This young man approached his applications shrewdly. Stanford and the Ivy’s are so self-important that they are
easily manipulated. He presented himself as a candidate too politically attractive to reject. He baited Stanford and Stanford bit. Hence, his glee that the strategy worked. That’s not the reaction of someone who has labored diligently for four years and been rewarded.
But I would submit that shrewdness in a 17-year old is not an attractive quality. What the great
institutions should be looking for is the candidate’s intellectual curiosity and potential–not just how “interesting” the
candidate is. The passions described at length in applications are manufactured for the purpose of gaining
an acceptance.
I believe the elite institutions are sowing the seeds of their own decline. It will take a long time given their massive
wealth and influence. One conclusion I have is that graduates of the elite colleges no longer represent the best and the brightest of our country. I will be looking much more closely at kids applying for jobs from state schools-perhaps from an Honor’s program-that demonstrated true scholarship and achievement.
Well said.
Where I work ( a Silicon valley company) I have seen Stanford CS students rejected in favor of San Jose State students.
The Ivy’s still attract, and accept, lots of very bright kids! They may have a broader objective of getting in some super extroverts or those who excel in leadership or are part of a certain demographic, etc. Clearly “diversity” across many areas is an objective for all these schools. They also want to admit kids who they believe will be highly influential and make an impact eventually (in gov’t, business, academia the arts, etc.), and probably quite good at predicting which of their applicants fall into these categories. In the end, they want kids who will be good press for them down the road and give them lots of money to continue to build, expand, and compete agains their top peers.
The big question is whether diversity of intellectual thought is considered. One thing our friends in academia have noticed is that at many (not all) top schools, the student body has become, in their view, less intellectually curious. They leave their intellectual side for the classroom or their school work, and conversations or debates about their subjects simply don’t carry over to the Starbucks or dorm or dining hall. Of course, this is a gross generalization but they are the people immersed in the community so they would know better than many of us. Of course, this also sounds like the age-old “In my day . … .” complaints that were recorded as early as Aristotle’s time (in fact, it was Aristotle who did the complaining).
One thing I wanted to point out earlier is that with superscoring it’s actually really difficult to know what the true 50% range is for SAT/ACT (most don’t superscore ACT but some do . . . ). Super scoring the SAT made sense before they revised the test but not sure it’s relevant now. However, haven’t really noticed that colleges are dropping the superscoring from admissions. Why bring this up? Because these school very proudly display their super-high test scores. Only if those ranges are the result of superscoring they are inflated.
The standardized tests are the ONLY means of objectively comparing these applicants. When you do away with that objective comparison, you make the entire application subjective. And by not disclosing whether their 50% ranges on test scores are the results of superscoring or not, you potentially mislead applicants, their families and the public about what they are looking for. Hence a high performing student with a 36 ACT doesn’t get in, but someone with a superscore of 32 or 33 who can tap dance upside down and who raises money for orphaned children in Somalia DOES get in. Schools need to be more honest about how subjective they are. The buzzword “holistic” doesn’t quite assign weights to the various factors considered.
How does the girl with a 32 ACT who can tap dance upside down assure the school of excellence in its class or that they will ultimately be successful in their career? Schools like Stanford used to admit students based on their scholastic record. The holistic approach is a cover for admitting students who probably make the class more interesting and “diverse-looking”. Again, these universities are so full of themselves, they feel that they capable of creating some kind of ideal community. I don’t think this is the job of a university and furthermore, I don’t believe that they are very good at predicting the impact a 17-year old will make. I am an Ivy graduate and learned that a girl from our high school with a 27 ACT was admitted to my school for rowing. For the first time, I was actually embarrassed for my alma mater. My point is that any employer should be skeptical of the Ivy/Stanford graduate. Yes, of course there are some truly bright kids but unfortunately many have been admitted for reasons other than merit.
@rk1587 don’t these schools have all sorts of resources to assist those who are chosen for reasons other than scholastic potential and who might actually struggle? Every institution now has remediation services and similar. There is also a higher selection of “soft” majors to help ensure graduation of the entire class. These things all support your point that schools might have objectives other than admitting students based on their scholastic record. Although in fairness they’ve been deviating for awhile. My younger brother returned from his first sem. at an Ivy declaring that his school sought excellence over a wide field and that if, for instance, you were the best break-dancer out there then you could get in. Thought that was an interesting comment at the time - almost 35 years ago.
May have been going on for a while but certainly not to this extent. I remember that there were some student-athletes who struggled academically when I was there but the vast majority of athletes were superior students. Our teams were mediocre but I didn’t have the expectation that the school would be going to the Rose Bowl. That the school was not top-of the-heap in various sports didn’t bother me at all and made no difference in my donations to the school. In fact, I relished the difference of the Ivy league-where scholarship counted.
I don’t blame these kids-even the BLM kid-for approaching their applications the way they do. They are only responding to the guidance given by the admissions offices. He was clever-but again, is “clever” what you want in a student? How about curious, intellectual? I went to a “Select College” session earlier this year. One mom asked about her son’s chances given that we was a well-rounded kid without an angle. The representative from the college practically spit the phrase “well-rounded” out like it left a bad taste in his mouth. The exchange bothered me so much I found myself thinking about it days afterward and how I would evaluate two kids applying for a job. One, who was well-rounded and maybe pursued something he/she enjoyed without regard to its impact on an application versus an applicant with a resume full of these interesting experiences or a reported passion for some obscure subject. Lots of factors would weigh in but there would be something about the “passionate” student that would strike me as manufactured and a bit phony. I suspect that many of these passionate students become econ majors by the time they are sophomores. My point is that many 17 and 18-year old don’t know what their passion is and therefore come to college open to many new thoughts and pursuits. I think that might be a good thing.
Admissions experts will tell you that many elite schools want well-rounded classes, not well-rounded students. They are definitely pursuing kids who have some stand-out angle or other. As long as you can produce the right grades, coursework and test scores, then it becomes a competition of who can impress with their standout talent or characteristic.
Totally agree that 17-18 year old kids don’t really know what their passion is and those who do haven’t really given much time for anything else. How many of these uber-talented kids, for instance, have held an entry-level part time job? Surely they are NOT too time constrained or important to pick up the necessary life skills from such an experience.
Just to chime in: my friend goes to school with him in new jersey and apparently he’s known for being insincere and arrogant. He said that Ziad lives in a multi-million dollar home, is openly antisemitic, and told everyone that he started his organization just to get into college. That isn’t something my friend would lie about, although I don’t know Ziad personally and therefore can’t really say anything. Still thought that was interesting
Sorry, but calling everyone who disagrees with your opinion a “coward” confounds me.
We are simply offering our own differing perspectives in this argument. Also, accusing his critics of being “jealous” that we didn’t get into Stanford is ridiculous. I didn’t even apply to Stanford, and I wouldn’t trade where I’m heading this year for anything.
Did you even read my post??? I used my own perspective to point out the reasons why this essay should not have been accepted. I made sure not to undermine any of his accomishments as I’m aware that he was very qualified. I’m just trying to get my points across: why ask an essay question if you’re going to accept a student in spite of it?
Also, please don’t tell me to “read his twitter feed.” Tweeting is slackivism. Posting #BLM as a hashtage does not prove anything.
This kid’s father was one of the “Quants” profiled in the book about the 2008 crash of Wall Street.
“The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It” ,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/21shelf.html
It will be interesting to see 4 years from now if this kid will continue his “unapologetic activism” or take up cozy Wall Street job.
@yeboiiiiii I actually didn’t call everyone who disagrees with me a coward- I clearly stated that I believe people who shame someone anonymously on an internet forum is a coward.
And I didn’t say everyone who critiques him applied to Stanford- I said many of you are jealous. Why? Because I have seen and witnessed that jealousy in real life, regarding college admissions, and many of the posts on this thread reek of jealousy. In my opinion.
To your other point- yes, I did read your post, I have read every post on this thread.
I have met many rich, super rich and not so rich and poor people during my job over 25 years in various parts of the world; and honestly, it’s not as easy as you think for children of rich kids to succeed and be happy. I give a lot of credit to children of rich or famous parents who grow up to be well adjusted and successful people. Sometimes lacking money gives a lot of motivation and teaches many admirable traits. I think people from both sides tend to over-emphasize the hardships and privileges of the other side.
I am 99% convinced that the applicant’s other parts of application was good enough so that one “questionable” essay did not doom his application. If other parts of his application was not good, he would not have gotten in, period.
Well, we’ll never know for sure how this essay response played into his acceptance because these admissions departments appear to be accountable to no one. There’s no feedback, no transparency. I stand by my conclusion that this essay was probably an important element in his acceptance. The response played perfectly into the elite colleges’ mission of creating the utopian class including students like this young man who they (and Yale and Princeton) decided would be impactful. In reality, he played them like a fiddle. Again-refer you to his reaction.
Interesting, his twitter feed has gone silent. No posting since a few days after the story broke.
@CA94309 I actually went to B-school with one of those Quants and he was definitely a math whiz. LOL - small world.
Which one is Ziad’s dear dad? Don’t think he’s one of the four “main characters” is he?
@websensation I’d tend to agree with you on most of your post #172. But this young man was heavily into self-promotion. Consider the following MVT Article headlined: “THIS MUSLIM-AMERICAN TEEN TURNED HIS SUFFERING INTO A FULL-FLEDGED BATTLE AGAINST STEREOTYPES”. Understanding that young Ziad wasn’t necessarily responsible for the headline, it’s laughable that this privileged young man has “suffered” at all - other than perhaps some embarrassment with TSA (like NONE of us have EVER suffered at the hands of the TSA LOL).
He found a way to stand out and was determined to succeed. Stanford probably likes young people like that - they know how to play the admissions game.
Well, this site is named College Confidential, so anonymity is encouraged. Given that @yonceonhismouth, are you suggesting we should not discuss anyone in a disapproving manner?
@collegedad13
The responses show thinly veiled racism. You are correct to call it what it is and shame on those who assume this kid unqualified.
I suspect those who have the biggest axe to grind here have had friends/family who may have been rejected by an elite school so it goes to their logic that their spot was somehow stolen by the unworthy.
It’s an unfortunate undercurrent in college admissions dialogue and appeals to the worst of finger pointing.
AND they call students “snowflakes”…that’s ripe as I’ve seen plenty of whining here.
The student took a gamble. It paid off. We don’t know what the rest of his application was but I can assume it was competitive to be admitted to Y and P.
One viewer commented " I stand by my conclusion that this essay was probably an important element in his acceptance."
I am not sure how you get to that conclusion. I have no idea if it played much of a role or not. You have to consider that probably two or three people actually read thru the application in its entirety. Maybe that one essay response was discussed by the full admissions committee or maybe it wasn’t. For me it is uncertain what portion of the application was given the most weight.