<p>How 'bout this, those of you who have such prescience with Stanford admissions:</p>
<p>The average admit rate for Stanford undergrad, this year, as I understood it from reading published things, was 7, 8%. An FB group (I think that’s what you would call it) was started from HSSC, the cash cow program that accepted students with no real academic gravitas/talents, according to applicanot’s posting, and the number of students from HSSC who were accepted (and counting) were 38 out of 312 HSSC students. That would seem a higher percentage of students accepted than those applying, outside of HSSC status.</p>
<p>And cardfan, I think you mind terribly about other points of view. << I am fine with all points of view about a school>> I think you took what I said personally and erringly. If you reread my original posting(s), putting aside your lens of distortion, I said that Stanford was a fine school, not appealing to my daughter (who did not apply, by the way, to Stanford as an undergrad, despite a lot of encouragement from two of her Stanford professors), and listed that which she felt lacking in the school, for her and her sensibility and needs and desires. </p>
<p>I also prefaced my remarks with my connection to Stanford, a husband who had gone, there, and I who had done a writing fellowship there. But my willingness to point out its shortcomings, from OUR point of view (which was offensive and anathema to you, despite your proclamations of tolerance), was met with anger and distortion.</p>
<p>And I still maintain–if I am allowed–that Stanford is not one of the more intellectual campuses in the country–assiduous, bright students, yes, but not intellectual (not to be confused with academic) in the way that I define intellectual. In fact, my undergraduates, whom I taught as a Stegner fellow, who had an interest in fiction writing, were disappointingly (un)well-read. I guess my expectation was that such students would have an elevated sense of and interest in the literary. </p>
<p>Really, there isn’t room, here, for a dissenting opinion, another symptom of anti-intellectualism. </p>
<p><<<swharborfan claims=“” that=“” fully=“” 3=“” 4s=“” of=“” her=“” daughter’s=“” classes=“” were=“” “regular=“” stanford=“” undergrad=“” students”=“”>></swharborfan></p>
<p>That is verifiable–the HSSC materials say as much when giving an overview of the program, that the classes are regular, Stanford-student subscribed classes and, as such, will have rigor and be demanding, and are comprised of 50%+ regular Stanford undergraduate students.</p>
<p>And speaking of my making fallacious claims, cardfan–your intimate conduit to the Stanford admissions office, and its inner workings vis-a-vis the HSSC applicants’ admit rates, lacks all credibility.</p>
<p>Maybe, the larger work for you, cardfan, is not discrediting and excoriating those who diverge from your opinion but to figure out what your charge is regarding those of us who see the flaws at Stanford, why it rankles you so. As a former Wesleyan, CAL (<—undergrad for both) , Harvard (grad and medical school), and Stanford grad student, I take zero umbrage or offense at anyone who sees such institutions as anything less than impeccable. They aren’t perfect, at all, despite their eliteness. And my ego isn’t eroded because someone thinks such schools have shortcomings–they do.</p>
<p>Oh, and cardfan, GO BEARS!!! I just wish I was adroit enough with the keyboard to effect a bear claw.</p>