<p>
</p>
<p>OK, do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Does the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” mean nothing to you? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The defendant NEVER has to “prove his innocence.” I can’t believe you dispute this. We do still live in the United States, yes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that would be much “fairer,” especially considering that we have zero or at least incomplete information on the other applicants:</p>
<p>(1) Who were accepted to his schools of choice this year (including their racial, ethnic, national identities, high schools, family income levels, e.c. categories & e.c. accomplishments, awards, content of LOR’s, application essays, application statements of purpose, intended majors)</p>
<p>(2) Who did not (also) get accepted to his schools of choice this year (including their racial, ethnic, national identities, high schools, family income levels, e.c. accomplishments, awards, content of LOR’s, application essays, application statements of purpose, intended majors)</p>
<p>Yes, your suggestion is way more “fair,” not to mention intellectually honest. </p>
<p>Let’s just humor a distorted view of things. That’s the responsible, adult approach. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford doesn’t have ED but Stanford might have ED for Questbridge applicants which seems to be your experience and since I’m not aware of the QB process and so won’t comment on it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/[/url]”>http://www.questbridge.org/</a></p>
<p>But for regular applicants Stanford only have SCEA similar to Yale.</p>
<p>“Just when I thought I was out . . . they pull me back in!”</p>
<p>No, HOIH, my daughter was not admitted under QB to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell, Rice, Tulane etc. etc. She applied and was accepted RD to these and others. Sorry. Gotta run now.</p>
<p>^^^: Then why did you indicate Stanford has ED?</p>
<p>
How the H should HE know? Why do so many posters here seem to think that OP and his friends must have had some obvious deficiency that everyone but they could easily spot and which got them disqualified as applicants? As far as I can tell, none of you were on these admissions committees, discussing OP and Friends, although many of you seem to think you could do their job for them. Maybe, just maybe, they were actually in the running and were culled because there WERE too many Asians already, or maybe they would have been picked on a different day, or had a very close vote but lost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are confusing “racist” with “discriminatory.” Colleges do discriminate based on race, and this is not a secret. They freely admit that race is used as a factor in admissions, and this practice has been upheld as lawful by the US Supreme Ct.</p>
<p>Are you Cruzan, CoolRunning?</p>
<p>Coolrunning and DD is on my list of potentials. Moving up, with low/no student loans. </p>
<p>We’ll see what’s going to transpire in 2015-17. </p>
<p>Check back with me. DS will be 29, should be well established and monied.
:)</p>
<p>WOW, CoolRunning, I disagree about ED at Stanford. I agree with POIH that Stanford has single choice EA similar to Yale’s. They call that Restricted Early Admit. Some deatils are different but not binding and it should be single choice with some exceptions allowed.</p>
<p>Quote:
People used to refer to HYP (the most well know Ivys–probably in that order because in much of the public’s eyes, that is how the public orders their prestige relative to each other)."</p>
<p>I think you’re kidding yourself that the general public – the people who can name more of the cast on Jersey Shore than they could members of the supreme court – spend any time whatsoever thinking about HYP, much less distinguishing their prestige so finely as to have a rank order.</p>
<p>POIH, I think you are splitting hairs when you separate the Ivies. </p>
<p>Let’s consider Princeton. Just a mere few years ago it had an early decision program. It was ended in 2006. </p>
<p>And Yale and Stanford switched from early decision to SCEA in 2004.</p>
<p>So according to your theory, Yale, Stanford and Princeton were all “lower Ivies” in 2003.</p>
<p>But, aren’t they bringing back EA at Harvard and Princeton next year?</p>
<p>fireandrain: If you have noticed that I always write HMSPY which is the perceived order and prestige in our view. There was a reason for it. EA is the most open way of accepting applications and so high marks to Harvard and MIT for that. SCEA is restrictive and so both S and Y lost points on that P used to be ED so it lost more points than S and Y.</p>
<p>Since Y neighborhood is extremely uncomfortable so it lost even more point and moved lower than P.</p>
<p>Hence the ultimate order of HMSPY.</p>
<p>The favored order in my house is BMHPSY.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about Princeton Williams NotrE Dame?</p>
<p>Aka PWNED.</p>
<p>From now on, I am only going to refer to them as BMHPSY - I hope no one is offended:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Epiphany, I’ll ignore the sarcy, and say this: if you go to any college open house, you can see just how much importance and emphasis they place to “diversity”, and then quantify it primarily by race. If you look at the variables of applicants that they publish, like grades and scores, it’s also quite evident there’s a gap between URMs and the rest. The adcoms openly say they try hard to boost URM enrollment. Our kids’ suburban school has URMs whose lives have a whole lot more in common with their non-URM classmates than with URMs in the inner city. But the universities realize they score exactly the same on the diversity dashboard they display as those who do live drastically different lives and who bring real diversity to their peers at college, and this is evident every year when the the admission scorecard comes out.</p>
<p>So yes, you can complicate the problem as you suggested to the extent that you can never get the data to get a result, and feel good about it. Or you can be honest and say, yes, there is racism. </p>
<p>While it’s true that that no application to a selective school is a certain acceptance, how many reasonable scenarios are there where a group of URMs with the stats that the OP posted who would have scored 0 out of 20+? Looking at my and my kids experiences, exposure to economic diversity is a far richer experience, but it’s evident the middle-class and wealthy URMs and supporters are as astute as anyone else in trying to protect their turf, and keep the criteria wedded primarily to race than to socio-economic status or living conditions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bay, you are correct. I readily admit I used them interchangeably, and apologize I didn’t (and still don’t) see much a difference. “I’d rather give you the seat than him because you’re of such-and-such race” to me meant both discrimination and racism.</p>
<p>POIH, I don’t really care the order in which you put the initials. I think it is truly sad that the one criteria you use for the excellence of a university is how low the acceptance rate is combined with the lack of ED.</p>