<p>ok, first of all, I want to set somethings straight. I did NOT intend to employ my musical talent (if I even have any :D) as an advantage, nor did I come out of an exceptional musical program or any sort, either. I simply love music (and playing music!), and intend to participate in as many musical programs, ensembles, etc. as possible throughout my life. This includes middle school, high school, undergraduate university, graduate university, work, etc, whatever comes up in my life. Same goes for atheletic activities such as sports.</p>
<p>I’m really sorry if I might offend anyone with what I will next say.</p>
<p>I think it is really stupid to participate in such extracurricular activities during high school, in some cases actually spending a lot of money (or, as I like to call it, wasting money), just to write them down in a university application form and to expect an acceptance letter from Harvard or any sort. Besides, one does not have to be a fine musician or a well-built athelete to get into a good university. There is no such thing as “being a top athlete trumps all there” (I’m really sorry if you’re offended, oceanview). If one is a top athelete, Perfect! But that doesn’t guarantee you a spot for the best universities or whatever. You need other qualities. Or, even if you don’t have qualities, you need “passion”.</p>
<p>What I believe is that, (I’m sure tons of people say this as well), you must be able to pursue what you “TRULY” want to pursue. OR, you must be “PASSIONATE” about what you are pursuing.</p>
<p>Oceanview, allow me to assume that you were saying that high school students should rather pursue athletic activities rather than musical activities, so as to get into Stanford. Personally, I think you are wrong. (please understand that I am trying my best not to employ an ad hominem arguement here). If those truly fine musicians, as you’ve said, have really not been able to succeed in applying to Stanford, whereas the top athletes were successful, may I suggest that you consider other factors (otherwise known as the “confunding variables”) before you come to the (possibly hasty) conclusion that “being a top athlete trumps all there”.</p>
<p>Have you considered their GPAs, Standardized test scores, recommendation letters, Personal Statements, Supplementary Essays? How much passion did they show for their respective activities? Did any of those have a legacy at Stanford? What were their financial status? Were they all citizens? were some of them immigrants? Besides these, there are many more factors to consider when dealing with applications.</p>
<p>I do not want to be stereotypical or racist, but I kind of noticed that many students fresh from Asia tend to have amazing musical abilities such as the piano, the violin, the clarinet, etc. whereas many Caucasians tend to have a more well-built body, experience with sports etc. I could also look upon cultural issues related to this, but I won’t go that far. Now, the asian students would most likely be considered as “international applicants” unless they have been living in America or California for a significant amount of time. Moreover, you would normally expect caucasians to be domestic applicants (I hope this is obvious and makes sense). Isn’t it obvious that the domestic applicants have an enormous advantage over the international applicants? Thus, the athletes may seem to have an advantage over the musicians.</p>
<p>What I’ve just said may not be true, but what I am trying to say is that you cannot make a hasty decision based on just a few factors, particularly when you’re dealing with a complicated issue such as an admissions process.</p>
<p>This is all I have to say. I’m sorry if I’ve been ranting, but I just wanted to make my opinion clear, (I can’t believe how I digressed from the fact that I simply wanted to pursue more music… hahaha).</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>DL</p>