<p>Let’s get back to the OP’s original question: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Applying SCEA is not going to make your chances worse. Although Stanford denies this, I rather suspect it just might make your chances better.</p>
<p>I agree with Melonparkmom for the most part. However, I don’t think that a prospective SCEA applicant needs to be above the 75th percentile in order to have a chance if they’re unhooked. If your stats fall comfortably in range (let’s say a bit above the half way mark) then wouldn’t that person also be a competitive applicant? Your “average” Stanford applicant still has a very good shot (comparatively) of getting in and so I don’t see anything wrong with that person applying SCEA (if Stanford is their first choice)
Furthermore, I don’t believe that Stanford has a “first cut” based on statistics. If that were so, then there would be no way in hell that the guy who started the “I got in with a 1700 SAT score” thread would have gotten in.</p>
<p>"I don’t believe that Stanford has a “first cut” based on statistics’
There are exceptions to be sure. Athletic recruits [ those given athletic scholarships] have to meet lower minimum stats[ but those stats are higher than they used to be 4 years ago, much to the consternation of some athletic coaches]. DA’s and alumni kids with less than stellar stats are often given the nod. And remember that athletic recruits are notified that they are “in” during the Fall, but are counted as early acceptances. 120 athletic scholarship recruits were accepted last year. Taking out only those 120 acceptances reduces the SCEA round to around 10%- same as the regular round.</p>
<p>Hippo, the cut is only for unhooked candidates. The guy with the 1700 was a URM.</p>
<p>All athletes getting scholarships are not the same. Stanford wins the Sears cup mainly due to its broad-based success in many sports. For example, while a football or basketball recruit may be allowed lesser stats, the fencer is not. For the non-revenue generating sports, the student’s D-1 athletic talents are merely a hook and not a walk. Athletes at Stanford, overall, are highly intelligent and deserve admission. I do not know where you get that “alumni kids with less than stellar stats are often given the nod.” That is untrue. While legacy admissions during SCEA run approximately double the stated acceptance percentage, I challenge you to show me “less than stellar” stats among the group for a student that has no other hook.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you get that statistic? Source?</p>
<p><a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/20...orInAdmissions[/url]”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/20...orInAdmissions</a></p>
<p>My mistake. The article says about 20% of matriculated freshman are legacies. Not just SCEA and not just accepted students. But, in reading these threads, with both opinions and stated results, it appears that the legacy bump only impacts early applicants.</p>
<p>There’s a difference in saying though that 20% of the incoming class are legacies and that 20% of legacy applicants got accepted.</p>
<p>That link is not working. Real link?</p>
<p>[Legacy</a> still factor in admissions - The Stanford Daily Online](<a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/legacyStillFactorInAdmissions]Legacy”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/legacyStillFactorInAdmissions)
Try this. Somehow part of it was deleted before.<br>
Hippo- I agree. It is a yield issue and it is likely that there is a higher yield from children of graduates. But the article does provide some insight.</p>
<p>I’d imagine Stanford’s legacy acceptance rate is similar to that of other top colleges, 30-40%. But, we really can’t know for sure. Also, menloparkmom, I’m not so sure athletic admits are included in the SCEA admits for Stanford. I’m pretty sure they don’t apply through SCEA and they find out in the early fall. If that were true, that would reduce Stanford’s SCEA admission rate significantly, maybe to 12-13%.</p>
<p>I do not know where you get that “alumni kids with less than stellar stats are often given the nod.” That is untrue." Really!
curious, I get that info from 25 years worth of knowledge of the students and parents at my son’s private prep school here on the SF peninsula, which send as AVERAGE of 10 seniors to Stanford each year. There were 5 Alumni students with lower stats that beat out higher ranked /accomplished kids the year my son was a senior. Take my word for it or not, it doesn’t change things.</p>
<p>Here’s something interesting to consider: in Stanford’s early admissions statistics, the QuestBridge pool is not included. According to this</p>
<p>[University</a> admits 16 through QuestBridge - The Stanford Daily Online](<a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/6/universityAdmits16ThroughQuestbridge]University”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/6/universityAdmits16ThroughQuestbridge)</p>
<p>1100 students ranked Stanford in that early round, and 16 were accepted. So including the QuestBridge pool:</p>
<p>754 accepted of 5651 who applied early –> 13% acceptance rate</p>
<p>There are obvious flaws in combining the two (the uncertainty that ranking adds, etc.)–just food for thought. :)</p>
<p>Menlo- unless you know each students’ complete stats and read their essays or sat in the adcom meeting, you can’t know how the admissions decisions were made. Many, many times at many elite schools a lower ranked student from the same high school is admitted while the higher ranked is rejected. There are many factors involved in the admissions decisions from geographic diversity to filling a new program to needing an oboe player. The college looks at its admitted class as a whole and does not rank those applying from each high school. The competition is not the kid sitting next to you in class, it is the enitre application pool.</p>
<p>“The college looks at its admitted class as a whole and does not rank those applying from each high school”
Uh, yes they do. Admissions reps - who have regional respinsibilities- decide who they are going to “fight for” and when many students from a particular school apply, not all are going to be accepted, regardless of their stats."
“The competition is not the kid sitting next to you in class, it is the entire application pool.” Location- whether it is the state you are from or the school, is a factor in admissions decisions.
One of the “best kept secrets” of the odds of acceptance at selective colleges is that a student from a public HS, with exactly the same stats/ abilities/ EC’s, etc as a student from a private HS has a better chance of acceptance at a highly ranked college. Colleges cherry pick who they accept, because they can.
You have a lot to learn.</p>
<p>Really, and your expertise is what? You need to read more and learn more. I’m sorry your son had a bad experience with Stanford, but don’t post on here your sour grapes as fact.<br>
As I said in my earlier post, geography is a factor with colleges attempting to bring geographic diversity to their class. But that can work for multiple applicants from the same high school. FACT: two students from the same tiny high school in Alaska (graduating class of about 50) were accepted by Stanford this year.
No support exists for your “best kept secret” statement. These boards are full of the opposite point of view. Furthermore no two students can have the same resume. And more importantly, they will not have the same essays.</p>
<p>Wait, your “best kept secrets”- that the public high school student or the private student has a better chance? It seemed like you said public, but i would assume that the private has a better chance.</p>
<p>Its is the same thing as with Asians, to answer the public vs. private question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Explain that further please? I’m curious.</p>
<p>^Yeah…</p>