<p>Draw your own conclusions! Not everything is composed neatly with a beginning, middle, and end. :)</p>
<p>For the cheaters: You’re not an admissions officer and don’t know why they made the decisions they did. XD</p>
<p>euro-- 5k’s point wasnt about lying… mine was.</p>
<p>wwlink-- i agree</p>
<p>LOL. Okay wwlink, now I understand.</p>
<p>CPU - Let me get this straight, based on your comments, we can agree that the “Anon” applicant did not lie, and thus not evaluated by Stanford on the lying issue. </p>
<p>Yet, he/she was accepted as an African American applicant when he/she first applied, but rejected as an Asian American applicant when he/she re-applied. That was quite a litmus test, and that was the substance Anon was trying to make, a clear discrimination against Asian Americans at top universities, like Stanford. That was also exactly the point 5k was making.</p>
<p>I understand that.
But anon- or whoever they were referencing DID lie about their nationality. I was making the point that you can’t assume it’s because of the races involved, but more plausible to take into account the morally wrong thing which is lying.</p>
<p>@Euro: The entire thread was a JOKE though. Surely you aren’t that gullible.
And the applicant supposedly applied REA. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but colleges don’t allow students to reapply.
“Anon” didn’t make that thread, lol. I’m not sure where you even got that from…</p>
<p>I think errors in college applications are plausible, but certain errors are more plausible than others and therefore more forgivable. Marking oneself as an African American, when one is in fact an Asian American, is I believe a forgivable error because it is readily verifiable (in interviews, etc.). The lying issue therefore does not come in at all. If the lying does not come in at all, I have to agree with Euro that if the “African American applicant” was admitted and the “Asian American applicant” was rejected, there clearly was injustice committed!</p>
<p>It’s a hefty coincidence, and who said they had an interview?
Either way, what’s done is done, and I’m sure that person got into other great schools
Now I shall depart indefinitely.</p>
<p>Here we go again, now it boils down to the availability of an interview. The bottom line is marking oneself with the incorrect race is an error that is readily discoverable, and not likely to be made intentionally! It is therefore not likely that the applicant in question was judged on lying, but was discriminated against.</p>
<p>"Whenever someone (white/Asian) blames minorities for having “taken” a seat away from them, it just reflects their inadequacies–if they couldn’t get admitted when more than 80% of the seats are reserved for them, the decision to not admit them was probably the right one. " - wahoomb</p>
<p>Lol… this has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read before. Seriously ****.</p>
<p>Does anyone have a link to the thread which “anon” posted in?</p>
<p>^It’s irrelevant, because that thread is a lie. The OP in that thread was a ■■■■■. If you can’t find it, then it was probably taken down by the moderators for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t even know what to search. LOL 
Does anyone have his exact username as I can try to filter it by searching his username?</p>
<p>QUOTE: "scales1994
Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 578</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>typical lie, coz one can always reason in this way</p>
<p>affirmative action and diversity is a lie. And that is why stanford and mit and the entire america is declining.</p>
<p>I read through this entire thread, and those who favor not using race as a factor for admission have succeeded in convincing me that AA is simply unfair. </p>
<p>To put it simply, you can’t argue for AA by using anecdotal evidence. AA has become a one-size-fit-all that has often wrongly trumped better indicators of qualification/potential such as GPA, test scores, and ECs.</p>
<p>I really dislike affirmative action- if you’re going to judge based on individual circumstances, judge based on the applicant’s other background factors rather than by making a race-related assumption. :/</p>
<p>As an Asian international applying to top American universities, including Stanford, I don’t think affirmative action is discriminating, at least not intentional. About 40 years ago, there were hardly anyone who could afford HYPSM tuition fee or prepare for U.S universities. It was very easy to get in relatively because there were so few people, applying to U.S universities. Now that our country’s economy has grown significantly and more people are studying in U.S, it became very hard, in fact, it’s as hard as getting into HYPSM as Chinese. Although competing for small number of seats make it disadvantageous to ORM students like me, they just need to suck it up and try to stand out among the international applicant pool.</p>
<p>
I’ll just repeat what I posted in this same thread two years ago:</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>Regardless or whether or not Stanford practices racially based AA, it is perfectly within their rights to do so.
For one thing, it DOES create a more diverse undergraduate experience, and let’s be honest: I don’t think the rigour of classes or academic experience at Stanford is that much different than top public schools such as University of Maryland, UMich, or, as loathe as I am to admit it, even Berkeley.
What DOES make the difference at Stanford is the environment, the experience, and the people you meet. Then, it MAKES PERFECT SENSE that Stanford does not admit people based purely on test scores and GPA. Stanford isn’t just about academics, to say that would be to detract from what it is as an institution.
I do understand that people are frustrated with the concept of “race based” AA; indeed, I do think that socioeconomic AA would be more effective. That being said, I understand and sympathize with Stanford’s decision to introduce more diversity to their campus.</p>
<p>And let’s be honest: If I was accepted to Harvard and Stanford, but Stanford was 80% asian (although I don’t think that would happen even in the total absence of AA…), I’d go to Harvard. No matter how much I love Stanford weather.</p>