<p>Who here is also applying to this amazing school in 2010/2011?
I would love to hear from all of you! Even though college is two years down the road for us, it is never too early to prepare! :D</p>
<p>actually, it is too early to prepare. or at least to waste your time on this forum when you should be out doing the things that could possibly get you in.</p>
<p>so, this thread = epic fail.</p>
<p>Yea, yall need to chill. “Overpreparedness” (is there a word for that?) and anxiety leads to a burnout that will do you no good. Come back in…six months maybe?</p>
<p>I’m sorry for posting this. You are probably right. Do you know how to delete this thread?</p>
<p>Nah, it’s fine, don’t be sorry. PM one of the administrators (found at the bottom of the Stanford forum homepage).</p>
<p>Stanford looks amazing! It’s so selective though and I hate the superficialness that embodies Californians too. We’ll see I suppose.</p>
<p>I’m thinking more along the lines of
- Duke
- Yale
- Cornell
And Binghamton as a safety.</p>
<p>What about you guys? 
Class of 2011 ROCKS!</p>
<p>Well, Yale is as selective as Stanford (more selective, actually), but the list looks good. I’m not sure students at Stanford are superficial, but they definitely embody the Californian mindset. </p>
<p>And as a note, whether you need FA or not should have an influence on your application choices. Is that a yes or no for you?</p>
<p>“Superficialness that embodies Californians”? Wow, that’s along the lines of saying, “Like the dumbness that embodies Texans.”</p>
<p>Yale *more *selective than Stanford?</p>
<p>^ I agree. Please refrain from judging Californians from stereotypes --it’s incredibly ignorant.</p>
<p>Yale is more selective than Stanford. Yale has been historically, and the acceptance rate from the previous admissions cycle was lower than that of Stanford. It isn’t by much, but they are more selective.</p>
<p>Financial Aid can only affects your decision if you’re international. Stanford is need-blind to US citizens. I don’t know about that Yale being more selective than Stanford either. Not that it really matters.</p>
<p>elbeeen, I don’t live i the US but I think it’s kinda silly to judge a school by what you perceive the people of California to be like. I also can’t help but wonder why someone who seems to dislike the school and from that list, doesn’t seem to be applying to it… is posting in a thread entitled Class of 2015 Stanford Applicants.</p>
<p>“Yale is more selective than Stanford. Yale has been historically, and the acceptance rate from the previous admissions cycle was lower than that of Stanford. It isn’t by much, but they are more selective.”</p>
<p>That makes no sense. Just because it has historically doesn’t mean that it is now (and I don’t think it even has historically–maybe a very long time ago). As we all know, the acceptance rate doesn’t say much–it really depends on how many students who apply are actually qualified (self-selectivity, or lack thereof). And the difference in acceptance rates is like .5%, if that. I think the general consensus is that Yale and Stanford are equal in selectivity.</p>
<p>amciw, there is no justification in saying Yale is more selective than Stanford this year. Even one percentage point is not of statistical significance, and this year we are dealing with less than a percentage point. Similarly, it would be silly to claim that Harvard is more competitive than Yale on these same grounds.</p>
<p>I never said by much. You have to look at the rate historically, because it gives a better representation of the selectivity than one year. With that said, I never specified how much more selective Yale is than Stanford. Its not very much, of course. I just happen to think, as you clearly don’t, that such a small difference, while insignificant, is still a difference in selectivity.</p>
<p>The point is that the statistics don’t support even a “small difference.” It is uncertain. Really, take any basic statistics class and you’ll know that no conclusion can be drawn from those stats.</p>
<p>@amciw: I understand what you are saying. Historically selectivity has been higher at Yale, that’s a given. But honestly, under 15% I don’t really make many distinctions.</p>
<p>Brendan, thank you for looking at this rationally.</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric, please don’t make such baseless assumptions about my education. I’d expect better out of a Stanford student. With that said, if you look at the historical difference in admissions rate, and saw Yale was consistently more selective, might it become evident that despite the small difference on an absolute scale, the difference nonetheless existed? Statistical significance implies that a number is outside the bounds of some level of variability, and if history has shown that a difference consistently exists where Yale has a smaller acceptance rate, then you have a population (not a sample - see, don’t I know statistics) which shows that Yale with a lower acceptance rate is not insignificant - it’s expected. Whether one chooses to interpret this as something significant in its own right, or something insignificant because of the tininess of the difference on an absolute scale, is a matter of opinion. In essence, there is a difference in selectivity, but the importance of this difference is subjective.</p>
<p>No, simply because it was one way in the past does not mean it is that way now. I’m not implying anything about your education–just look at this in the way that basic statistics will show you, and you’ll see that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense (i.e. only if you want to think of it that way, even though the data doesn’t support it).</p>
<p>Oh man, you guys turned this into another mine is bigger than yours thread :(</p>
<p>Oh…im a junior in high school and planning to apply to stanford!!</p>