Conference Championship Sunday

Well I doubt many students with below a 2.75ish get into grad school.

 

Because the average Stanford student has a GPA well above a 4.0 (where applicable) and insane SAT/ACT scores.. And unbelievable leadership/volunteerism.. That is unless they are a minority then it may not be quite as impressive to be admitted.. But still likely have mostly 4.0s and elite test scores. Speaking of which - why is affirmative action still legal in today's time?

 

Plenty of intelligent people made less than 4.0 in high school and could easily hang intellectually with students at Stanford. I was just curious as to why Tiger wasn't one of those people.

And, are you complaining about affirmative action or quotas? Quotas are illegal and have been since the 70s, while most schools seek out a diverse set of perspectives and ideas through affirmative action. Besides, the biggest affirmative action cases are the ones in which daddy is a former grad and current booster of the school, yet those types always seem to get brushed aside during the discussion of affirmative action

 

If they have less than a 4.0 and can hang with the other students at Stanford it means they are lazy and didnt apply themselves - not exactly the type of student the best of the best should want to be honest.

And I'm talking about affirmative action. My cousin (white male) had a 3.7 GPA and a 26 ACT and applied to UT and got wait listed and eventually accepted for the spring semester while his gf (half Mexican female) who had about a 3.4 GPA and a 21 ACT was accepted almost immediately in one of the first few waves of acceptance letters last winter. They had pretty much equal leadership/volunteerism on their applications. There's countless law suits as of late challenging if AA is even constitutional. Also, if you are out of state and apply to UT, it's an automatic acceptance regardless of test scores and GPA.

 

nm

 

Colleges seek a certain type of environment and one of the things they desire is often diversity of opinion/perspective. They feel that it adds to the educational atmosphere of the university, so they create ways to make that environment happen. It's a subjective process. And, affirmative action has been argued in front of the Supreme Court and ruled constitutional.

As far as lazy kids and Stanford, so what? If they are smart enough and fail to find motivation in high school, but do so in a more challenging environment, they certainly wouldn't be the first to do so.

 

Hurray lottery scholarships! Gotta find that $ somehow.

 

I'm saying they likely will never be accepted into Stanford to begin with due to their laziness or lack of motivation putting them at a disadvantage with test scores and GPA. The admissions may not know they are some secret genius who just didnt apply themselves. There are obviously some outliers.

And AA in admissions should be deemed unconstitutional and it will be in a few years at most. They already "raised the bar" so to speak this summer and it should be completely removed from college admissions. That girl from Texas caused a huge uproar recently. The majority of Americans agree.

 

I've had far more white males barely be able to read or function in a college classroom than any other group. Money is still the biggest influence in admissions.

 

BS. Maybe at a school like Harvard or Yale and that would be a tiny %. Not everyone's dad can donate a building.

 

Typically, 10-15% percent of every Ivy League's school's enrollment are legacy students. Many of them could not have gotten in to the Ivy League otherwise.

Every college has students that don't deserve to be there. It is silly to spend your time worrying about the fringe who didn't get in or the ones who were not supposedly deserving.

 

Stanford does both in spades. they have a huge affirmative action program. far larger than it used to be (mostly because they have more money for scholarships). They also let in alums kids like crazy. One of my sisters friends had maybe a 3.5 in HS and like a 1300 SAT score and got in because her mom and 3 other generations went there. They weren't even big boosters either. of course their grad giving rate is 3 times that of cal.

 

if you donate say $500 a year for 20 years to Harvard and you are an alum your kid will get in with non elite test scores. you don't have to donate a building at all.

 

Isn't transferring into schools like that a lot easier than getting in straight out of high school? I have a buddy that didn't get accepted to Notre Dame straight out of high school despite his 4.0 GPA, strong test scores, etc., but he came to wabash for a year, got like a 3.8 or 3.9 and transferred into Notre Dame after his first year no problem.

 

Yeah due to the fact that they've shown they aren't going to flunk out in the first year.