In at Stanford! Forum
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
It was more a poke in the ribs of BioE and sfdreaming, both of whom I was rooting for. I don't care at all about the Stanford-Cal rivalry, I just like to pretend I do when it's convenient.
And I'll be one of those 25 Stanford UGs at SLS next year.
And I'll be one of those 25 Stanford UGs at SLS next year.
- im_blue
- Posts: 3272
- Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am
Re: In at Stanford!
They may very well be all the Bears taken by SLS this year, based on past years' statistics. Congrats to all of you!crackberry wrote:It was more a poke in the ribs of BioE and sfdreaming, both of whom I was rooting for. I don't care at all about the Stanford-Cal rivalry, I just like to pretend I do when it's convenient.
And I'll be one of those 25 Stanford UGs at SLS next year.
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
I work with a Cal grad.
She's still upset that she didn't get into Stanford...
She's still upset that she didn't get into Stanford...
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified in the traditional sense (extracurriculars around the HS, grades, ACT/SAT, involvement in student gov., etc.) to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
- UnitarySpace
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:18 am
Re: In at Stanford!
DON'T USE THE CAREER CENTER DATA ON THE BERKELEY WEBSITE
That website reports 203 graduating seniors applying to law school in 2008 while the ABA on LSACNet.org ("Top 240 ABA Applicant Feeder Schools") reports close to 1000 ever year. Even taking into account the fact that graduating seniors only represent a portion of all applicants, its clear that there is a huge discrepancy in the data.
Combine this with anecdotal evidence (BioE and I personally at least 2 people who went to yale in 2008 while the data reports only 1) and its pretty likely that when the career center refers to "Source: Law School Admission Council, 2008" they probably refer to self-reported data or something like that.
That website reports 203 graduating seniors applying to law school in 2008 while the ABA on LSACNet.org ("Top 240 ABA Applicant Feeder Schools") reports close to 1000 ever year. Even taking into account the fact that graduating seniors only represent a portion of all applicants, its clear that there is a huge discrepancy in the data.
Combine this with anecdotal evidence (BioE and I personally at least 2 people who went to yale in 2008 while the data reports only 1) and its pretty likely that when the career center refers to "Source: Law School Admission Council, 2008" they probably refer to self-reported data or something like that.
Last edited by UnitarySpace on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Welcome to higher education?Kronk wrote:It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Welcome to elitism.ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
I'm not sure that I would have ordered the list in the same way, but otherwise it's plausible. Thanks; now I know why I got in.Kronk wrote:It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified in the traditional sense (extracurriculars around the HS, grades, ACT/SAT, involvement in student gov., etc.) to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Mmm, you could actually make an argument that top schools are rather socialist. They take tons of money from the rich so poor people can go.Kronk wrote:Welcome to elitism.ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Cleverest comment that I've read around here in a while.ConMan345 wrote:Mmm, you could actually make an argument that top schools are rather socialist. They take tons of money from the rich so poor people can go.Kronk wrote:Welcome to elitism.ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
tyCardinalRules wrote:Cleverest comment that I've read around here in a while.ConMan345 wrote:Mmm, you could actually make an argument that top schools are rather socialist. They take tons of money from the rich so poor people can go.Kronk wrote:Welcome to elitism.ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
From the rich people they themselves educated.ConMan345 wrote:Mmm, you could actually make an argument that top schools are rather socialist. They take tons of money from the rich so poor people can go.Kronk wrote:Welcome to elitism.ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?
HYP are slightly different. You can basically eliminate the sports section for them because they don't give scholarships, which is HUGE for Stanford. So they probably at least have a majority of undergrads who are qualified and motivated in the traditional sense.
- tomhobbes
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:20 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Sounds accurate to me. My older brother had a perfect GPA (4.5 or 4.6 weighted), a 1550 SAT, 34 ACT, and a bunch of ordinary high school extracurriculars. Unfortunately, he thought that made him a shoe-in at Stanford, so he only applied to Stanford and BYU. Now he goes to BYU.Kronk wrote:It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified in the traditional sense (extracurriculars around the HS, grades, ACT/SAT, involvement in student gov., etc.) to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
-
- Posts: 827
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:07 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
.
Last edited by Joan Hollaway on Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
HYP favor legacy more, which is the most "elitist" criterion. Yes, I know some athletes that aren't as intelligent, but the revenue the athletics department brings in supplements financial aid (and the quality of the education).Kronk wrote:From the rich people they themselves educated.ConMan345 wrote:Mmm, you could actually make an argument that top schools are rather socialist. They take tons of money from the rich so poor people can go.Kronk wrote:Welcome to elitism.ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?
HYP are slightly different. You can basically eliminate the sports section for them because they don't give scholarships, which is HUGE for Stanford. So they probably at least have a majority of undergrads who are qualified and motivated in the traditional sense.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Well, I qualify for #3 here, but I'd like to think I qualify for #6 as well.Kronk wrote:It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified in the traditional sense (extracurriculars around the HS, grades, ACT/SAT, involvement in student gov., etc.) to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
I've heard this same thing over and over. The admissions officers seem pretty weary, from what I've heard, of over-entitlement.tomhobbes wrote:Sounds accurate to me. My older brother had a perfect GPA (4.5 or 4.6 weighted), a 1550 SAT, 34 ACT, and a bunch of ordinary high school extracurriculars. Unfortunately, he thought that made him a shoe-in at Stanford, so he only applied to Stanford and BYU. Now he goes to BYU.Kronk wrote:It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified in the traditional sense (extracurriculars around the HS, grades, ACT/SAT, involvement in student gov., etc.) to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Stanford favors legacies plenty.
I'm not knocking the school once you begin your time there. Just saying a lot of really motivated people who would love to go there give up seats to people who blow off school almost entirely. I had a friend who was student body president, never got a B, always took a full schedule, forensics state champ, state qualifier in tennis, tons of other extracurrics give up a seat to the a great now MLB baseball player who was the only person in the history of our high school to get a 1 on the AP Biology test.
I'm not knocking the school once you begin your time there. Just saying a lot of really motivated people who would love to go there give up seats to people who blow off school almost entirely. I had a friend who was student body president, never got a B, always took a full schedule, forensics state champ, state qualifier in tennis, tons of other extracurrics give up a seat to the a great now MLB baseball player who was the only person in the history of our high school to get a 1 on the AP Biology test.
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Just for the record, I'm neither an athlete, a minority, a legacy, poor nor wealthy. I did work my ass off in high school though.Kronk wrote:It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:ConMan345 wrote:Mm, it's just not really numbers-based. After a certain point, numbers are "good enough," then the essays/recs/stuff you've done matters the most.Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.
1.) Are they a great athlete and DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 2)
2.) Are they a fun minority and a DECENT student? (if so, accept, if not continue to 3)
3.) Are they a legacy? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 4)
4.) Were they extremely poor and thus have a great story? (if so, accept, if not, continue to 5)
5.) Are they extremely wealthy, and thus their parents sent them away every summer to do "unique" things? (if so, accept, if not continue to 6)
6.) Are they qualified in the traditional sense (extracurriculars around the HS, grades, ACT/SAT, involvement in student gov., etc.) to go to a top three university in the USA? (fill remaining 20% of class with this metric)
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ConMan345
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
That is very frustrating, I agree. I have a very ambivalent stance toward athletics here, for this reason and the reason I stated above.Kronk wrote:Stanford favors legacies plenty.
I'm not knocking the school once you begin your time there. Just saying a lot of really motivated people who would love to go there give up seats to people who blow off school almost entirely. I had a friend who was student body president, never got a B, always took a full schedule, forensics state champ, state qualifier in tennis, tons of other extracurrics give up a seat to the a great now MLB baseball player who was the only person in the history of our high school to get a 1 on the AP Biology test.
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
I am so well-connected.Kronk wrote:Stanford favors legacies plenty.
I'm not knocking the school once you begin your time there. Just saying a lot of really motivated people who would love to go there give up seats to people who blow off school almost entirely. I had a friend who was student body president, never got a B, always took a full schedule, forensics state champ, state qualifier in tennis, tons of other extracurrics give up a seat to the a great now MLB baseball player who was the only person in the history of our high school to get a 1 on the AP Biology test.
Last edited by crackberry on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- tomhobbes
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:20 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
I know where you're coming from, but it's not entitlement so much as it is ignorance. When you don't know anyone who's been to an elite school and you don't have any connections, sometimes you get all your information from well-intentioned but misinformed normal people. When you only know people who say "oh my god, you got above a 28?" you tend to get a skewed perception of how admissions works.ConMan345 wrote:
I've heard this same thing over and over. The admissions officers seem pretty weary, from what I've heard, of over-entitlement.
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: In at Stanford!
Haha...crackberry wrote:Person?Kronk wrote:Stanford favors legacies plenty.
I'm not knocking the school once you begin your time there. Just saying a lot of really motivated people who would love to go there give up seats to people who blow off school almost entirely. I had a friend who was student body president, never got a B, always took a full schedule, forensics state champ, state qualifier in tennis, tons of other extracurrics give up a seat to the a great now MLB baseball player who was the only person in the history of our high school to get a 1 on the AP Biology test.
Last edited by Kronk on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login