<p>I know a lot of people hate those they feel don’t “deserve” to attend and are only accepted because they donated money/know someone influential. Truthfully, how often does this happen? Is it mostly millionaire’s kids whose dads get buildings named after them or does knowing a successful alumni and having them write you a letter of rec help someone who probably wouldn’t get in otherwise?</p>
<p>Just curious.</p>
<p>Knowing someone influential who agrees to write you a rec letter can only marginally help you. Unless they have something to gain, they will not accept an unqualified student.</p>
<p>Legacy helps a lot- doubles your chances. But even when chances are doubled, a legacy student still has like a 1 in 6 chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>I don’t think connections are as influential at Stanford than in the Ivies, at least.</p>
<p>It all depends on the connection. Great connection means greater chance of admittance.</p>
<p>You need the family name on a building at Stanford – that is the kind of “legacy” that gets their attention.</p>
<p>Mean you have one more “reader” of your application, possibly the Dean. Still only one vote, but one more (or less)advocate</p>
<p>yes…i suppose its rare but possible, like at most other schools of stanford’s caliber. but i would like to think that stanford only takes candidates in whom they truly see potential, but idk!</p>
<p>it is quite common at all of the top universities to admit the children of influential leaders (in business, government, etc.). as the saying goes, universities admit future alumni. </p>
<p>however, that is not to say that they are academically unqualified. most of them are still extremely intelligent and contribute a lot to stanford throughout their academic career. (although others may seem less intellectual)</p>
<p>there are several members of royalty, a child of a Director of Time Warner, the son of Steve Jobs, and other students with influential parents at Stanford. It is often the name/connection that offers a lot to Stanford, not some random impersonal letter of recommendation from someone they met.</p>
<p>I sent in recommendations from two renowned professors at Stanford, so I’ll let you know once I get my admission decision. Seriously.</p>
<p>Did the professors know you well? Did you also have two high school rec’s?</p>
<p>If No to the first and yes to the second, probably hurt you</p>
<p>Added to above,
When I was on adcom, got a letter from the President. Nice letter but the usage thereof was a negative to application ( and yes P "knew him growing up as son of friend of P)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve experienced the opposite. My high school feeds a lot to Stanford and there have been many cases of seemingly less qualified students being accepted to Stanford over others. And by less qualified, I don’t necessarily mean only by the numbers. For instance, someone at my school (not a legacy, but father donated money to Stanford, not even at the “donated a building” level) got into Stanford and her only other acceptance was a lower UC. From a holistic perspective then, she was not admitted to schools considered peers or even far below Stanford. Mediocre grades and scores, and no hooks (she was actually Asian). This is not to say I don’t believe she will contribute anything to the university (I have no way of knowing that), just that Stanford takes connections into account. A lot of legacies that seem to be less impressive than some rejected from my school have also been admitted.</p>
<p>^The bottom quartiles of all of the top schools include lots of legacies and otherwise-hooked applicants (among a few others). If you look at the acceptance threads of HYPS you’ll see this. It’s not unique to Stanford by any means. There are plenty of anecdotes coming from other high schools where not-especially-competitive legacy students were admitted to each of these colleges. That’s one way these schools keep their endowments funded and their new construction going, and always has been. However, other than with respect to real “developmental” admits, I think connections actually matter somewhat less now than they used to at all of these colleges, which are trying to become more diverse and meritocratic overall. People just focus on legacy and other hooks more now, because the level of competition to gain admission has become so fierce.</p>
<p>Princess’Dad, yes they knew me very well. I worked with them doing research for quite a while. I am aware that only one recommendation would be accepted so they were kind enough to do it one letter. And to the other question, yes two teachers sent letter as well.</p>
<p>As dean Shaw discussed during alumn weekend, or so I’ve heard. Being a “legacy” definitely is starting to matter less and less. </p>
<p>A good friend of mine who is a legacy, won state in tennis, & is probably 5th in the class of 900 kids and the most competitive hs school in the state got denied early over me. I got deferred. No legacy. All be it, a few connections, but still. He definitely had higher test scores. Stanford doesn’t just want the 2400’s and 4.0 kids. They tried that and you know what happened? Massive increase in suicide rates & less diversity of ideas and opinions.</p>
<p>Massive increase in suicide rates? When and why did that happen? Could you shed some light?</p>