<p>these forums rearrange posts randomly O__o</p>
<p>if it was directed at aegis, then I concur. though this arrogance and cynicism is what defines aegis.</p>
<p>TheMatrix and carpaltunnel present valid points. upon scrutiny, the international competition you speak of to me did not seem as legitimate as something like ISEF. nonetheless, this EC is a passionate one, albeit a bit short (only 200+ hours for research). i think stanford has the amount of applicants in the early round to be able to pick those individuals with passionate ECs as well as incredible achievements/awards. </p>
<p>your resume is good, definitely better than average, even better than the average stanford applicant. however, to get into stanford, you really have be at the top 10% of that pool. don’t be discouraged by what may seem like harsh criticism - 50-60% is way better than the chances for the average applicant. i personally think youve passed that ~10% threshold, now it just comes down to how many others this year have as well.</p>
<p>and calm down st. aegis. i hope holland gets in, but is it really necessary to ridicule posters who dont “guarantee” such a thing?</p>
<p>I agree with ParAlum, not sure about st. aegis (unless he/she is an admissions officer!?)… </p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to insult you <a href=“…or%20invite%20unwarranted%20attacks%20on%20the%20accomplishments%20of%20an%20unnamed%20friend%20in%20a%20lower%20grade%20meant%20as%20a%20simple%20example…”>b</a>**, I was just merely responding to the “OMG TWO INTERNATIONAL AWARDS!!!” thing that I saw going on in the earlier posts. Sure, it looks like it was hard work and required interest in engineering, but that does not mean that it puts you a head above the rest as far as passion and prestige go. </p>
<p>Moving on from that exhausted topic, your ISEF project looks very impressive. You are submitting your research paper, correct? If it was good enough to get to the international level, it will definitely impress Stanford, as will your GPA/test scores. </p>
<p>I think everyone agrees that you have a better chance than most, so best of luck to you! Hopefully you won’t be disappointed on decision day!</p>
<p>I’m not even going to start how I can guess these things…</p>
<p>well, when decision day rolls around, and holland is accepted, you can say “i told you so!!” to everyone!</p>
<p>aw, that makes it seem like everybody else doesn’t want me to get in…</p>
<p>I thought we are just agreeing that there is no such thing as a Stanf shoo-in.</p>
<p>I was just teasing st. aegis, who seems pretty intent on everyone agreeing that you are GUARANTEED admittance. You have an excellent shot at getting in, but I don’t think anyone would be comfortable saying that you are guaranteed to be accepted (except st aegis)</p>
<p>my point exactz</p>
<p>^ That comment on the last page about passing some “10% threshold” is completely bogus. True, the acceptance rate is < 10%, but that doesn’t mean that every applicant has to be more qualified academically, in ECs, etc. than the other 90% of the applicant pool. </p>
<p>You’re obviously disregarding the weight of essays, recs, extenuating circumstances, and plain ol’ personality (the main factor judged by the Stanford Supplement). There are plenty of candidates with 2400s and awesome ECs who get rejected from HYPSM because they’re tools. </p>
<p>If 100% of the application process was based on absolutely quantifiable qualifications, it’d be much, much easier to predict.</p>
<p>Now, I completely agree that holland has a far better chance of acceptance than the average applicant, but I would never “guarantee” an acceptance. No matter how likely it is, the Stanford adcomm could get the wrong impression from his/her essays, etc., and turn him/her down. This applies to virtually all of the top schools, but I’ve heard that Stanford is the most like this of any of them, regularly turning down more “qualified” kids for the dark horse. Just a thought :)</p>