stonegill

To RayAllen333: lol I am assuming you are a guy.. your times are absolutely terrible.. 19:15 for 3 miles? lol that is a great time for a girl but still not the level of D1 colleges like Stanford etc (for a girl).. that time is absolutely terrible for a boy. And quit all your "if I ran 50 mpw I would get injured", anyone can run 50 mpw (especially a boy), you're just a pansy.

To ee33ee: Depends what you're talking about bud. I'd have to say that 50 mpw for a girl is pretty legit. Emily Lipari, 11th at Footlocker Nationals (All American) only runs like 30-35 mpw but is very consistent. Top elite girls like Hasay run around 50-55 mpw but she also cross trains with swimming etc.. maybe the OP does that as well. Girls like Claire Durkin, 5th at FLN 2007, who was considered "higher mileage" would run in the 50s and I believe Laurynne Chetelat, the girl who almost beat Hasay in the 3200 last spring also runs about that much in college now (coincidentally, she is at Stanford )

And state champ is all relative too. If you're a state champ in California, that is a much bigger deal than a state champ in.. Maine or something like that. Especially in track, I believe the times that don't make the California state meet could win state meets in other states (for example, a boy who runs a 9:14 2 mile or a girl who runs a 10:55 2 mile which are about equal might not be able to make the state meet in California but would win the state meet in many, many states..).

And by the way, what the heck is "Nike Footlocker"? Mixing up the two meets I see..

And with the amount of people asking for essays, it would be stupid to send the essay to all of these people... jus sayin.

shoopd4w00p

OP:

Finally. FINALLY. Somebody like you found your way to this website. I take my hat off to you, you provide a good example to everybody here. Congratulations and the best of wishes to you.

Somebody needs to set the example for the 4.0, club president noobs.

gladmom

stonegill: Claire Durkin is a Stanford freshman this year, too, although she has chosen not to run on the XC or track teams this year. She wanted to concentrate on her academics.

nblazer201

Ok ok ok, so
I think we have two sides to the story here
in Psychology, people get a strong acquisition by being classically conditioned on a variable-ratio schedual. What that mumbo-jumbo means is that, think about a candy machine vs a slot machine. With a candy machine, if you have money (high stats, amazing ec's) ull always get candy, youll be conditioned to expect to get a candy bar everytime u put in money into the machine. However, if the candy machine is broken, and you dont get a candy bar, say two times in a row, you will think the candy machine is broken. You will no longer expect putting in your money will get you a candy bar, and it is not worth it. This would be a totally stat oriented admissions process, where people would pretty much know if they had any chance or not in admissions, people with low stats wouldn't really apply. However, college admissions is more like a "some what fixed" slot machine. With a slot machine, you never know when your money will earn u a winnings and be worth the effort, although in admissions slot machine you know having a good app will increase your chances. Thus, if the slot machine isn't giving winnings, say, ten games in a row, people are still willing to put money in that slot machine because there is still a possibility. However, if people with lower stats never won, then it would be a complete bust, and no one without amazing apps would apply.
However, in your case, the great kid, with less then average stats gets in, giving hope to every other kid like u is willing to take the chance as well.
Thus, Stanford, as have other top schools, has conditioned people to think there is a chance for everyone, no matter if its extraordinarily arbitrary.
By doing this, they win tons of "***, why not" apps, which comes with money, and increasing rejections increases prestige. For every kid they admit like you, they get hundreds of extra apps.
On the flip side, they gain the possibility of hitting on unrealized potential in an unlikley candidate.
This is of course, speculation
you sound like a really really great and motivated person, and to be honest, they have thousands of candidates with less then average stats they could have taken to convince more people to apply, but clearly they saw something special in you that they took you over anyone else

@stone,
your funny, but i can see why Stanford didn't take you
lol, jesus
you'll get into a great college, and I dont think anyone can deny that a little bit of b**ch is a good quality
I see u busting any balls that try and stop you from your goals
so dont be bitter, think of it as I have with my Penn deferal, its only gonna motivate me to do better then anyone else

mathboy98

LOL stonegill, check out my thread about the "mystery" of admissions if you haven't. I don't bash the unique admits, but I do have one criticism -- the unpredictability, and unaccountability of schools to upset students who broke their backs studying + the fact that perhaps scores have come to mean nothing due to a flaw in the high schooling system in place.

xSteven

I do, in a way, agree with the basis of stonegill's argument. How is the OP going to fare with STANFORD academics if she can't get above a 3.5 <_<. I'm not bashing by any means, just.. wondering.

mathboy98

xSteven - from gathering the views of others, I think that Stanford believes such students will be successful in some way or the other in the school, even if not primarily academically. It isn't making a claim that they'll handle Stanford's hardest majors with good grades better than someone with more lofty academic stats.

mathboy98

Note -- I sympathize with stonegill's concerns greatly, even if I'm not in favor of bashing those who got in. I was once bitter about such things, but am at peace in my current college setting, and believe a strong academic mind will find a way to make it amidst precariously unpredictable admissions. I am, however, greatly interested in better understanding why things are the way they are, and looking to how we can improve things.

ruskie

just because you have a GPA lower than a 3.5 does not mean you can't cope with Stanford academics. Some schools may be really hard. There are so many factors that can affect GPA. I have a pretty good GPA, but not even close to some people on this forum. But, I have such a time consuming life that academics are not always a priority for me. I do 3 sports two of which take 20 hours a week. My mom makes such a low income, that I have to have many jobs to help our financial situation. I have a disabled step-father who I have to look after and actually feed and bathe him. I am passionate about helping other disabled people, so I spend a good amount of time doing cs. As you can tell it's difficult for me to have a high GPA. But, I am sure I can compete with the "geniuses" at Stanford.

CollgeSeeker1

I think its presumptuous to characterize those with lower GPA as unable to compete with other Stanford students. Like ruskie says many times people have other commitments, some voluntary and some circumstantial. I know of several students who don't have the highest GPA'S yet get get 5's on the hardest AP tests and boast really high SAT scores. Even high scores don't always portray a true sense of a student's academic ability. Moreover, sometimes students acclimate to competitive environments and begin perform better in such situations. Each person has their strengths, a person exceptional in the arts may not have high grades in math or science, and/or vice versa. This does not impede his/her chances in college as they will most likely pursue careers in their areas of strength.

QuantumArbiter

^
Nicely said. And I always thought that academics isn't everything. There are many ways to be successful in life besides academics like sports (which is something OP seems to be highly oriented with), comedy, art, acting, etc.

mathboy98

"Nicely said. And I always thought that academics isn't everything. There are many ways to be successful in life besides academics like sports (which is something OP seems to be highly oriented with), comedy, art, acting, etc."

Agreed, though one thing I wish would be that it'd be at least a little clear what admissions officers are looking for. This is the only sense in which I agree that the questions stonegill raises are legitimate...i.e., I do believe in spirit that all shows of amazing talent have their places.

amby262roy

Congrats =)

Nick017

whoever wrote about slacking during HS and writing a great essay - that does work for some people who know that STANFORD doesnt give a flying f how hard you have worked. They only pretend to. They only care about what they can PROJECT or EXTRAPOLATE that you will do in college and beyond from what you have done in HS. OP obviously projected herself as someone very likely to be a top athlete as well as having a personality that will help Stanford's community - the hard work isn't even relevant. The passionate commitment is what is extrapolated to hint at success in the future, not the hard work. it's not fair, but if you thought that you could woo Stanford with your accomplishments and credentials the same way a rich guy shows off his wealth to try to pick up an attractive woman, then chances are Stanford won't be impressed.

So yes, slacking off and learning how to do one thing well and learning how to write is better than doing 432 useless little ECs. Because Stanford doesnt care how hard you have worked, they care about the factors that determine whether or not your hard work is MORE than work.

soxfan2048

oh yeah...that 2380 did nothing to get you in of course...give me a break