In at Stanford!

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby crackberry » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:19 pm

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.

User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby im_blue » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:21 pm

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.


They may very well be all the Bears taken by SLS this year, based on past years' statistics. Congrats to all of you!

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:59 pm

I work with a Cal grad.

She's still upset that she didn't get into Stanford...

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28217
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Kronk » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:22 pm

Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28217
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Kronk » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:27 pm

ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)

User avatar
UnitarySpace
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:18 am

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby UnitarySpace » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:28 pm

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.
Last edited by UnitarySpace on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:28 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)


Welcome to higher education?

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28217
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Kronk » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:28 pm

ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?


Welcome to elitism.

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby CardinalRules » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:30 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)


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. :lol:

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:31 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?


Welcome to elitism.


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.

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby CardinalRules » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:33 pm

ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?


Welcome to elitism.


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.


Cleverest comment that I've read around here in a while.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:33 pm

CardinalRules wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?


Welcome to elitism.


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.


Cleverest comment that I've read around here in a while.


ty

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28217
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Kronk » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:34 pm

ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?


Welcome to elitism.


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.


From the rich people they themselves educated.

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.

User avatar
tomhobbes
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:20 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby tomhobbes » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:35 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)


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.

User avatar
Joan Hollaway
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:07 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Joan Hollaway » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:36 pm

KKKronk, saw you were the last post ITT, assumed you got in. thankfully youre still a failure like the rest of us<3

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:36 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:Welcome to higher education?


Welcome to elitism.


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.


From the rich people they themselves educated.

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.


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).

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby crackberry » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:37 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)

Well, I qualify for #3 here, but I'd like to think I qualify for #6 as well.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:38 pm

tomhobbes wrote:
Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)


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.


I've heard this same thing over and over. The admissions officers seem pretty weary, from what I've heard, of over-entitlement.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28217
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Kronk » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:39 pm

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.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:40 pm

Kronk wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
Kronk wrote:Stanford's UG admissions process is extremely fucked up.


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.


It's far beyond even that and all your Cardinal-lovers know it. Stanford's admission process:

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)


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.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby ConMan345 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:41 pm

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.


That is very frustrating, I agree. I have a very ambivalent stance toward athletics here, for this reason and the reason I stated above.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby crackberry » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:43 pm

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.

I am so well-connected.
Last edited by crackberry on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tomhobbes
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:20 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby tomhobbes » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:43 pm

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.


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.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28217
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: In at Stanford!

Postby Kronk » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:44 pm

crackberry wrote:
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.

Person?


Haha...
Last edited by Kronk on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 88234, darthlawyer, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Hopefullawkid2015, Lawschool305, nume2016, patrickkpaul, poptart123, RickyBunny, Thelaw23, Zoe107 and 28 guests