President Hennessy has officially created a task force to investigate increasing the size of future freshman classes. Let the hysteria commence.

You see, like many students, I thought I picked Stanford to avoid the blue-blooded elitism we like to derogatorily associate with our East Coast compatriots. But at times like this, the snobs come out of the woodwork. Or maybe the facade drops.

Let’s look at a few comments I pared from the Daily Web site on the Oct. 11 article covering Hennessy’s announced task force. The reaction is heartwarming.

One person says trying to give more people access to a world-class education is “absurd” because “there are thousands of higher education options besides Stanford.” There are other options, but there’s an element of social responsibility involved. Our university likes to be a leading higher educator, and going with the attitude that those tax-funded public institutions should deal with all the overcrowding and first-generation students is dubious. Should we really shoulder none of the burden?

The same person continues: “Why is there this desire to diminish the quality of the Stanford undergraduate experience just to accommodate more people? . . . Stanford should ALWAYS only accept the very best applicants, even if the quality of the applicant pool dramatically improves year after year, and MUST NOT simply accept whoever Hennessy or another administrator deems ‘qualified’ or just good enough.”

The problem here is that the other administrator in the equation is Richard Shaw, the dean of admissions. I could be wrong, but isn’t his job to accept who he deems qualified? Doesn’t he determine “good enough”? He seems to think Stanford would benefit from accepting more amazing applicants, and not from boiling it down to a perverse Darwinian process.

One thing should be clear: The quality of students will not decrease. A friend who served as an admissions associate said making the decisions is awful. “The first thing they tell you in training is that you wouldn’t get in today,” she told me. She just graduated, so unless you really think that the people around you aren’t up to the Stanford standard, chances are you wouldn’t even notice the change.

Another online commenter had a similarly Darwinian outlook. “Unfortunately, President Hennessy appears to view Stanford admission as something to be handed out from a cheap goody bag to as many ‘qualified’ people as possible, as long as those people meet minimum requirements . . . President Hennessy, let me tell you what ‘qualified’ means . . . Whether or not someone is ‘qualified’ depends on how they STACK UP AGAINST competing applicants in a particular year.”

Competition is good, but the entire premise of Hennessy’s proposal is that there are more students capable of making a major contribution to campus and using our training to do great things. In that light, the emphasis on stacking up is morally questionable at best. It seems to say it doesn’t matter if prospective students could perform at high enough levels, or even if they’re way smarter than all of us here. Their own qualifications are stolen from them by an increase they can’t control. “Sorry guys, too much talent this year. You hit the wrong part of the population cycle.” Is this really the admissions philosophy you want?

I don’t want to call the people I quoted wack jobs, because I too share their insecurity. I’m a legacy applicant, and I applied early. Without those advantages, and with today’s tougher competition, I fully believe I might not be here. Already deemed “qualified” and “good enough,” it’s easy to jealously demand that standards be increased for everyone else. You get to benefit from their increased cachet. And you’re already safe.

I suspect many older alumni will, as my mother did, have an instant negative reaction. Those who got in when Stanford was admitting 25 or 30 percent still get to take advantage of our rocketing name brand, and those who are amazing students but just don’t make the cut these days are excluded. Plus, why change what you’re used to? But if applications continue to increase, and size does not, think about what will happen. Legacy, mandated diversity and athletics are going to play more and more of a determining role in admissions decisions.

Hennessy’s proposal is only a proposal — we’re not talking about doubling — and the task force is designed to make sure any increase doesn’t damage the current campus experience. New dorms and new professors will definitely be needed. But if you accept that the education we receive is one of the best in the world, both Stanford and society will benefit from accepting a bigger class. On campus, I’d love the chance to meet more cool people with more ridiculously amazing backgrounds, and elitist or not, Stanford positions people to change the world.

“The thing about Stanford students,” said a panelist at the Stanford in Washington 20th reunion this weekend, “is that they have that burning passion in their souls to make a difference.” Would empowering another two hundred students a year, giving them the resources, connections and opportunities of Stanford University be a bad thing? The Bender Room might be more crowded, but I think the potential world impact is well worth the risk. On this one, John, I’ve got your back.

And yesterday's earthquake was a good omen.

If you don’t like this column, blame the admissions office for deeming Michael “qualified.” Or blame Sagar Doshi for everything at sagarandmichael@gmail.com.