<p>Asians make up 4% of the U.S. population, yet make up almost a fifth of the Stanford undergrad population. There are more than enough seats for Asians to fill, if you don’t get in, don’t blame it on the 10 African-Americans who are admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“10 African-Americans who are admitted”? Really?</p>
<p>No, I was just being facetious to make my point</p>
<p>I would like to say that the only person admitted to Stanford (RD) from my school (we got 4 in to Yale) was the 2400, 3.9, Asian male.</p>
<p>
I would like to think the reason behind it. And it is probably the same reason the OP voiced.</p>
<p>The point is that it isn’t true that Asians are discriminated against in the admission process because there are so many of them on this campus. Based on the OP’s logic, you would expect Stanford to be be filled with Latinos and Blacks because they’re admitted wholesale, however, once you arrive on campus, you see that the supposed white males/asians who are discriminated against run this campus (they’re the overwhelming majority). International students need to understand that American universities, especially elite ones, aren’t interested in admitting robots with perfect numbers, but people from diverse backgrounds who’ll raise their hand in class and offer a non-majority/non-priviledged opinion. If schools like Stanford did not examine their applications holistically, the undergraduate student population wouldn’t be made up of 23% Asians but probably more than 50% like Berkeley (talk about diversity). 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.</p>
<p>
Why do you think that Asians are robots with perfect numbers? and they can not raise their hands to answer questions? and are they majority? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just for your information, at the graduate school level, that is exactly the case, they accept those purely based on numbers. Why not at undergraduate level?</p>
<p>
Again, Asians are not majority. The decision not to admit them is the reason that they can not tell you.</p>
<p>“Why do you think that Asians are robots with perfect numbers?”</p>
<p>Don’t put words in my mouth, I never said that. </p>
<p>“Just for your information, at the graduate school level, that is exactly the case, they accept those purely based on numbers. Why not at undergraduate level?”</p>
<p>Just for my information? I’m a graduate student at Stanford and you are simply delusional. Graduate programs DON’T CARE if you have a 1600 GRE score and a 4.0, if your research interests don’t match the faculty’s, you will get rejected, simple as that. If you have a 1200 GRE and a 3.5 and a faculty member happens to take an interest in your application and you write an excellent statement of purpose or you have relevant research experience, you will be admitted over a someone with perfect numbers.</p>
<p>
Are you talking about MS degree or for Ph.D. degree? If you are a graduate student, can you tell me what percentage is Asian students in your area of interests?</p>
<p>ok so few comments.
- if there were significantly more Asians at the undergraduate level, the Stanford experience would not be as good. i’ll say it flat out because i’m tired of hearing complaints. and yes, i fall under the “Asian” category myself. As it is, the high number of Asian people here pi$$es me off for reasons that I won’t discuss. people are probably thinking that i am in a position that i can not be upset because i got in already, and yes that’s true, but complaining about AA on CC isn’t going to change college practices.
- Graduate admissions practices are different because they don’t have to care about the student experience. all they care about is productivity in terms of research.
- stop whining. if you get in, you get in. if you dont, you will just go somewhere else. most of the people who complain about Affirmative action are only doing so because they did not get what they want or are worried that they wont in the future. if you deserve to get in, you will.</p>
<p>NJDS, the final sentence of your post is not assured for any applicant, regardless of race.
(I’m referring to “If you deserve to get in, you will,” in post #30.)</p>
<p>To be clear: I mean that an applicant from an under-represented group still cannot count on being admitted, even if deserving. This also applies to over-represented group members.</p>
<p>in my opinion, there is circular justification. the only way you deserve to get in is if you made a big enough impact on the admissions committee to be admitted. if you weren’t admitted, you didn’t make a big enough impression on them. that isn’t saying anything about you as a person or a student. you could be an awesome person with a great personality and absolutely brilliant, but you weren’t what they were looking for. </p>
<p>i know what it’s like to be rejected. i was rejected by colleges. i know it sucks, but you have to realize that it’s for the better. that’s why i was actually happy when i got rejected twice. you just weren’t a good match in their eyes. accept that reality and go somewhere that matches you better (aka were admitted to). </p>
<p>if you go in with the wrong intentions (just trying to get into the most competitive place or a place because of the name, or a place that you thinks looks nice, etc.), then you will be disappointed when you are rejected. if you go into the college admissions process wanting the best match for you, then you won’t be disappointed (unless you get rejected by every single college–>then the applicant just made a bad choice of colleges to apply to)</p>
<p>Keep in mind that affirmative action does not mean African-Americans and Hispanics have a better chance of getting in. The admission rate for those groups are still well below 10%, just like the rest of the student body.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought you were Kenyan?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, this is true. However, intellectual talent is definitely not in favor of the URM’s…</p>
<p>And the “you will get in if you deserve it” is utter crap. How do you justify top quality students with great EC’s getting rejected over some URM’s with abysmal scores? The purpose of college is academics. The purpose of school is academics. Therefore, college admissions should be based on…surprise surprise…academics!</p>
<p>^^^^
That’s incredibly ignorant. :(</p>
<p>Ummm maybe because the URMs had a harder life growing up, and colleges isnt all about academics… nerd</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I seriously doubt this.</p>
<p>Grad school is much different than undergraduate I would suspect. Undergraduate is much more about the experience and developing as person, so it makes more sense to “build a class” than it does for graduate school. Besides, do people from different graduate schools a the same university ever really contact each other? Grad school is much more about research based on my observations.</p>
<p>@xavier100
Data from MIT seems to suggest that the acceptance rate is about 13%. While much higher than the general population, it is still very low. Interestingly enough, Asians had a higher acceptance rate than average. I know it’s MIT, but I imagine Stanford would be somewhat similar.</p>