Michael Wilkerson chooses to smear as snobs people opposed to expanding the size of the student body, but fails to give any solid, compelling reasons for why it is necessary to admit more students. Wilkerson also seems to think it's a bad idea and unfair that admissions standards might go up year after year.

Wilkerson ignores the obvious fact that Stanford's selectivity and prestige (largely a result of that selectivity) are what set it apart from other institutions. To speak frankly, Stanford is not Stanford because it necessarily provides the world's best education to all undergrads. Do valuable opportunities and resources exist at Stanford for willing and motivated students to take advantage of, and is it possible for driven Stanford students to avail themselves of these resources and receive as good an education as they would be able to receive anywhere? Of course. But many comparable universities offer their students similar opportunities and it is very likely that highly motivated students at other schools might receive an education superior to that received by particular Stanford students. The point is not only that the value and meaning of a Stanford education varies from student to student, but more importantly that Stanford's quality of education is not what sets the school apart or even the reason why most people choose to attend Stanford.

I believe the key reason many people want to attend Stanford after high school is because it is considered "the best" (or among the best) and the hardest to get into. Yes, everyone has their own reasons for choosing to attend, and it doesn't always sound as good to say the school's prestige (and all the trappings that come with it) was a factor in our decisions, but if most people were totally honest I believe they would have to acknowledge the importance of the school's reputation. Stanford attracts students from all over the world less because of its course offerings (which probably aren't much different than offerings at other major universities) and more because of its prestigious name. Being admitted to Stanford is, in itself, seen as an impressive achievement. Any discussion of Stanford admission that ignores or dismisses the prestige issue is both misleading and dishonest. Is striving for "the best" college and wanting to be among the highest caliber students possible an admirable and understandable endeavor? Of course it is, as long as the school offers the student the right opportunities to meet his/her goals. Only a fool or someone wanting to give the appearance of being without ego (or who enjoys thinking of his or herself on some higher moral plane where selflessness is the chief virtue) would say otherwise. I won't waste time going into why I believe striving for "the top" college is a natural and commendable tendency for many applicants; I believe it is obvious. Unfortunately, according to the twisted, disingenuous logic of some, striving for "the best" and feeling pride in this achievement is "blue-blooded elitism" or something to feel ashamed of.

Obviously, admitting greater numbers of students will affect many aspects of undergraduate life. It is important that current students and alumni express their concerns and ask why it is somehow imperative that Stanford change its admissions philosophy and increase the size of the student body. Smearing concerned students and alumni as snobs because they have serious questions about matters that will profoundly affect the school they both love and to which they are tied for life is not going to cut it. Also, deciding to devalue the importance of maintaining certain aspects of the school's reputation is like pulling the rug out from underneath people who have invested a lot of time and money in the promise of a Stanford education.

I am not satisfied with reassurances that we should not worry and instead simply "trust Admissions Dean Shaw because he knows best." Nor am I satisfied with reassurances that more buildings and hiring more professors would easily and neatly accommodate a larger undergraduate class without negatively affecting other aspects of life on campus.

How would these changes affect course availability? Parking? Housing selection? Admit rate? Admitting more students will raise the school's admit rate/lower the selectivity. Other schools would gladly take Stanford's place as one of the hardest to get into.

If the goal is to admit as many as possible, why not just increase the number of admitted students year after year? No one doubts that there are far more "amazing" potential Stanford applicants in the world than there are available spots at Stanford, but does that mean we should avoid raising admissions standards in order to admit as many of these "amazing" students as possible? The quality of undergraduate life might suffer, but at least more and more people will be able to get a Stanford education, right? Why not open up admission to strictly online correspondence students as well? How big do we want to get? How about over 16,000 like USC? According to the article, being concerned about reputation and admit rates is something that only "snobs" would care about, so why don't we pledge to increase the admit rate by 2 percent every year from now on. At what point do we realize that we are cheapening the meaning of a Stanford acceptance?

The article argues that if the number of applications continues to rise while the number of admits does not, then "legacy, mandated diversity and athletics are going to play more and more of a determining role in admissions decisions." I don't understand the reasoning here. Is this supposed to be a compelling argument in favor of admitting more students so we don't have to increase standards?

It might be increasingly difficult for the admissions office to decide between highly competitive applicants, but that's their job. If the admissions office is unable or unwilling to live up to the challenge, then maybe we need a new Dean of Admissions. The fact that applicant pools get better and better each year is a GOOD thing. With regard to the caliber of admitted students, why be satisfied with maintaining the status quo when the overall caliber could improve year after year?

We need to stop pretending that students not admitted to Stanford will be left out in the cold with no other options. We also need to lay off the melodramatic appeals for more admitted students to change the world in ways supposedly only Stanford people can. (ha!) Yes, in the end, the real value of the university is not only reflected in the benefits bestowed upon individual students, but is also and more importantly measured by the contributions its students, alumni and faculty make to society. Still, if we care about this university, we ought to be very skeptical of those trying to convince us to increase the size of the student body without giving us any compelling justification for such an increase. And telling us more students wouldn't "be that scary" and smearing us as bad, selfish people for being skeptical is NOT compelling justification.

Haha! Luckily I won't be having to reapply. Maybe I ought to hire you as my editor and punctuation consultant for future posts, Mr. Foushee.

In any case, where did you read that Hennessy is talking about an increase of 400 students for 2008? I was under the impression that these plans are only being looked at and are not likely to go into effect (if they do at all) any time soon.

Wow! Congratulations on making yourself look like an idiot, Marvin.
First of all, it's "crapshoot." Maybe you should consult a dictionary before trying to come off as a condescending prick that attacks the author. Also, it is "students, alumni and faculty", and not "students, alumni, and faculty." Perhaps you should look up AP style, because this was a newspaper last time I checked.
This university really benefits from your amazing powers of observation. I hope the additional 400 are of the same caliber.