<p>What is the actual SCEA admit rate for non-legacies?</p>
<p>The legacy admit rate is statistically over double that of the non-legacy. With a general admit rate of around 20%, where does that put the actual rate for applicants without legacy status? I guess you would need to know the number of legacies out of that pool...</p>
<p>-Ender</p>
<p>How many legacies are applying? Estimate? I'm sure the percentage of legacies applying SCEA is far greater than that of the RD pool.</p>
<p>oh yeah btw you forgot atheletes</p>
<p>The effect of legacy status has been dropping steadily but they still have odds about twice as good as non-legacy candidates...this a non-Stanford-specific generalization about patterns at top colleges. There's also URM's but for all the whining that goes on about URM's, the actual numbers involved are relatively low. The biggest slice of hooked students have to do with athletics and for Stanford it bears to remember that they field more NCAA teams than any other college.</p>
<p>That's not true. Harvard fields more Division I teams than Stanford.</p>
<p>It would probably do to come up with definitive stats. Stanford is the #2 school in the country for NCAA championships and the number of teams it fields was cited in an article on the subject a while back. Harvard is not the #1.</p>
<p><a href="http://gocrimson.collegesports.com/%5B/url%5D">http://gocrimson.collegesports.com/</a></p>
<p>According to USNews, Harvard has 41 Division I varsity teams, while Stanford has 36.</p>
<p>"As of 2003, there were 43 Division I intercollegiate varsity sports teams for women and men at Harvard, more than at any other college in the country."</p>
<p>(2002) Harvard Tops the Scoreboard with a Sporting Smorgasbord... (USNews)</p>
<p>"....Harvard University's 41 varsity sportsthe broadest offering of any Division I school. Add six dozen junior varsity, recreational, and "club" pursuits, and roughly 85 percent of all undergraduates are engaged in some athletic activitybe it juggling, rugby, or skating. "</p>
<p>I believe that Princeton is second to Harvard with 38 Division I varsity teams, and that Stanford is third.</p>
<p>lol......most of harvard's sports aren't real sports~ stanford is good at SPORTS. harvard is good at crap masquerading as sports. any sports fan anywhere knows stanford is better than harvard athletically speaking.</p>
<p>Well, of course that's not true. Indeed, either Harvard or Princeton regularly finishes higher in the Sears Cup standings than any other school relying on amateur athletes. Each regularly finishes in the top 20% of all NCAA schools in the Sears Cup standings, and each has won its share of NCAA championships.</p>
<p>Stanford - on the contrary - spends more money on salaries paid to its hired performers (payments known euphemistically as "athletic scholarships") than any other school in the country - more than Twleve Million ($12,000,000) dollars! </p>
<p>No wonder they win a lot of games.</p>
<p>How much to Harvard and Princeton (or the other Ivies) pay their players to play?? ZERO.</p>
<p>With all the money Stanford lavishes on its "revenue sports" such as football, no wonder it is humiliated and outraged when the hirelings don't perform up to par. The solution, at Stanford, Notre Dame, Florida, Indiana etc etc - schools that rely on paid performers .... FIRE THE COACH!</p>
<p>um, that's total nonsense. take a look at the actual stats</p>
<p>(1)</p>
<p>National Championships: 98
NCAA Championships: 88 (No. 2)
Men's NCAA Championships: 57 (No. 3)
Women's NCAA Championships: 31 (No. 1)
Individual NCAA Championships: 386<em>+
NCAA Team Championships Since 1985: 62</em>
NCAA Team Championships Since 1980: 70*</p>
<ul>
<li>most in the nation
+entering 2003-04 season </li>
</ul>
<p>(2) and on
<a href="http://gostanford.collegesports.com/sports/m-swim/spec-rel/061703aaa.html%5B/url%5D">http://gostanford.collegesports.com/sports/m-swim/spec-rel/061703aaa.html</a></p>
<p>Stanford Awarded Ninth Straight NACDA Directors' Cup
The Cardinal has won the award nine out of a possible 10 times. </p>
<p>June 17, 2003</p>
<p>Orlando, Fla. - Stanford University was presented with its ninth consecutive NACDA Division I Directors' Cup on Sunday at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention. The award, which was previously known as the Sears Directors' Cup, is given to the nation's top all-around athletic program. </p>
<p>Though the Division I points race will not end until the conclusion of the College World Series on June 23, the Cardinal has already locked up the championship with a total of 1330.5 points. Stanford, which has won the award nine out of a possible 10 times, is 255.75 points ahead of runner-up Ohio State (1074.75), while Michigan (1034.25), Texas (1011) and Penn State (993) round out the top five. </p>
<p>see harvard? no. because harvard may have a large number of sports, but it has minimal success - at least relative to stanford.</p>
<p>It is true that harvard and princeton rely on amateur atheltes, and therefore have no "real" success. some might consider this amateur spirit noble; however, i like stanford's approach better: use athletic scholarships (payments) to field competitive, real sports teams.</p>
<p>To return to Ender's question, I read a post on another college's board by Michelle Hernandez, author of "A is for Admission," and a few other books, where, by way of consolation to SCEA declines, she points out that elite colleges use the early round to lock up athletes, attractive legacies and URM's, and fill other institutonal needs. She estimates that roughly half the places go to to these hooked applicants at elites in the early rounds, so you might divide the SCEA admit by two, then adjust for regional factors. For a brilliant bu unhooked kid from megalopolis, ender, the odds are low, and denial is no disgrace.</p>
<p>I also wnt to say, enderwiggen, that you're post upon hearing your results was the most unforgettable I've read on CC, beautifully written, and I'm sure in the end you'll be at an oustanding college somewhere. Hang in there, the best is yet to come</p>
<p>The Hernandez book was always more reliable in re Dartmouth (where she was briefly employed in admissions) than in re other colleges and universities.</p>
<p>With the passage of time, and with the great changes in certain areas such as early admissions programs, the use of "likely letters", etc. her pronouncements should no longer be taken as gospel.</p>
<p>Right, not gospel, but I bet it's a good ballpark number.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/2004/admission-0112.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/2004/admission-0112.html</a>
The Office of Undergraduate Admission announced today that 867 students have been admitted to the Class of 2009 through the non-binding Single-Choice Early Action admission program. These students were selected from an applicant pool of 4,330. </p>
<p>20%</p>
<p>Byerly - no offence, but do you (a) work for Harvard (b) attend Harvard with excessive pride?</p>
<p>Almost all of your posts involving other school trounce these other schools and dictate that Harvard is better. I'm not insulting you - I'm just curious. To say that Harvard is comparable to Stanford in athletics is irrational. Stanford has nationally ranked tennis and basketball teams, to name two main stream sports. Harvard has neither. Harvard football isn't great - it is filled with highly ACADEMICALLY motivated (and talented) students, not athletically talented students. Of course, there's the olympic athlete here and there because it's Harvard but the teams are not exceptional by any means.</p>
<p>As a result, Stanford acceptance rate is possibly lower for "normal" (non-legacy, non-athletic, etc etc) students.</p>
<p>I only posted here because someone claimed - incorrectly - that Stanford (a fine school) had the largest Div I athletic program, and the most teams. I pointed out - with supporting links when my word was doubted, that while the Stanford program is large, both Harvard's and Princeton's are larger, with more Division I varsity teams.</p>
<p>At this point, the "defenders of the faith" switched gears and said that, well, Stanford's program is "better". This is a topic that can certainly be discussed, and people can be of different minds, depending on how you feel about the propriety of "athletic scholarships", and whether the $12 million Stanford paid to athletes last year was the best use of a sum that large by an academically oriented school.</p>
<p>Beyond that, it seems that there are others here far more worked up about the topic than me.</p>
<p>I do think you are ill-informed about the strength of Ivy athletics - particularly outside the so-called "revenue sports" - where most non-Ivy schools (including Stanford) rely almost exclusively on salaried performers. Harvard and Princeton (and until recently, Dartmouth) regularly rank well up in the top half of all Division I schools when it comes to Sears Cup rankings - and certainly higher than any schools not offering athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>Not to brag on Harvard, but in the combined USNews rankings, Div 1AA Harvard, which finished 10-0, out-ranked several Div 1A teams that appeared in post-season bowl games, so that your sneers may have been a bit excessive here.</p>
<p>but stanford is a PAC-10 :) The best conference...ever!</p>
<p>Well, I'll grant that this year's USC team is one of the best collections of college football players ever!</p>