stanford

Transfer Students
21

<p>
[quote]
Both "I am" and "me" are technically correct, however "me" is used much more common making it preferred.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You keep telling yourself that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I'm dealing with a pimply faced indian geek at Georgetown. We already know that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) So now you've seen me!? Hahahahahaha, and we were taking about apocryphal claims. This takes the cake.
2) "We"? Speak for yourself.</p>

<p>I'm done here.</p>

22

<p>
[QUOTE]
You keep telling yourself that.

[/QUOTE]

You're an idiot. I've explained the grammar to you and you have nothing better to say because you've failed to understand it. I thought you are "a guy who has memorized Strunk and White's Elements of Style."</p>

<p>*****<em>ng l</em>s*r</p>

23

<p>haha sorry for starting this thread...</p>

24

<p>one more question...</p>

<p>does geographic location play a role in stanford transfer admissions?</p>

25

<p>p reepa
Just so you don't get your hopes up too high, Stanford accepts less than 5% of transfer applicants, vrs. 10% of freshman applicants, according to their website.</p>

26

<p>yeah, i realize that...but what to do?</p>

27

<p>bribery of course</p>

28

<p>I think it can help or hurt really. </p>

<p>It shows continued interest but there is a reason you got rejected the first time and will have had to put a stronger file together this time to be successful.</p>

29

<p>well, i'm thinking about it this way:</p>

<p>i didn't get into washU the first time around, but i just got in yesterday as a transfer.</p>

<p>i'm looking to start a new trend i suppose...</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
i didn't get into washU the first time around, but i just got in yesterday as a transfer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, just ignore foxdie. I have no idea whence he got that "bias" crap. I've had handwritten notes from admissions officers reading my file a second time, saying "you finally made it! Congratulations!"</p>

31

<p>As much as I don't want to, I am inclined to agree with foxdie. I remember writing an e-mail to my Yale admissions officer asking about transfer possibilities right after I was rejected, and he told me that post-rejection admissions were less likely than people who were applying as freshman.</p>

<p>On the other hand, this might be primarily because many people applied as sophomore applicants and relied once again on their high school grades, rather than as juniors relying on an upward-trend college transcript.</p>

<p>Additionally I know at least half of a dozen people who got rejected the first time and got in the second time. One of them was at Brown, of all places!</p>

32

<p>I think many of you are reasoning incorrectly about this, so I will attempt to clarify the issue:</p>

<p>The question is whether applying once as a freshman might be a negative when applying as a transfer. Construed more clearly, the question is really:</p>

<p>(1) Does applying once as a freshman cause one's transfer application negatively than it already would be?</p>

<p>The answer is no.</p>

<p>The two pieces of evidence offered in support of affirming (1) are:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I remember writing an e-mail to my Yale admissions officer asking about transfer possibilities right after I was rejected, and he told me that post-rejection admissions were less likely than people who were applying as freshman.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Although there is no limitation
on the number of times you may fi le a transfer application, previously
unsuccessful transfer candidates should be aware that competition
for transfer places is consistent and that chances for acceptance upon
re-application are small.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Neither of these peices of evidence imply that being rejected as a freshman causes one's transfer application to be viewed negatively. Sure, post-rejection admissions is less likely, but not because you were rejected already; rather, it was because Yale (or whatever school) rejected you for a reason, and it is unlikely that that reason changed since that rejection. If you had not applied as a freshman, that reason would still be there: the adcom would just be seeing it for the first time. Getting accepted is just as unlikely because the reason is still present, not because the applicant was rejected.</p>

<p>Sure, I am willing to admit that the reasons for rejection might be at play when the applicant applies again; but they would still be at play if the student were applying for the first time. Rejection as as freshman doesn't give special weight to those reasons when the person reapplies; they are the same whether or not the student applied once before (of course, this assumes consistency in admissions methodology, but that is not a tendentious assumption).</p>

<p>There is a very fine distinction, and I hope both of you see it. Rejection doesn't cause one's application to be viewed negatively.</p>