<p>Given that it is highly unlikely that four URMs with identical credentials as OP and his friends would have been had the same degree of rejections, it is much farier to tell the OP that much of the world is racist and universities are no exceptions rather than insisting that the admission process is not racist. A more honest approach is to say, “yes there is racism, and your bar his higher, but here are the reasons… (eg. we don’t want our colleges to look like the CA schools, etc)”. The problem is that we are not consistent with using the diversity arguments everywhere - I don’t know how common it is that ORMs will be given a boost in athletic scholarships compared to URMs so that the sports teams show more diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Already explained that the acceptance rate of ED colleges is not comparable to colleges with out the ED process. All these colleges fill up to 40% of class through ED.</p>
<p>I would be curious about OP’s school’s Naviance, even though it does not do a breakdown for reported race or gender. If Naviance were to show a 50% accept rate for students with the profile OP describes, and he and his friends were still 0 for 20, I would raise an eyebrow and want to know more, but still might just conclude that they were not very lucky.</p>
<p>(I am assuming that OP and friends do have an impressive collection of EC’s and awards to match, but are not mentioning these because they prefer to remain anonymous on this board.)</p>
<p>I would add, however, that at our public high school, 0 for 20 with those types of stats(with what used to be considered impressive EC’s and other distinctions thrown in), if the schools involved have sub 10% acceptance rates overall and without students who have legacy boosts thrown in, would not puzzle anyone who has gone through the process in the past few years, no matter the demographic except perhaps for a Questbridge candidate or nationally ranked athlete. Our guidance counselors make sure all seniors applying to these schools (and their parents) are aware of this and stress the importance of applying to many schools and having at least one safety. </p>
<p>OP was very smart to apply to a number of excellent schools with acceptance rates between 15% and 25%. Had he and his friends gotten 0 for 20 in this range I might have gotten very, very suspicious.</p>
<p>And, congrats to OP for the wonderful choices that he has in deciding where to matriculate. Please let us know where you decide to go.</p>
<p>Just MHO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do I need numbers to support my opinion? I don’t. xiggi made a roundabout suggestion that Asians do not “give back” to their “community,” whatever that means. That’s a positive claim, and so HE should substantiate his remark with numbers. I question that; hence, I don’t have to provide anything. You can’t ask someone who is skeptical to prove what he doesn’t believe in the first place.</p>
<p>So whatre you going to do now? Start in Jan?
Sorry btw:/…</p>
<p>Fab: In other words . . . you got squat to back up your opinion? Ok, just wanted to clear that up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s up with that? </p>
<p>I write a five “paragraphs” essay (a la SAT) with an intro, a body, and a conclusion, and I need to explain you the “point?”</p>
<p>Oh, here is a point. How are the restaurants on Greenville. Found Arc en Ciel yet? Oops, that was a question, not a point. So sorry!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know and that is why it’s part of HMSPY and not “other Ivies”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it’s perceived prestige in your eyes and for us the order of preference and perceived prestige is HMSPY.</p>
<p>But … Stanford uses 2 variations of ED. If it is just your kid’s ranking that’s cool . . . it gives her view of upper and lower ivies. Like elbows, everyone has a couple. LOL!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you understand what you’re trying to argue here. You seem to believe that the following is acceptable:</p>
<p>1: A is true.
2: I do not believe A is true.
1: Fine. Then the onus is on you to show that A is not true!</p>
<p>That’s not how it works. You don’t ask someone who DISPUTES a claim to prove that the claim is FALSE. You ask the person who CLAIMS it to prove that it is TRUE.</p>
<p>Fab, bro . . .I know your type:</p>
<p>God is love,
Love is blind,
Ray Charles is blind,
Therefore Ray Charles is God,
Ray Charles is dead,
Therefore God is dead?!?!?</p>
<p>Simply admit you disagree with Xiggi. Is that so hard? YOU argue that he has no facts, and you now claim that you don’t need any facts. Words of advice: stop before you hurt yourself. Xiggi presented a question for all to consider!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought you just went through the process with your DD this year. I went through the process in 2009 but still knows quite well that both Stanford and Yale uses SCEA (Single Choice Early Action), which do restricts students too but is non binding.
MIT uses EA which is open and non binding and Harvard and Princeton don’t use any Early program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when did the famous “five paragraphs”-style mean that a point was made? You could write mindless, blathering gibberish and still fit the “five paragraphs” format.</p>
<p>xiggi, you made a claim. Asians don’t “give back.” Prove it or retract it.</p>
<p>They do now, meson!</p>
<p>My goodness. CoolRunning, do you believe that defendants have to PROVE their innocence? It’s the same thing here. xiggi made an AFFIRMATIVE claim. He has to prove it with numbers. I DISPUTE his claim. You’re saying I have to prove that he’s wrong? No. He has to prove that he’s right.</p>
<p>I’m quitting at post 500. LOL!</p>
<p>Fab, please tell me you are not THAT naive in the law too!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford University received 5,950 Single Choice Early Action applications compared to 5,566 Single Choice Early Action applications for the Class of 2014 – that’s a 7% increase. Stanford expects to accept 760 SCEA applicants for a targeted freshman class of about 1,700 students.</p>
<p>Missed it by one, POIH, my DD is one of the RD admits (full ride), trust me I know the stats. Y’all take care.</p>