<p>Looks like Stanford recently updated their Common Data Set with 2006-07 information. Just a few days ago they still had their 2005-06 (you can still see it in google’s search cache). One interesting change in their admission relative importance criteria data between these 2 years (no surprise here):</p>
<p>Extracurricular activities
Very Important (in 2006-07)<br>
Important (in 2005-06)</p>
<p>Talent Ability
Very Important (2006-07)<br>
Important (2005-06)</p>
<p>Rest of the 18 criteria remained the same in terms of relative importance</p>
<p>yea, makes sense…Ecs are very importnat, as are awards. And the percent of freshman with scores above 700 in each section has dropped also. hmm does this mean the SAT has gotten harder, or that Stanford has diverted its attentiton towards other factors they see as more important…</p>
<p>Let us review this logically the best we can. First, let us assume applicant pool was close in most aspects in 2005 and 2006. Applicants who might not have made it in 2005 would have in 2006 due to better ECs and Talent. This would mean some applicants with more SAT score and/or GPA might have been left out. If applicants with higher SAT were left out than the average SAT score for the selected pool would be down. Makes sense?</p>
<p>err, actually last year, if ECs were less important, SAT scores wouldn’t be lower for that pool, since the SATs were in the “very important” category. But this year, SATs may be considered even less…I certanily hope not, likley dropping the SAT score ranges for this year. I don’t know if SATs wil be considered less, but I think the change from important to Very important was made, since every year the applicant pool is getting more compettitive… sry that mite not have made any sense! lolol</p>
<p>marlgirl is probably right, the “EC” change only underscores the difference between Stanford and the more numbers-driven HYP. </p>
<p>That being said, it is clear that Shaw is moving Stanford to be more competitive in regards to “highly talented” students. This means USAMO, science fair top placers, and most importantly top musicians. While Stanford has been doing better in recent years as regards to science/math uber-achievers, Harvard still takes a majority with everyone very far behind. And Stanford for some years has been looking to improve its music program, which is nowhere near the level of Harvard, Yale or Princeton.</p>
<p>Just so we are clear. Last year is 2006-2007 and that is the new data put up by Stanford. So the average SAT score did go down (in V and M) between 2006-2007 and 2005-2006 according to the two data sets. The current EA and RD applicants will be reflected in the 2007-2008 data set.</p>
<p>taht talent part is distracting me a bit. I hope the “talent factor” doesn’t screw me…No USAMo, INtel STS Winner or anything</p>
<p>Is Finalist in Science Essay(WorldCon) worth anything in terms of talent? I mite have smtg for intel (i wrote on my app that i was researching and submitted to Intel). I’m also participating in the BattleBots Competition(i hope they take this seriously). I’ve been playin piano for 9 years now, and I’d say I’m pretty good, but i didn’t send in a fine arts submission…just wrote it on my ECs and said i play in many recitals and have been playin for 9 years…</p>
<p>I have the typical awards, like NAtional Merit Commended, NHS inductee, Mu ALpha Theta, AP Scholar with Distinction, Maryland Distinguished Scholar…but these wont stand out since everybody mostly will have em…</p>
<p>I presume a humanities person can also do research in areas like political science, history, geography and economics with some guidance from his/her teacher. I don’t believe research is exclusive to science.</p>
<p>On a slightly different note, the Common Data set indicates Stanford has waiting lists but they don’t rank people in that list. How do they decide who gets in from that list? Lottery? Does anyone know the answer? </p>
<p>It is a bit early to be thinking about waiting lists, but hey some applicants are going to end up on it.</p>
<p>The average SAT scores of admitted students vary somewhat from year to year. To see if the 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 difference is significant you should look at the data sets over the past few years and see how much it tends to vary from year to year.</p>