<p>Does anyone have reliable stats about the chances for Caucasian, California resident, public schools students to get admitted to Stanford? (These are not on the common data set.) Would like to know:
What percentage of Caucasian applicants are admitted?
What percentage of Caucasian, CA resident applicants are admitted?
What percentage of California resident applicants are accepted?
What percentage of California resident public school applicants are admitted?
What percentage of California resident private school applicants are admitted?
What percentage of California resident applicants are legacies?
What percentage of California resident legacy applicants are admitted?
What percentage of California resident private school legacy applicants are admitted?
What percentage of California resident Caucasian private school legacy applicants are admitted?
What percentage of California resident applicants who are not URMs were admitted?
And in my dreams, I would like to have all the above stats broken down into male and female categories.
I have the sense that many Stanford legacies remain in California, and their children represent a disproportionate percentage of the number of California resident students admitted to Stanford. I also have the sense that Stanford accepts a much larger proportion of private school non-URM applicants than public school applicants from California.
I think that if California students knew the answers to these questions, they would have a much better idea about their chances of getting into Stanford.
If you have answers to any of these questions, please post, and if you can, name the source of the statistics. You will help give a lot of students a reality check. I would actually like to have the Stanford Admissions Office post these stats. Thanks.</p>
<p>An 11% admittance rate should be enough of a reality check for everyone. The students will be better of studying and working on their applications than trying to calculate their chances with great precision.</p>
<p>You may not think this information would be of value, others disagree. I look forward to having some informed participants share this information with students. They can decide if they want to use the information or not. Furthermore, I am not asking the students to calculate their chances, I am asking the school to be straightforward with their statistics, so students truly know where they stand, and do not waste their Early Decision/Early Action application on a school where the odds are astronomically against them. By the way, are you a Stanford grad?</p>
<p>I am a parent of two accepted students (non-Californian public school grads with no connections, not legacies, not athletes, and not Nobel Prize laureates).</p>
<p>If you are trying to say that statistically Cal residents from publics have a low acceptance rate, you are right. But so does everyone else, with rare exceptions (and the ones who are exceptions know it). The low acceptance rate for Californians might be augmented by the fact that everyone and their brother from California applies to Stanford, whether they are qualified or not. Still ~40% of the student body are Californians. I know that just this year Stanford accepted 15 or 25 students from a single public school in SoCal.</p>
<p>Overall statistics that you are trying to get are meaningless for individual students. If Stanford is their first choice, they are qualified, and their application is as strong as it can be by the EA deadline, they should apply, and hope for the best.</p>
<p>I agree with oceanview that much more transparent information about the applicant pool would show that applying is probably a waste of time. In fact after much research I have come to that conclusion … here is another thread.</p>
<p>You bring up an interesting point, because admission committees <em>do</em> have informal targets regarding geography, ethnicity, and of course athletics.</p>
<p>There are these real categories: legacy, diversity: international students, URM, and probably a couple more.</p>
<p>This is a really common comment heard in SoCal when discussing non-private school X and its placement into Top 10 universities – “were any of the admitted students white non-athletes?” </p>
<p>It makes a significant difference if an applicant is not legacy, not URM, not international and not a recruited athlete. The odds are significantly lower than the published 9% or whatever it is. Probably closer to 6%. I have no doubt that as a strong but academically unremarkable non-legacy, non-URM, non athlete, my admittance to Stanford was based on my applying as a U.S. citizen from abroad — and the desire of the admission committee to add that relatively uncommon experience to the campus.</p>