The aftermath: any idea what Stanford is looking for?

Colleges & Universities Stanford University
101

<p>Guys: Did it ever occur to you that there was absolutely nothing wrong with amciw’s application, or GeoffreyChaucer’s? That they may have been exactly what Stanford wanted, except it only wanted 10 of them, not 15 or 20, so that some of the people like that had to be deferred or rejected?</p>

<p>Stanford (and anywhere else) isn’t looking for the same thing from each applicant. It’s looking for a whole spectrum of things, that no one applicant can possibly provide. And it gets lots and lots of applications, and how many it can accept is purely numbers-driven. It could have gotten 5,000 perfect applications, and it would still only have accepted 700 this week. It’s ridiculous for all of you to be chewing each other to bits here, trying to justify or attack Stanford’s supposed judgment that X was better than Y. Stanford didn’t say X was better than Y. Maybe Stanford said that X was a little more interesting than X1 or X2 in the pool, and Y lost a coin flip with Y1 from a different state.</p>

<p>It is sad to see so many smart kids believing that they have been judged inadequate because they didn’t get accepted to Stanford. Or, worse, that something nefarious has happened because they didn’t get accepted. Neither is true at all. Your great qualities are still great, and sometimes doors don’t open despite your great qualities. Welcome to the world; it’s like that all the time.</p>

<p>A word on race at Stanford: Stanford has never aspired to mirror national population. It has always placed more emphasis on California, Latin America, the Pacific Basin. And guess what?, there are still plenty of white people there. A few years ago, the incoming president of an Ivy League university asked, “Do we want to look more like America? Or should we be trying to look more like the world?” All institutions are moving in the world-direction now. Start getting used to it.</p>

<p>amciw: I hope you realize that the kinds of things you are saying here, if they are connected with your real name, would keep you out of any elite college in the country. No matter how qualified you are, that’s an instant disqualification.</p>

<p>And if you really want to apply to colleges that respect SAT scores, don’t bother with elite privates. You’ll find all the love you want at public universities that can’t afford the expensive admission screening and are perfectly happy to rely on SAT/GPA curves.</p>

102

<p>^ this is the best post in this thread.</p>

103

<p>jhs, great post.</p>

104

<p>I’ll tell you what these schools are looking for. There is nothing incredibly exceptional about my academic record. I have about a 3.8 unweighted GPA but I did take BC calc freshman year and get a 2380 on the SATs… but those don’t matter. They want to see that you have an impact in what you do, that youre not just president or leader but you actually do something huge and have a tangible impact on those around you. Last summer I got a job doing really tedious research, basically I was just taking numbers from one place and putting them in another. But I wasn’t happy with that and I did something about it, I took the initiative to find an alternative and I ended up making the hospital’s research capacity increase tenfold. Its about what you occupy your time with but more importantly what the effect of that time is. You can’t just be brilliant anymore, you need to do something great.</p>

105

<p>i completely agree with the poster above
i know that ya’ll have heard this 10000 times, but you really need to be passionate about what you do and make sure that you have an impact on others
and that doesnt necessarily mean that you’re president/vice president/founder of a bunch of clubs
you could just be a lowly officer in a club, as long as you took the initiative to provoke change
for example
i was some random appointed officer in my county’s association of student councils, the umbrella organization for all the student governments in our county’s schools
but i, with my friend who shared my position, spearheaded this huge county-wide project to raise money for the save darfur coalition that was really successful. i talked about this in that little 150 word thing in the common app where it asks you to elaborate on one of my activities, and i think it really made an impact</p>

<p>additionally, you HAVE to be innovative. just saying that you’re passionate about engineering or math or medicine is really trite, regardless of whether you really are! do something with that passion that sets you apart from others</p>

<p>lastly, stanford is really big on diversity, in every sense of the term - intellectual, racial, academic
so be sure to set yourself apart from the norm
it probably had nothing to do with my acceptance, but i still have the inkling in the back of my mind that the fact that i mentioned i was gay in my essay appealed to the admission officers in some way</p>

<p>just my two cents - take from it what you wish!</p>

106

<p>then im coming out for stanford :D</p>

107

<p>

i think you’d probably be better suited to uc berkeley, lol. idk, coming out to an admissions officer is kind of a risky move considering homosexuality is a very polar issue. you’re either tolerant or not there really is no middle ground.</p>

108

<p>“you don’t have to be some genius to get a Stanford education. that’s what a lot of people don’t realize. with the learning environment and the limitless resources they have to offer, the majority of the intelligent, hardworking people in your classes at school could probably last 4 years at Stanford if given the opportunity. and ANYONE who goes through Stanford will come out the better for it, unless you’re just a slacker or remedial…”</p>

<p>it’s true that one can get by at a top college with lower-than-average academic preparation and/or potential as long as one stays in the humanities or social sciences (not to say that those are easier - it’s hard to get an A in them as well; it’s just that one is mch less likely to fail them). however, from what i’ve observed knowing some people in this situation, the academic struggle can affect self-esteem and happiness. it depends on the extent to which the students internalize the rat race ideology.</p>

<p>i am not suggesting that schools should only accept people with the best scores or best GPA. it is the students making choices between schools that should factor “academic shock” in. </p>

<p>just for the record, i support legacy boosts, athlete boosts, and AA.</p>

109

<p>oh, and regarding the SATs…it appears that there is almost a negative correlation between SAT scores and the likelihood of being admitted. however, i think SAT scores have become meaningless in this age of extensive prep, and i think colleges know that. there is no way to tell whether someone studied or not, so it probably is true that elite colleges don’t distinguish that much once a threshold score is reached (why would they when a 2300+ may actually be less innately smart than a 2100?)</p>

<p>if there was a feasible way to do it, i think prepping should be banned. i do think innate intelligence should matter in college admissions, but i guess there is no way to measure it currently, given tests’ racial biases, etc. </p>

<p>i know people are going to object that the person who goes from 2100 to 2300 via studying shows work ethic. first, grades show work ethic. second, college work at an elite school requires intelligence much more than high school work does. work ethic alone will probably not be sufficient. i know that is sort of a morally repugnant remark, but i believe it is ultimately true.</p>

110

<p>SATs are supposed to be predictors of academic preparation for college, but they really are for schools to put your grades in perspective. A B in my English class is probably an A+ at some schools, maybe a B- at others. If a student has straight A’s and is valedictorion, but has a 2080 on the SATs, he’s not going to get in unless he’s done somehting amazing outside of school, or is black/native american/hispanic. They want to see your potential in your SATs, so they don’t care about a lower score–that just means that on that day you were performing under your potential. But again, scores are just one part of it, and in reality there is no corrolation like the one you think you’ve found on the boards.</p>

111

<p>Firstly, that would be ridiculous to have a negative correlation between SAT scores and acceptance rates, because it is unfairly punishing those who took the test cold or mostly cold and still did very good.</p>

<p>Secondly, to JHS, can you please explain how they would keep me out? I don’t see any racism in them, which is the only thing I could think would have an effect.</p>

112

<p>About the SAT’s, I agree it is harder to score a 2400 than a 2200. I will also grant that if you took a hundred kids with 2400 and another hundred with 2200, you would probably find the 2400 group to be on average smarter. But people with a 2200 are plenty smart for Stanford. Stanford seems to be doing what I’ve always hoped colleges would do- use the SAT (and other quantitative criteria) as screening tools and then throw those numbers out the window, and look solely at the subjective factors in making the final cuts.</p>

113

<p>Also, a note to all the URMs in the thread:</p>

<p>Any insults or racism were purely unintentional, because that is not what I was trying to communicate with my posts. I apologize if it caused you to interpret it that way, but please, understand I am I am not being racist, but merely venting frustration over Stanford’s admissions policies, which, while you benefit from them, are not under your control and are thus not your fault in any way.</p>

114

<p>Paraphrasing amciw: “oops i said offensive racist stuff by accident. that means it’s okay” </p>

<p>I understand why you you’re mad. Seriously i do. I have friends who said much worse stuff after not being accepted at colleges of their choice. Still, with all due respect, you’re wrong.
First, to address your case specifically. (First my “assumptions”: Stanford is not just randomly letting in all minorities and denying all white and asian people. If you wanna argue this point with me, I’m not interested in talking really). You were denied admission SCEA, not deferred to the regular decision round. If you had been somehow “screwed out of admission” by one of those “gosh darn lucky minorities” that would mean you were close to being admitted and they would have deferred you. Right? Plenty of white and asian kids got in, so clearly is isn’t impossible. For whatever reason, you were not what Stanford was looking for this year. That doesn’t reflect poorly on you. In fact it may well reflect poorly on Stanford; however, your rejection had nothing to do with affirmative action. </p>

<p>More generally, it’s so easy to sit here and complain about affirmative action. I get it, and I think a system of socioeconomic affirmative action would be far preferable to the race-based one. However affirmative action isn’t just randomly letting in all the black/hispanic/native american kids as some people on this board seem to suggest. Affirmative action is a recognition of the fact that minorities in this country have generally received less opportunities to succeed. Thus, this discrepancy in opportunity is taken into account when an admissions committee is comparing the achievements of two different candidates. If someone with less opportunities (ie a minority) has done as much or more than a white kid who has received tremendous opportunities to succeed, it makes sense to admit them. I agree that race isn’t necessarily the best measure of this (socioeconomic status is better) but it works reasonably well.</p>

115

<p>johno, just be quiet. You’re sorely misinterpreting amciw’s intentions.</p>

<p>Here’s what he means: if you take one white kid and one black/NA/hispanic kid in an applicant pool, both with IDENTICAL stats, ECs, and essays, the URM has a better chance of getting in. Period. That is an undeniable fact. They may both get rejected or both accepted, depending on the circumstances, but top schools loooooooove their URMs (qualified, of course).</p>

<p>P.S. I go to one of the richest private schools in my area. I’m the val, and a black girl is the sal. Should she be given AA preferential treatment for the TERRIBLE, AWFUL hardships she’s struggled to endure all her poor, mistreated life?? /sarcasm</p>

116

<p>Back to the SAT statements above, I agree with amciw that a 2250 and a 2400 are similar in certain circumstances. </p>

<p>For instance, I took the SAT completely cold, never cracking a single prep book. I ended up with a 2270. Now, I know 2 kids with 2350+ scores, and they are in no way smarter than I am. They prepared for months, memorizing vocab lists and sometimes taking 2 practice tests a day. If I had done that, I could’ve made a 2400 in my sleep.</p>

<p>Now, I completely agree that the average kid with a 2200+ will have a higher IQ (or however you measure “intelligence”) than the average kid with a 1900, but above that, it gets pretty jumbled. At a certain point, the SAT tests your test-taking skills, and not your innate knowledge.</p>

117

<p>For those of you disappointed with your EA results, read the first post in this thread:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/612315-yale-people-listen-up.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/612315-yale-people-listen-up.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It was written with Yale in mind but it applies equally to you too.</p>

118

<p>From another thread b Baelor:

</p>

<p>Stanford is probably neutral for a white candidate. You are at a disadvantage if you are Asian and you have an advantage if you are URM. Stanford is looking for more diversity than HYP.</p>

119

<p>Thanks to everyone who posted on here. It has been therapeutic for me. My son was one of those with near perfect SAT scores and grades, with very strong extracurriculars in the “traditional” sense (leadership, sports) who has been rejected. Your first reaction is to second guess yourself, and think of other things that you might have done to make the application stronger. After reading these boards, I realize that there is very little that he could have done differently on his application.</p>

<p>The real mistake was to use the SCEA on a university that places a very low value on the ordinary measures of high school success. Our school counselor warned us that Stanford, more than any other school was a crapshoot, but we mistakenly believed that near perfect scores, grades, and recommendations would prevail. </p>

<p>Now, I know I am jumping to conclusions without all the information, but I would make the following observations.

  1. Stanford does not place much value on great scores, grades, traditional extracurriculars, and student leadership positions. You would be better off using your SCEA on a school that values those more highly if that is your strong suit. I really can’t emphasize this enough. If your strong suit is that you started diversity day at your high shool, SCEA probably makes sense for you. We had some warnings that this was the case, but we chose to ignore the alarm bells, and it seems to be even more so this year.
  2. There is a strict racial quota system which trumps everything else, even if they won’t call it that. I knew that going in, but what I did not consider is that SCEA is a great time for them to skim the cream off of the URM’s, which leaves less room for others. From Stanford’s perspective, it makes sense. They will get plenty of high-scoring white and Asian applications during RD.
  3. You also have to consider geography. We live in a southern state, with a large Hispanic population. They are balancing geographically, and taking the best Hispanic applicants they can find. Once again, this is going to make it tougher if you are an ORM from one of those states, and it is not something I had considered. Another reason to skip SCEA at Stanford.
  4. Now this is somewhat of a conjecture, but I think that if you have very strong traditional credentials, you may want to develop a sudden interest in being a history, sociology, political science, or education major. Remember, they have a whole college to fill, and they have only so many slots for premed and biology majors. You can always change majors once you get there. Now my son would not have done that no matter what, nor would I want him to, but I do feel this worked against him as well.
  5. I have to comment on this quote. “amciw: I hope you realize that the kinds of things you are saying here, if they are connected with your real name, would keep you out of any elite college in the country. No matter how qualified you are, that’s an instant disqualification.” I have no doubt that this is actually correct, but I find it appalling. I don’t see how an honest discussion of the effects of race on admission acceptance is anything but an honest discussion. It is simply a fact that it has an effect, and something everyone should take into account when deciding where to use their valuable SCEA choice.
  6. However, the most appalling thing that I have read on this board, and I hope it is not true, is that applying for financial aid may have affected your chances for admissions. One reason that my son used his SCEA on Stanford is their stated policy that admissions was need-blind. Now, I don’t blame a school for wanting a certain amount of “customers who pay the full price”, so to speak, but you shouldn’t specifically state the opposite if that is in fact a factor.
  7. I’m really not as bitter as I probably sound. Stanford is a private school, and they can choose to use whatever factors they want for admissions, even if it seems a little random to the rest of us. I just think that if we were completely aware of some factors that we did not consider, my son would have made a better choice on where to apply early.
    He has no interest in Ivy league schools, so he had a lot of eggs in this basket. My son has taken this much better than I have, and he continues to make me proud and a little humble.
    We both know he will get in a great school, hopefully a little closer to home, which I will like.
  8. Congratulations to everyone who got in. I know most of you really are awesome people.</p>
120

<p>Look, EA is over so it’s time to focus on RD. In RD there is a rather different dynamic going on. Remember that in SCEA and ED the schools are cherry-picking from what is essentially a captive applicant pool. They have no competition at that point. Thus, it’s not surprising that they take advantage of this temporary opportunity to try to nail down as many of the talented athletes and high-stat URMs as they can.</p>

<p>Stanford is not alone in this approach. Look at these compiled results from Dartmouth’s recent ED: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061441231-post96.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061441231-post96.html&lt;/a&gt; Recognizing the limitation that this is the CC sample and not a scientific sample, the Dartmouth mean SAT for the deferred group is actually <em>higher</em> than the accepted group. And there appears to be more URMs and athletes in the accepted group too. Given the SCEA/ED process, this should not be a surprise at all.</p>

<p>Now RD is very likely to be a different story. The students will no longer be held captive. All will have many choices. And all five schools will be at the HYPSM party. Stanford is going to be trying to fill in the rest of its class, and Harvard and Princeton are going to be filling their entire classes. Nobody is going to have the luxury of “cherry-picking” anything. I think a lot of the disappointed SCEA kids with very high stats are going to be pleasantly surprised come April 1st.</p>