[stupac2]

If you really believe that LSJU does not discriminate against applicants of Asian origin, just compare our admittance rates with those of Low APR U Tech.  "Diversity" is a two-edged sword.  It allowed us and most of our competitors to build student bodies which were much more inclusive than when I was there in the late 60's, but (outside of Low APR U Tech), we and all of our competitors seem to have balked when we all reached the 50% "people of color" line.  Same with the unstated meme of "we are a Global University, but we really don't want to get "foreigners" above 10% of the intake" that we and our competitors seem to practice.  We seem happy to admit legacies, children of famous people and generous donors and talented athletes disproprtionately to their academic abilities, but nobody seems to see this as discrimination against other pools of applicants.

Why?

End of rant.....

I dunno, reading the things this guy did, they were all just the standard things. I think that one of the main things you want to do to help get in is to be different. How many other applicants were there out there with high test scores, GPAs, tons of AP classes, and did piano and speech/debate? My guess is enough to fill 10 Stanford classes every year. Stanford doesn't want those kids, it wants the ones who start clubs or do volunteer work or other things that actually separate you from every other kid who does well in school.

In general, does Stanford have a quota of Asians? I doubt it. But comparing to Berkeley isn't really the best idea since the schools are selecting for different things.


(Also, one of the things that I find weird about these discussions is the idea that the Ivies/Stanford are so important to get into. The US isn't one of those countries where the right university makes or breaks your entire life, I doubt that if you correct for parent's income going to Berkeley or UCLA results in a worse lifetime earnings average than going to Stanford.)

[stupac2]

If you really believe that LSJU does not discriminate against applicants of Asian origin, just compare our admittance rates with those of Low APR U Tech.  "Diversity" is a two-edged sword.  It allowed us and most of our competitors to build student bodies which were much more inclusive than when I was there in the late 60's, but (outside of Low APR U Tech), we and all of our competitors seem to have balked when we all reached the 50% "people of color" line.  Same with the unstated meme of "we are a Global University, but we really don't want to get "foreigners" above 10% of the intake" that we and our competitors seem to practice.  We seem happy to admit legacies, children of famous people and generous donors and talented athletes disproprtionately to their academic abilities, but nobody seems to see this as discrimination against other pools of applicants.

Why?

End of rant.....

I dunno, reading the things this guy did, they were all just the standard things. I think that one of the main things you want to do to help get in is to be different. How many other applicants were there out there with high test scores, GPAs, tons of AP classes, and did piano and speech/debate? My guess is enough to fill 10 Stanford classes every year. Stanford doesn't want those kids, it wants the ones who start clubs or do volunteer work or other things that actually separate you from every other kid who does well in school.

In general, does Stanford have a quota of Asians? I doubt it. But comparing to Berkeley isn't really the best idea since the schools are selecting for different things.


(Also, one of the things that I find weird about these discussions is the idea that the Ivies/Stanford are so important to get into. The US isn't one of those countries where the right university makes or breaks your entire life, I doubt that if you correct for parent's income going to Berkeley or UCLA results in a worse lifetime earnings average than going to Stanford.)