<p>“I go all over the country and the world and everybody wants to know the formula,” Shaw says. “Especially in other parts of the world. Their systems are very formulaic. If you do this, if you get this national score, the odds are really extraordinary [that you will be accepted].”</p>
<p>Here is where the black and white melds into gray. Here is where Shaw uses phrases such as “intellectual vitality” when describing what Stanford looks for in an applicant. “It’s a holistic evaluation,” Shaw says. "Of course academic credentials are important, but we’re also looking for evidence that this young person has a passion, that he or she will bring something to our community that is unique. We want to hear a 'voice’that’s a critical component.</p>
<p>“There is no formula,” Shaw says. For the alumni of a school that resides on the forward boundary of the digital frontier, where arrays of 1s and 0s have transformed life as we know it, this is unsettling. Even perfect test scores don’t guarantee admission. Far from it: 69 percent of Stanford’s applicants over the past five years with SATs of 2400the highest score possibledidn’t get in.</p>
<p>Moreover, applicants aren’t just competing against other stellar scholars. They’re also competing against circumstances. “Whether or not one young person gets in is not necessarily determined by what they’ve done and what their characteristics are and their abilities and so on,” says Provost John Etchemendy, to whom Shaw reports. “It also depends on the overall mix of people who have applied that year and bubbled to the top. So one year, being a tuba player might be really important. And another year, well, there are already these five even better tuba players and we don’t need another.”</p>
<p>“The process is the same in each of the two admissions cycles—restrictive early-action (November 1-December 15), and regular (January 1-April 1). Admissions officers do their reading, making notes in the time-tested Stanford method of mnemonics; CPE, for instance, means “See Personal Essay.” In the latter half of the cycle, reading gives way to decision making. Committees composed of admissions officers (typically three or more) and either the dean or an assistant dean, who serves as chair, convene to hear officers present their candidates and field questions. Then there’s a vote. If a majority agrees, the candidate is admitted; otherwise he or she is denied, put on the waitlist or moved to a larger committee for further review.”</p>
<p>Some things not included in the article: full-time admission officers read all applications at least once. The ones they deem qualified to do the work at Stanford (about 80% of the applicant pool) move on to a second reader for further evaluation. When acting as your advocate in front of the committee, your regional admission officer uses not only his/her opinions but also the opinions of the other reader who read your file to support your candidacy. If you are one of your admission officer’s favorites, then he/she may call your counselor for help in constructing an effective presentation of your “case.”</p>
<p>Though it’s about MIT, the admission process is still quite similar. This one gives you insight into an admission officer’s emotional attachment to candidates.</p>
<p>Thanks for the article, aleaiactaest. Do you know if the FA process is decoupled from the admissions process (for internationals)? If not, how does it work?</p>
<p>I love how the mail today had the Stanford Magazine and two Stanford solicitation letters. This parent of a high school junior says, “Good timing, Stanford fundraising department.”</p>
<p>I think there is an error in the article in one of the charts - I happened to be entering Stanford undergrad in 1993 - the acceptance rate was definitely not 21% as it seems to read. I recalled in my acceptance letter it said 12%.</p>