<p>After SCEA, something in me changed. I observed them from a distantance. I came to formulate something.</p>
<p>I actually go to a ghetto school. I school where it’s not so academicallly motivated. I;m talking about a school in the silicon valley that doesn’t offer a computer programming or any computer related course (well, maybe computer graphics design course).
Anyway, two seniors (one ranked #1 and #2) applied SCEA and got in. I will tell you of the person #1 and the rank #2 guy is same, if not low in calibur, compared to the rank #1 person. </p>
<p>This person brought the concept of “science bowl” to school. She created an environmental recycling club and she attended some random ecology activity course in New Hampshire. She did take lots of AP courses and got good SAT scores (2100+). She made teams for different science quiz bowls and she participated — the school participated — for the first time. She lost the quiz bowl hard. Again she tried next year, and for various quiz bowls, but the highest she was able to attain was “semi-finalist”. This person didn’t even qualify for AIME . . . </p>
<p>I went to collegeconfidential’s Stats profiles of different people and The Official SCEA results thread. I saw winners of quiz bowls, USAMO qualifiers, Intel ISEF Filanists, USABO, IPHO, so many other persuers of unique activities getting rejected.
I didn’t quite get something. This girl in my school who is from CA, sillicon valley, who is nowhere compared to the people here, is actually accepted to Stanford. </p>
<p>I came to think differently now. She went to a bad school and shined, bringing new activities and all sort. Is this better than doing the routine ISEF, AIME, USABO? Does the environment you come from actually affect your admission to SCEA? Then why not a bright person study in a poor school and shine, thus gaining admission to SCEA?
I came to formulate this:
Study in a poorly academic school. Shine there, bring new things there such as academic clubs and introducing the school to quiz bowls ans other competitions and any other things you can think of. SCEA will at least defer you if not accept.</p>
<p>I have observed this case on actually 6 other people from different schools. So, I am not basing this from one person.</p>
<p>I would say this is true too. I mean the person you described did deserve to get admitted. The admissions people also look at context and the overall picture. I didn’t do ISEF, AIME, USABO, etc. (actually I don’t even have a clue what those things stand for), but I shone in the context I was in (a “ghetto” school if you will) and that’s what Stanford likes to see.</p>
<p>I think you are absolutely right. Admissions look at applicants in the context of a school. So if you shine at a school that is not very academic, they look upon you far more favorably than if you are a USAMO qualifier in a school with 5 USAMO qualifiers, 5 Intel Finalists, etc. because you don’t stand out AT YOUR SCHOOL</p>
<p>You’re all absolute right, I’d just offer a minor clarification - applicants are evaluated in the context of their life opportunities. The school you go to is perhaps a proxy for your life opportunities, but it’s really that, and not the school, that is considered.</p>
<p>That is as it should be. The degree to which one makes the most of what is available is a valuable piece of data. There are a lot fewer people able to rise above limited opportunities than there are people who, when given a lot of resources, can accomplish a lot. </p>
<p>An example from the other side is a student I know who attends a very elite private school and was deferred. His counselor had told the students who applied that, at <em>that</em> school, one pretty much had to have all As in the highest course load to be admitted to Stanford. Another application of the standard that you are evaluated on how well you functioned given what you had available to you.</p>
<p>"Your school offers “lots of AP courses” and sent 2 people to Stanford. Hell, your school offers the AMC.</p>
<p>Your school is NOT “ghetto” by any standards, unless your idea of non-ghetto is a rich private school."</p>
<p>Mybe “ghetto” was too harsh, but consider this: This school is from the SILLICON VALLEY. Here, there are schools like St. Francis, Bellarmine, Harker, Monta Vista and Lynnbrook, Gunn (Right next to Stanford), and other schools. These schools offer beyond AMC. They have teams that participate in the ARML, Mandelbroot, Wondercup Tournament, Other Quiz Bowls, other crazy olympiads, Math league (The standard 6 question math exam), SMT, so amy other competitions these schools participate in. You can check if you want on the web.
My school is in fact only had ONE ISEF Finalist in the school’s history. It on;y offers AMC and USABO.
That’s all, and people have never gone above because this school is not motivated. This rank #1 person I’m talking about actually tampered with outside schools competitions like quiz bowls, Mandelbroot, Wondercup etc. Since it was the school’s first time, they got their ass kicked. But, look, this #1 person gets into Stanford. Why? Because she did something totally different from her peers, and she took innitiative.
This isn’t possible in a well-established school.</p>
<p>Anyway, you had mentioned about “offering lots of AP courses”.
Just because a school offeres “lots of AP courses” doesn’t mean it’s strong. Last year, our AP Physics B teacher had a passing rate of 20%. Other schools had at least a 70% passing rate.
Our AP Euro teacher last year got a 23% passing rate. I’ll let you figure the rest. </p>
<p>In fact, I actually think “ghetto” would be a preferable term.</p>
<p>sometimes i wonder, is going to a worse school better to improve your chances at college, or is it more worth it to go to an excellent high school and lower your chances to shine</p>
<p>^ I have wondered the same thing… So many kids go to great/competitive high schools, but then their rank just ends up being mediocre and they completely lost their chances of getting in, despite having high SAT scores. They might be brilliant, but they still won’t get accepted. That really sucks.</p>
<p>I agree. I got into Stanford and I came from a a completely new high school. I mean, our first year, we had grades 8-10, but we added grades and dropped 8th grade completely (I’m part of the 2nd graduating class). We are a school on the rise, offering about 15 AP classes as of now. I ended up shining academically, and because we were new, there were a lot more chances for me to join clubs and take leadership positions, since none of them were well-established. So the school you attend plays a major role in admissions. I mean, it really affects EVERYTHING.</p>
<p>Well said. There, so now we’ve found an answer — a short cut — to gain admissions to Stanford SCEA.
Don’t tell anyone or the “bad” public school might turn into a really good one!</p>
<p>Students shouldn’t go to “ghetto” school willingly simply because they will receive a worse education. No matter how it might change the way admissions officers look at your application, opting out of a better high school education in hopes of getting a better college one is just absurd.</p>
<p>^Very true. It’s would be very short-term thinking, and if, as is very likely, you still don’t get into whatever school you make the mistake of setting your heart on, what will you make of your decision?
Better choice - don’t set your heart on any one school. If you have a very strong profile, you will be applying to selective schools, and given the randomness of outcomes for unhooked applicants, the greater the number of selective schools you have to apply to - at least 7 or 8 where applicants have your sort of profile.
If you are realistic about your profile, and apply to enough of the right type of school, and do a great job presenting yourself, you are certain to have some good choices in April.</p>
<p>“is going to a worse school better to improve your chances at college”</p>
<p>i dont think so. i think my education, not to mention my chances at any selective school would be MUCH greater had i attended a better high school. even if i do shine in my school, it wouldn’t have hurt to have had access to counseling about colleges in the us, to have been better prepared for standardized tests (hell, to have discoverd their existence earlier ), etc… as someone who, for example, never had a chance to take ap or very advanced courses, who didnt know about sat subject tests until the end of junior year (and am applying to these colleges completely on my own, since i dont think my counselor has even heard of most of them), i can tell you i really wish i couldve gone to a more competitive school. i certainly think my chances would improve and i would be better prepared for college.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>By no means is one student better than another because they succeeded in APs, AIME, etc. They could very well have had the exact same results if they had the same opportunity. Follow them through Stanford and you will see that both students will turn out very well.</p></li>
<li><p>Along those lines, the “bright students” you talked about, without a good education would most likely not have been ISEF finalists, or USAMO qualifiers. They may very well have done the same things at your ghetto school that your Stanford acceptee did. Further, would you then no longer consider them bright?</p></li>
<li><p>Your proposal, that bright students should go to bad schools so that they could shine is bad. I will rephrase your proposal for you to make it more “noble.” Bright, fortunate students should help out those school districts less fortunate than theirs to increase opportunity. Further, that’s definitely good community service for college, too.</p></li>
<li><p>As others have said, Stanford evaluates “in context.” Go to almost <em>any</em> school’s info session and they will tell you that. Read about it on the Stanford admissions website.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Honestly read what you wrote…I hope you were being sarcastic.</p>
<p>By the way…that place you live? It’s Silicon Valley, not Sillicon Valley (you made that mistake every time).</p>
<p>^^I have to agree. WorrieMom, after reading several of your threads and posts, I would worry about the type of thinking you are bringing to the college admissions process. I think you need to ask yourself - is it an education or a credential you seek? If it’s an education, I would advise you to re-evaluate some of your thinking and priorities, and if it’s just a credential, it’s hard to sympathize or empathize with your quest…</p>
<p>wow i go to this “ghetto” school and am ranked 3rd behind these two chinese stanford scea acceptances. even though i have higher sat scores than the girl ranked first (2300+), ill admit i know i have next to nothing shot at a school like stanford because im not a “well rounded” applicant…</p>
or the “bad” public school might turn into a really good one!</p>