<p>I posted this elsewhere, but maybe it’s more relevant here:</p>
<p>I cannot begin to explain Stanford’s decisions, but I can tell you about D2 who was accepted SCEA last year. Briefly she had: SAT 2280 (taken only once in Spring of junior year*); top 5% rigorous college prep school, taking hardest classes (including AP Physics and AP Differential Equations); Senior Class President; and you can look up the rest in my older posts. </p>
<p>But I believe the significant factor here is that she transferred into this school as a junior. What is most informative as to her acceptance to both Stanford and Harvard was a note on each acceptance letter which said how impressed they were by the fact that she had acquired so many leadership positions in such a short (effectively one year) time period. </p>
<p>Also, her recommendations were outstanding- including comments like “in forty years of teaching I have rarely come across such a student…” and “exceptional in every way.” Her essays also were amazing, and she wrote them herself.</p>
<p>Based on this, I can only conclude that recommendations play a tremendous part in these decisions. Oh, and I have noticed that many of her Stanford classmates, including her, are quite humble about their accomplishments.</p>
<p>For what its worth.</p>
<hr>
<ul>
<li>Someone said a 2200 is VERY different than a 2400. I disagree. It’s possible D could have gotten a 2400 if she’d taken it two more times, but frankly, she didn’t have time and we felt it unnecessary. She carried all AP classes her last two years and got 4s and 5s on all of those… plus was otherwise very busy. Maybe Stanford takes that into consideration…</li>
</ul>
<p>“* Someone said a 2200 is VERY different than a 2400. I disagree. It’s possible D could have gotten a 2400 if she’d taken it two more times, but frankly, she didn’t have time and we felt it unnecessary. She carried all AP classes her last two years and got 4s and 5s on all of those… plus was otherwise very busy. Maybe Stanford takes that into consideration…”</p>
<p>IMHO, a 2400 at the first try (early junior year) is very diffent from a 2200.</p>
<p>IMHO, a 2400 at the first try (early junior year) is not much different from a 2200, going by actual experience. As long as you are above the 75th percentile for SAT scores for your school, you have already established yourself as an excellent test-taker. From that point on it comes down to your other achievements (unless your only skill is taking tests, in which case I would certainly recommend you to keep retaking standardized tests, as well as applying to a different college).</p>
<p>mushmouse… A 2400 for a first try is amazing, no question, but there are so many factors involved. For example, some people test better than others, some take extensive SAT prep courses and others don’t, and some have taken the SAT several times before their junior year. Also, D took it after being out of school ill for the previous school year: scores don’t reflect these individual circumstances.</p>
<p>I think it is good that scores and grades aren’t completely relied upon in admissions decisions, especially with a difference of only 200 points out of 2400 (I’m not a math person, but isn’t that a relatively small %?).</p>
<p>^ It’s not about the 200 pts. It’s about the threshold… IMO the difference b/t an 1800 and a 2000 is enormous. But the question is, does that apply still to a 2200 and a 2400? Once again, IMHO, not really. After you prove you can hit 2200, I don’t see the point of reaching even further.</p>
<p>
Someone is making assumptions… and you know what happens when you assume.</p>
<p>Sorry, I guess I should’ve explained myself more. Stanford tries its best to make its students as representative a sample of the population as possible (a smart and accomplished sample, but a sample nonetheless). To do so, they implement admissions mechanisms to make the study body a more representative sample racially, geographically, etc. Thus, if a group is overrepresented at Stanford, I assume they would be more overrepresented were admissions not implementing said mechanisms, and vice-versa. For example, Asians are overrepresented at Stanford, yet everyone believes admissions actively makes it harder for Asians to get in to make them less overrepresented, while Latinos are underrepresented, yet everyone believes admissions actively makes it easier for Latinos to get in to make them less underrepresented. </p>
<p>I assume the same logic could be applied to LGBT students in admissions. However, there is the problem that the application doesn’t ask for LGBT status (indeed, my application never explicitly stated I was gay) and the problem that I’m assuming a lot from this, and as neethus1 said, you know what happens when you assume.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more with this. From the little knowledge I have of admissions, it seems Stanford looks at recommendations much more seriously than most colleges. I had no national-level awards to back up my accomplishments from high school and I think my teacher’s assurances of my potential are what swayed the admissions committee. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. There is a difference between a 2400 and a 2200, but not much. A Yale admissions officer told me that they’ve never accepted or rejected someone solely because of their SAT score. There’s always either something else right or something else wrong that’s more compelling and integral to the decision. Just like there’s a marginal difference between the prestige of Harvard and Stanford, but that difference is so small that other things are going to play a bigger role in whether to attend one or the other. The same thing goes for SAT scores and whether an elite college accepts you.</p>
<p>Stanford, even more so than most colleges, tends to use EA to go hunting for URMs. It is also more concerned than most with its “yield,” i.e., the number of admittees who actually matriculate. So, if you come from a geographical area or school where Stanford has not had good results you will have a more difficult time getting an acceptance here as opposed to other of the HYPMS schools. Add to that the need to fill slots for a huge DI sports program and legacies and the whole process becomes highly unpredictable.</p>
<p>Kliviz, i’m not trying to say that people of any ethnicity are inferior to those of another. I was simply pointing out that stanford, as well as many other elite universities, gives pretty significant advantages to underrepresented minorities. A black kid from our high school got into stanford with a 3.25 UW(he wasn’t in any weighted classes), a 1530 out of 2400 SAT and a 23 ACT. He is currently a junior there. while this is a pretty extreme example, i think that it shows that the statement that most would be there without affirmative action has some wholes in it. Because of this, i think that a better argument, and one that i could see the reasoning behind would be that A.A. is needed to make up for other factors beyond an applicants control. You touched on this, and i think that you have a point. However, it is ignorant and untrue to pretend that white are not discriminated against in the admissions process. Recognize the preferences and defend them if you want, but please don’t try to argue that they have little effect. PM me if you want, as to not bog down this thread with a continued debate.</p>
<p>My conclusion after reading all of this thread, Stanford admissions value these more than any other colleges:
URM’s :they have some sort of quotas to fill, based on limited statistics I estimate about 20% of student body. Approximately 300 students/year.
Condi Rice was certainly a product of this URMs.
Athletes: everyone knows this.
Legacies: I heard from different counselors,students with GPA below 3.8, mediocre SAT around 2000 got accepted because dad or mom is an alumni
Potential donors/fame: Michelle Wie made almost $20million before she got accepted at Stanford. Do you think she need a college degree? Tiger Wood is another one. Students who are beneficiary of foundations will certainly benefit from this policy.
I doubt it that these type of students can survive at Caltech or MIT!
Don’t get me wrong, I am sure they would do well in life. But the bottom line , if you are not in one of the above categories, your admission chance to Stanford undergraduate is less than 5%.</p>