<p>Actually, the Stanford admission officer for my region, whom I’ve met three times, repeatedly says, “It’s not a numbers-driven process” when asked chances questions by high school students. I personally think that most Stanford applicants go awry by not showing what Stanford has long said it looks for, “intellectual vitality,” and not making a coherent case for why they have something to add to the Stanford community in how they fill out the Stanford-specific supplements to the Common Application, for example the famous letter to the roommate. (Consider that advice, those of you who are looking on.) Again, if a person truly best loves Stanford, the issue of WHERE to apply early is already answered: Stanford. And if a person applies early to Stanford, apply well, but don’t engage in ridiculous worries that applying early WORSENS one’s chances as compared to applying in the regular round.</p>
<p>Yes, and I don’t know why you keep distorting my claims with something like it’s correct to “go with your heart” or something like “Stanford doesn’t care if it’s the student’s first choice”. Of course, that’s obvious.</p>
<p>I simply was trying to say how [seemingly] complicated the admission process is and if the applicant is interested in Stanford (please, I’m not saying this has any bearing on the admissions) he should apply unless it’s a flat-out-reject. You seem to be discouraging in applying to Stanford unless you’re like 75%+ stats or above. Which isn’t the case.</p>
<p>“It’s not a numbers-driven process”.
The Common Data set suggests otherwise-
[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2007-2008](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission]Stanford”>http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission)
93.3% of accepted students had grade pt averages above 3.75. 91% were in the top 10%. These % of accepted students achieved SAT scores between 700-800
CR- 61%, Math 67%, WR 61%.
And yes, essay are also very important to the application, but the common data numbers suggest that Stanford is very selective about who it accepts, and an applicants “chances” are greatly improved if their stats fall within these ranges. I suggesting that students shouldn’t put all their hopes in one basket . They need to be realistic about their chances, hope for the best but apply to other colleges that they would also be thrilled to attend.</p>
<p>^^ “numbers driven” implies that the decisions are based mostly on numbers. That it isn’t numbers-driven does not imply that numbers are not important, but rather that they are not the MOST important.</p>
<p>That is true, but students need to know that the admissions officers don’t read every single application that comes in. There is a first “cut” made, based on statistics, and those students whose applications make that “cut” are then read. I live next to Stanford, and know people in the admissons office.</p>
<p>Token, there are people applying to Stanford who are not URMs with >3.75 GPAs and SAT I scores in the 1900s, and there is more than you think. The Common Data Set supports the conclusion that is some form of initial stats based discrimination, regardless of whether a Stanford admission officer said so or clearly delineated it.</p>
<p>Oh please, we don’t need to discuss this. If you like Stanford apply regardless of your “chances”. Obviously your chances increase with your GPA and SAT score, but you don’t have to have above x Score or y GPA to be admitted and remember people with 2400’s and 4.0’s fail to be admitted. Good Luck to next year’s class!</p>
<p>Token, pardon me for what I am about to say, but I think you are being naive to think that the only “facts” that are valid about admissions decisions made at a PRIVATE institution are those made for PUBLIC attribution. How often do private colleges make public statements acknowledgeing that they admit some students[ known as DA’s] in large part to the $$$ contributions of their parents? Not very often[ if at all] but it is known that they do! So does the lack of public statements about policies toward DA’s therefore mean colleges don’t admit them? No! Admission decisions at private colleges are made behind closed doors, and that is unfortunately they way it will remain as long as it serves the colleges.</p>
<p>Stanford requests that students apply SCEA only after a thoughtful college search has given rise to the conclusion that Stanford is the student’s first choice. The class of 2013 will be the first for Stanford to use the common app. You can apply SCEA to Stanford and still apply rolling or non-binding early to your public university (at least that was the rule for the Class of 2010). There are other exceptions to the single choice aspect for students who would like the comfort of an early acceptance while still taking the chance on Stanford SCEA. My S was accepted SCEA for Class of 2010. His roommate was deferred SCEA and then (obviously) admitted RD. I disagree with Menlopark’s characterization of Stanford’s SCEA. While Stanford, thankfully, tries to provide final decisions in the early action process, it will defer those who have a chance RD. Thus, OP, take a shot at SCEA if you love Stanford and it truly is your first choice and there is not another school to which you want to apply early. The acceptance rate is higher for SCEA, while I agree it is a self-selected pool of applicants. Best of luck to you.</p>
<p>So I have a realistic chance with my 440 V 440M 440 W and 3.1 W GPA? Please. If you are an unhooked, non-URM, you need minimum stats to have a chance.</p>
<p>
[quote=tokenadult]
Logic would dictate such a prestigious and quality university such as Stanford would only want the in the best range of non-hooked and non-URM candidates. The CDS, showing that the vast majority of the accepted students with >97th percentile SAT scores, supports this.</p>
<p>I think I have already expressed doubt here in this thread about the public statement by the Stanford provost that applying early confers no advantage to the applicant. My view of that statement is that it MIGHT be true, but the Stanford admission office has not publicly released information such that an outside observer could verify that it’s true. </p>
<p>That said, not for one minute do I believe that it’s DISADVANTAGEOUS to apply early to Stanford. Not no way, not no how would Stanford let its admission system operate that way, because that would be flat crazy. Whatever Stanford is finding out through its internal studies of its admission system, I can be quite sure that it is never knowingly disadvantaging applicants who choose to apply SCEA rather than RD. </p>
<p>So the advice stands. If you really like Stanford, apply. If you like Stanford more than any other college, apply during its SCEA round. (You should in ALL cases first of all line up a sure-bet safety college if you are applying to a highly selective college like Stanford, but don’t waste your early round on a safety. If it’s safety, you can apply to it whenever.) Don’t worry about applying early; that’s silly.</p>
<p>Stanford used the Common Application last year (high school class of 2008, which is college class of 2012). </p>
<p>It is correct that Stanford continues to permit applications to state universities on a rolling basis or a nonbinding early action basis, even if the application is submitted earlier than Stanford’s SCEA deadline. </p>
<p>wow…its simple if you got competitive stats, are unhooked an d love Stanford than apply early. If you don’t love it than don’t apply early.</p>
<p>If you are hooked and really like it(not neccessarily top choice) like a legacy, athlete or URM it still probably makes sense too.
Otherwise apply RD, it is basically the same chances unless you are hooked.</p>
<p>“not for one minute do I believe that it’s DISADVANTAGEOUS to apply early to Stanford.”
“Surely no one has any evidenced basis for believing that it is WORSE for your chances of ultimately being admitted to apply SCEA rather than waiting for the regular round?”</p>
<p>Token, you were the one who posed these questions in the first place. Where this interpretation came from I don’t know. No one has submitted evidence that a students admissions chances would be worse at Stanford by applying SCEA than by applying RD.
What has been said is that IF a students’ stats suggest they would NOT be a strong candidate for acceptance, they should consider if it would be wise to use up their “early app card” on a college that accepts a very small % of applicants, instead of applying early EA or ED to another college where they are statistically much more likely to be accepted early [ state universities not withstanding] . Especially for those applicants outside of Calif who don’t have strong state university systems to fall back on, it is something to consider. [ historically Calif residents comprise 40% of Stanford’s freshman class, and have the UC’s as well ]</p>
<p>But if the student has no college that is preferred to Stanford, and has already lined up a safety that is a sure bet for admission whenever the student applies, there isn’t an opportunity cost here. There is a HUGE opportunity cost to applying SCEA to Stanford if the student equally likes, say, the U of Chicago or any other nonrestrictive early action college. But there is no opportunity cost if there is no other college the student wants or needs to apply early to.</p>
<p>“There is a HUGE opportunity cost to applying SCEA to Stanford if the student equally likes, say, the U of Chicago or any other nonrestrictive early action college.”
Exactly my point. The chances of acceptance at U of C , or other slightly less competative colleges are far higher for a student who has less than stellar stats than for Stanford.</p>
<p>You can also, as it’s been said before, apply somewhere with a rolling admissions while applying to Stanford SCEA. For example, my friend’s sister applied to Stanford SCEA and at the same time applied to SUNY Binghamton using it’s rolling admissions policy. (She got into both and is now going to Stanford)</p>