<p>^ Pffffft. Go me XD</p>
<p>Last year, there were 121 people who posted or pledged to post decisions for Stanford SCEA. Of those, 44 pledged to post on the decisions thread; 69 posted on the decisions thread without pledging; and a further 8 posted their decisions only on the discussion thread, without pledging.</p>
<p>Of those who pledged, 54.5% were rejected, 22.7% were accepted, 4.5% were deferred, and 18.2% neglected to post a decision. If those who did not post are assumed to have all been rejected, then the percentages are now 72.7% rejection, 22.7% acceptance, and 4.5% deferred. I think the true numbers are somewhere between the first and the second one, leaning towards the second; this allows for the people who must have forgotten about the threads between pledging and decisions time.</p>
<p>Of those who did not pledge but did post, 27.5% were rejected, 44.9% were accepted, and 27.5% were deferred.</p>
<p>Altogether, of those posting on the decisions thread, 41% were rejected, 39% were accepted, and 20% were deferred. If you enter the eight people who pledged but did not post as rejections, then it is 45.1% rejected, 36.3% accepted, and 18.6% deferred.</p>
<p>There were also eight people who did not pledge and then posted decisions on the discussion thread- 5 rejections, 3 acceptances, no deferrals.</p>
<p>Total percentages for Stanford SCEA pledges and unpledged posts for the class of 2014: 39.7% rejected; 36.4% accepted; 17.4% deferred; 6.6% no post.
With the no-shows as rejected: 46.3% rejected, 36.4% accepted, 17.4% deferred.
Without no-shows: 42.5% rejected, 38.9% accepted, 18.6% deferred.</p>
<p>And to ensure that nobody uses that last bit as the benchmark for everything: the percentages for the people who pledged are probably the least skewed.</p>
<p>Wow, thank you wulfran, that’s very thorough and encouraging! So according to that data, around 1/3 of us roaming the Stanford threads will be accepted?</p>
<p>It’s more like 2/9, but if that holds through from last year, we have a fighting chance…</p>
<p>I think it’s interesting how few people who pledged to post decisions were deferred, though.</p>
<p>Wow, encouraging!!</p>
<p>hell why not
- Fledgling
- SATnoob
- Quandary
- Harambee
- Chells319
- Jasonvdm
- CrazySmiles
- JoJoMan18
- PrincetonDreams
- potentenum
- BigKev
- lampum
- iPixel
- sarbaraj101
- Sakari
- Kimathi
- Heinzketchup
- videodima
- brownman23
- sinflower
- wulfran
- Admitted2011
- lax1993
- kt1993
- liyixinhua
- Mao
- Stepthirtytwo
- SPQRPraetor
- M0DESTmouse
- trackstar1124
- Flamingdonuts
- maximumchill12
- mitigated
- g2pens
- ripemango
- sheppard314</p>
<p>Wow wulfran. That tells me two things: 1) that the Stanford admission statistics for CC’ers are a lot more promising than the actual admission rate itself, and 2) you might just have a bit too much free time on your hands ;)</p>
<p>Thanks for compiling that data wulfran! It’s somewhat encouraging…</p>
<p>
I believe this is true for Stanford and other top schools on CC.</p>
<p>Why not…</p>
<ol>
<li>Fledgling</li>
<li>SATnoob</li>
<li>Quandary</li>
<li>Harambee</li>
<li>Chells319</li>
<li>Jasonvdm</li>
<li>CrazySmiles</li>
<li>JoJoMan18</li>
<li>PrincetonDreams</li>
<li>potentenum</li>
<li>BigKev</li>
<li>lampum</li>
<li>iPixel</li>
<li>sarbaraj101</li>
<li>Sakari</li>
<li>Kimathi</li>
<li>Heinzketchup</li>
<li>videodima</li>
<li>brownman23</li>
<li>sinflower</li>
<li>wulfran</li>
<li>Admitted2011</li>
<li>lax1993</li>
<li>kt1993</li>
<li>liyixinhua</li>
<li>Mao</li>
<li>Stepthirtytwo</li>
<li>SPQRPraetor</li>
<li>M0DESTmouse</li>
<li>trackstar1124</li>
<li>Flamingdonuts</li>
<li>maximumchill12</li>
<li>mitigated</li>
<li>g2pens</li>
<li>ripemango </li>
<li>sheppard314</li>
<li>CannedPineapple</li>
</ol>
<p>@fledgling: Actually, I just REALLY didn’t want to do my English project… :D</p>
<ol>
<li>Fledgling</li>
<li>SATnoob</li>
<li>Quandary</li>
<li>Harambee</li>
<li>Chells319</li>
<li>Jasonvdm</li>
<li>CrazySmiles</li>
<li>JoJoMan18</li>
<li>PrincetonDreams</li>
<li>potentenum</li>
<li>BigKev</li>
<li>lampum</li>
<li>iPixel</li>
<li>sarbaraj101</li>
<li>Sakari</li>
<li>Kimathi</li>
<li>Heinzketchup</li>
<li>videodima</li>
<li>brownman23</li>
<li>sinflower</li>
<li>wulfran</li>
<li>Admitted2011</li>
<li>lax1993</li>
<li>kt1993</li>
<li>liyixinhua</li>
<li>Mao</li>
<li>Stepthirtytwo</li>
<li>SPQRPraetor</li>
<li>M0DESTmouse</li>
<li>trackstar1124</li>
<li>Flamingdonuts</li>
<li>maximumchill12</li>
<li>mitigated</li>
<li>g2pens</li>
<li>ripemango </li>
<li>sheppard314</li>
<li>CannedPineapple</li>
<li>eiram17</li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks wulfran! Your posts are encouraging… perhaps a bit too encouraging for my own good hahaha :)</p>
<p>Don’t get your hopes up too high… did you see the thread with the news about the 7% increase? T_T</p>
<p>7%? Hrrmm… Well I suppose having more applicants in the pool provides the adcoms with a larger menu, leading to an even better class of 2015 than what would’ve been :)</p>
<p>I guess I can’t really help that anyway… but I still have faith in their claim that they will accept and reject REA just as they will during Regular Decisions. :)</p>
<p>I’m so curious as to how the whole process works over in Palo Alto. :S Do they have multiple cuts? Do they go through each applicant one at a time as a committee? Do they have separate, smaller committees? If I am getting interviewed, will they postpone looking at my application until after the interviewer’s report is sent in?</p>
<p>^ There was a really good quote about that I read in the last week or two… either in the New York Times or the Washington Post. It was a dean of admissions admitting that, while applications increase, at some point you don’t get an ever more-diverse class. You just end up rejecting a lot of similar kids… It was a pretty depressing article.</p>
<p>I dunno how the process works, but now I have a burning desire to…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually read somewhere that the number of applicants has no bearing on the quality of the resulting student body. The article essentially said something along the lines of adcoms rejecting more similar applicants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with you on that one. It’s almost as though my application got sucked into a black hole after I hit ‘submit’…</p>
<p>@fledgling: BRAIN TWINS. Look at our posts! XDDD</p>
<p>Where was that article?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WOW. Huge coincidence… totally was not expecting that. o.o </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that I think of it, I’m pretty sure it was from the NYT…</p>
<p>They had a smaller ‘Education’ insert or something? In that weird, pseudo-magazine shape of newspaper? (Am I making sense?)</p>
<p>Yeah, that makes sense 
Although I don’t think I read that article in the paper itself… I was a fan of the New York Times on Facebook, so they sent me news updates regularly. I remember that the article was one of the updates I got…</p>
<p>FYI, to those REA’ers who are wondering why I disappeared mysteriously off your friends list on FB, it’s because I got rid of my account a few days ago. I decided that it was sucking up too much time :p</p>