<p>What is the magnitude of affirmative action in Stanford admissions? From what I've observed, ethnicity seems to play a significant role, where Hispanic and African American's get the boost, while Asians and Englishmen suffer from a lower admission rate. This is actually true for many colleges, but it seems to apply more at Stanford.</p>
<p>Also, does an applicant living in CA have a lower chance in admissions?</p>
<p>Well you have to understand… Whites and asians apply to top colleges such as Stanford in overabundance, while Hispanics and African Americans are underrepresented, so it is really the fault of your competition</p>
<p>There is some truth in your explication. However, I have seen Asians with 2300+ SAT scores, 4.0 UWGPAs, and astounding extracurriculars get rejected, while African Americans with <1900 SATs, <3.8 UWGPAs, and little ECs get accepted… Shouldn’t that space be given to a more qualified applicant? Especially if he or she worked for that 2300+ SAT and 4.0 GPA?</p>
<p>I think its because there are so many asians with those kind of stats, but, no offense to african americans, african americans with SATs even above 1800 are hard to come by</p>
<p>^ 1800? Really? Give us some credit, please.</p>
<p>As a (qualified in my opinion, you can decide for yourself) black guy, I must say that there’s some truth to that, though. They don’t often reject blacks with 2200+ SAT scores, and even kids with 2000s stand a chance. That simply can’t be said of applicants of most other races. As scales1994 said, there just aren’t all that many “well-qualified” black applicants to top schools.</p>
<p>Well i think it all comes down to context (in the most part). If there are two applicants, one black and one white, accorded the same opportunities and resources throughout there lives. The white guys takes advantage of mosts and hence has better EC’s, a better transcript, stronger recommendations and a higher test score than the black guy. As long as no extenuating circumstances can appropriately justify this mediocre performance of the black guy, affirmative action will not do much for him. However, there are, more often than not extenuating circumstances, which is absent, would allow him to do just as good as the white guy (if not better). Poverty, family issues etc. hence affirmative action, at least as modeled by this illustration, is actually pretty fair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>roflmao…</p>
<p>Haha I’m black xD</p>
<p>I have no idea about the actual answer to your question OP (and also, you have to realize that no Stanford student, parent, whatever except an admissions person can answer this question more than conjecturally), but I’d just caution you from basing your whole perception of the admission process and your own personal chances on a few phantom people you claim to know…
eg: “I have seen Asians <…> get rejected, while African Americans with <…> get accepted.” and “SEEMS to apply more at Stanford” etc
Just looking at the demographic breakdown of the student body, Asians way outnumber african americans and hispanics etc so it’s not like Stanford is filling the student body with underperforming black kids while all the smart Asians get shafted. Not at all. A person is more than just a laundry list of stats - just because a person has a 2400 SAT and 4.0 GPA they are not automatically a better fit for Stanford than the 2200, 3.8 GPA kid. There is something to be said about creating a passionate and well rounded student body rather than just admitting a bunch of stat-churning automatons. I think you’re underestimating all these minority kids you just cast as unqualified.
Assuming you’re a prospective student, just do your best on your app and in your life and let that come across in your app. Stop worrying about affirmative action screwing you over and don’t blame it if you don’t get in. You can only do what you can do, you know? The rest is up to admissions.</p>
<p>I support affirmative action because of its likely impact on the future of our society, and because I believe that talent is distributed equally among all races, while pre-college educational opportunities are not. So I rarely post on threads like this.</p>
<p>However, I think part of the answer to puzzling admissions outcomes in some cases (when comparing people with the same demographics) comes from the post just above this one. Applicants with 2400 SAT/4.0 UW GPA are negatively stereotyped as “stat-churning automatons.” No one I’ve met in this category fits the stereotype, but the stereotype itself is quite pervasive. You definitely see this view among the student admissions committee members at MIT, based on their posts on the MIT board. It’s doubtful that people who hold this view outgrow it upon receipt of a BA/BS, when they may become full-time admissions representatives.</p>
<p>With regard to California residence, I don’t think it makes admissions at Stanford harder. If you look around on this site, you can probably find a link to the number of students from each state admitted to Stanford. Many come from California, while some other states have very few. Being in California may be an advantage in some cases, because the people in Stanford admissions have a more accurate view of your “context,” since they know quite a few of the high schools. (Of course, this could work for you or against you.)</p>
<p>
This attitude is quite common, especially among non-US citizens. But US universities, especially private ones, are not set up just to provide rewards to the hardest-working, highest-scoring people. They have multiple goals in filling their classes, and one of those is diversity. If you don’t like that, of course there are universities all over the world that will look only at your statistical achievements.</p>
<p>If you’re applying to a top private college like Stanford, you’ll have to accept that there will be a meaningful chunk of every class that’s accepted for reasons having little to do with intellectual and scholarly capacity, although they will be expected to clear a qualifying bar in that regard. Colleges don’t aim to admit the absolute best students possible, they aim to build the best class possible, which leads them to a different set of objectives. Like it or not, diversity is one of those objectives. Another one is sports, as Stanford is an athletic powerhouse, and wants to keep that status. If they did not give the proverbial “bump” to student athletes, Stanford would lose an integral part of its culture. Stanford has a large endowment which allows the school to keep operating and growing. Without some legacy admits or ‘developmental admits’, (which donate significant sums to the school) Stanford would lose a large source of its revenue. There are also other bumps given to students who come from underrepresented states, countries, or have overcome tough odds to get to where they are at. </p>
<p>If you don’t like that, you can apply to other schools that only look at your statistical achievements, as Hunt mentioned.</p>
<p>Is RI underrepresented?</p>
<p>If you are Asian, and you get in one or two schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton or MIT, then you have a great chance to get in Stanford.</p>
<p>
What, the English in particular? Or all Whites? If you meant the latter, then I resent being called English.</p>
<p>I come from a school that is literally 75% asian, and what I have observed is that about 5/7 of applicants accepted to Stanford are non-asian. This really blows my mind, and if you look at our naviance, there are a bunch of X’s where the 4.00 2350-2400 are, and the accepted are generally in the 2150-2300 3.97 - 4.00 area. This can possibly be accredited to the fact that much more asians apply to Stanford due to their confidence in their scores, or it could be that Stanford really wants to control its cultural diversity.
To answer BillyMC, I really think that all whites have no affect (neither negative or positive) on their admissions due to their race. African-Americans and latinos definitely due, as due native americans. Im middle eastern, so I am counted as white, but I am sure that my race does not negatively affect who I am.</p>
<p>
Actually, I was just trying to ascertain the meaning of “Englishmen” in the original post, as I felt the OP had wildly miscategorized many people.</p>
<p>Get us just agree that he was talking about all white people</p>
<p>I figured. Just a knee-jerk reaction, as I dislike people using “Anglo-Saxon” or “English” to mean all whites.</p>
<p>Exactly, I’m white but from South Africa. Doesn’t make me the same as other whites</p>