Malala Yousafzai Should Have to take the SAT/ACT Before Applying to Stanford

Pro admits the following points: (1) The purpose of the SAT is comparison. It helps universities compare students from different high schools with different grading criteria. (2) Malala deserves an honorary degree from Stanford. (3) Stanford should invite Malala as a guest speaker. Pro also drops the following points: (1) Malala won the Nobel Peace Prize. (2) Malala has completely changed the landscape of women's education in Taliban-controlled areas in Pakistan. (3) Malala has spoken numerous times at the UN and other international organizations. (4) Malala writes an influential blog published by the BBC. (5) Malala has an honorary doctorate from multiple universities. (6) Malala has been the voice of millions who have been silenced. (7) Malala opened her own school in Pakistan. (8) Every university in the United States, including Stanford, would hire Malala as a professor to teach classes on human rights advocacy. (9) Malala is one of the 100 most influential people in the world. (10) Malala The only argument Pro makes in R3 is that Malala is "not ahead of the basic need to be compared to others in an academic sense. " That's Pro's only argument. The argument is nonsense. Malala has accomplished more than most people will in their entire lives. She already won the Nobel Peace Prize. She writes a blog for the BBC. She regularly speaks at the UN and at prestigious universities like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. She has published multiple books. The idea that Malala needs to be compared with applicants to Stanford is absurd. Malala's accomplishments have already been compared against the entire world, including every applicant to Stanford, and the world has spoken: she won the Nobel Peace Prize. According to Wikipedia, she's won the following awards: "2011: International Children's Peace Prize (nominee)[40] 2011: National Youth Peace Prize[26] Anne Frank Award for Moral Courage, January 2012[134][135] Sitara-e-Shujaat, Pakistan's third-highest civilian bravery award, October 2012[136] Foreign Policy magazine top 100 global thinker, November 2012[137] 2012: Time magazine Person of the Year shortlist[138] Mother Teresa Awards for Social Justice, November 2012[139][a][141] Rome Prize for Peace and Humanitarian Action, December 2012[142] 2012: Top Name in Annual Survey of Global English, January 2013[143] Simone de Beauvoir Prize, January 2013[144] Memminger Freiheitspreis 1525, March 2013[145] (conferred on 7 December 2013 in Oxford[146]) Doughty Street Advocacy award of Index on Censorship, March 2013[147] Fred and Anne Jarvis Award of the UK National Union of Teachers, March 2013[148] Vital Voices Global Leadership Awards, Global Trailblazer, April 2013[149] One of TimeR05;R02;'R03;s "100 Most Influential People In The World", April 2013[150] Premi Internacional Catalunya Award of Catalonia, May 2013[151] Annual Award for Development of the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), June 2013[152] International Campaigner of the Year, 2013 Observer Ethical Awards, June 2013[153] 2012: Tipperary International Peace Award, Ireland Tipperary Peace Convention, August 2013[154] International Children's Peace Prize, KidsRights, 2013[155] Portrait of Yousafzai by Jonathan Yeo displayed at National Portrait Gallery, London (2013)[156] Ambassador of Conscience Award from Amnesty International[157] 2013: Clinton Global Citizen Awards from Clinton Foundation[158] Harvard Foundation's Peter Gomes Humanitarian Award from Harvard University[159] 2013: Anna Politkovskaya Award " Reach All Women In War 2013: Reflections of Hope Award " Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum[160] 2013: Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought " awarded by the European Parliament 2013: Honorary Master of Arts degree awarded by the University of Edinburgh[161] 2013: Pride of Britain (October)[162] 2013: Glamour magazine Woman of the Year[163] 2013: GG2 Hammer Award at GG2 Leadership Awards (November)[164] 2013: International Prize for Equality and Non-Discrimination[165] 2014: Nominee for World Children's Prize also known as Children's Nobel Prize[166] 2014: Awarded Honorary Life Membership by the PSEU (Ireland) [167] 2014: Skoll Global Treasure Award[168] 2014: Honorary Doctor of Civil Law, University of King's College, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada[12] 2014: Nobel Peace Prize, shared with Kailash Satyarthi[15] 2014: Philadelphia Liberty Medal[169] 2014: One of Time Magazine "The 25 Most Influential Teens of 2014"[170] 2014: Honorary Canadian citizenship 2015: Grammy Award for Best Children's Album[171] 2015: Asteroid 316201 Malala named in her honour. " Malala's been compared with others on an international scale. She's demonstrated her ability as a human rights activist. Her writing speaks to millions and millions of people. Her advocacy has changed the opinion of millions. Her thinking has changed the world. And she did all this before she was 18. I want readers to marvel at the absurdity of Pro's argument: (1) According to Pro, Malala has proven herself enough to teach at Stanford but not enough to study at Stanford. (2) According to Pro, Malala deserves an honorary degree from Stanford but she isn't yet qualified to study at Stanford. (3) According to Pro, Malala isn't qualified to study at Stanford unless she scores well on the SAT (e. g. Pro says "if she scores horrible on the SAT she may not be currently suited for the classes at such a prestigious school as Stanford. ") This is particularly absurd because Pro's telling you that she's not suited to study at Stanford but she's suited to teach at Stanford. This debate turns on the following question: will Stanford accept Malala regardless of what she scores on the SAT? Pro says Stanford won't accept Malala if she scores horribly. I argue that Stanford will accept Malala regardless of her SAT score. I offer as evidence Malala's accomplishments, which surpass that of any current applicants to Stanford. Malala is the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. She's only 18 but she's accomplished more in the arena of human rights than most human rights activists ever do. She writes for millions who have been silenced. She speaks for these people. And she makes herself heard. This is an extraordinary woman. I bet that professors at Stanford (and other prestigious universities) are currently teaching Malala to their students. I bet that professors across American routinely assign Malala's blog posts as reading assignments. I bet professors assign Malala's book as a reading assignment. You can't teach a human rights class without talking about Malala. The absurdity of Pro's argument is even further on display when Pro suggests that Malala won't contribute to her classes at Stanford. This is nonsense. Malala brings a perspective to class discussions that nobody else brings; she's won a Nobel Peace Prize! She's spoken at the UN. She's gotten UN petitions passed. She's opened a school. She's spoken with President Obama at the White House. She was the victim of a Taliban assassination attempt. She gives talks at prestigious universities about her experiences. She gives talks about human rights advocacy. She gives talks about women's rights, the right to education, the situation in Pakistan, and so on. If Malala sat next to me in a class, and if I had the chance to hear her thoughts on philosophy, I don't care what she scored on the SAT, I'm gonna listen. And if I disagree with her, that's fine. The value comes from hearing her unique perspective. Malala brings a perspective to discussions that nobody else brings. That's why she's so famous. That's why people at the UN want her around when they discuss international policy-making. That's why President Obama invites her to the White House. That's why Harvard invites her to give talks. The idea that Malala won't contribute profoundly to Stanford's learning environment is absurd. Pro says I'm assuming she's one of the world's greatest thinkers. I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing at the plethora of evidence saying she's one of the world's greatest thinkers. I'm pointing at the Nobel Peace Prize she won before the age of 18. I'm pointing at the fact that she's convinced numerous politicians to pursue her policies. There's a UN petition named after Malala. President Obama seeks her advice on humans rights issues in Pakistan. I'm not assuming anything. I'm letting the evidence speak for itself. And this is the most important point: even if Malala scores terribly on the SAT, that won't take anything away from her accomplishments. Nobody is suddenly going to say Malala didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize because she scored badly on the SAT. Nobody cares what you score on the SAT after you get into college. The only purpose of the SAT is comparing you against other applicants. And as I've shown conclusively in this debate, Malala is beyond comparison. Even if she scored badly on the SAT, Stanford (and every other prestitgious university) will still accept her.