I was not initially admitted? I thought you made an error and meant not intentional. Again, though, please do not make any conclusions without seeing our private correspondence. I shouldn’t share it, however.</p>
<p>lol, understandable, lion. Here is my first post on this matter:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I’m saying though is that Stanford did say <em>explicitly</em> that the SUNet incident affected my decision if I was not clear on that. The question was how was the decision affected? Accepted to rejected? Waitlisted to rejected? The implication I made based on strong evidence was that I was initially admitted and THEN rejected. I was able to get recognized on SUNet when no other waitlisted/rejected applicant was able to do so this year or in previous years, had my case decided a day after decisions were officially released, and like I said, Stanford explicitly told me the SUNet thing affected my decision.</p>
<p>Ok, I have to go…</p>
<p>It seems a bit strange that you would take Stanford word-for-word(?) when it comes to the SUNet decision-change, but wouldn’t take Stanford’s word about how reliable SUNet thing really is.</p>
<p>
Stanford never admitted the SUNet method doesn’t work because it does. Obviously, they would not do that as it could hurt them. It strikes me how political the admissions process can be…</p>
<p>So you’re one of the chosen 23 transfers allegedly admitted to Stanford AND you’re one of the chosen 20 students chosen from more than 5,000 students to the TRIALS program at HLS. You must be truly amazing.</p>
<p>liontree, part of the problem here may be your continued refusal to accept responsibility for what you did. You say you’re being singled out, you say you didn’t know it was wrong, you have one excuse after another. Other people who have posted on this thread say that they considered attempting the SUnet trick but realized that they shouldn’t.</p>
<p>You hacked into Stanford’s computer system. At best it was a serious lapse in judgment, but it was one that you made freely, no one made you do it. If Stanford reconsidered your acceptance you because of this, and that is a big if, then they were well within their rights to do so. If you were singled out then they can also do that. Before acceptances are even posted they can consider any behavior that comes to their attention. You have no one to blame but yourself.</p>
<p>XD liontreelion, you should probably just give up.</p>
<p>Lol at you thinking that you were assuredly worthy of acceptance. Unless you were born into genocide, helped several of your countrymen escape, raised millions for charity, won an Olympic gold medal AND attended Harvard for a year with a 4.0, you were probably a fringe candidate anyway.</p>
<p>Pea, I have admitted repeatedly that had I known it was wrong, I wouldn’t have done it. I also sent at least two letters to admissions explicitly saying I made a mistake without knowing it, and that I’m sorry. That is the truth. Also, for evidence that I was, in fact, admitted, please consult my previous posts, specifically 676 and 693. Future readers, please do this also. </p>
<p>I wonder what you guys think about Stanford asking for my SN on here and factoring that into their decision on that if they’ve stated before that they make decisions based only on information provided in the application. Well within their rights?</p>
<p>Bankersball2, to the contrary, I was surprised to be one of the initial 23. I think anybody part of the group would be given that there were over 1,200 applicants. How could one not doubt one’s chances, you know? But after knowing I was one of the 23 admitted and to have that admission taken away is what hurts. </p>
<p>If you have any more clarification questions or misunderstandings, I will elaborate. However, for now, I have stated my opinion, and I think that’s good enough.</p>