<p>So we learn that Yale's undergraduate dean Richard Shaw has replaced former Stanford dean Robin Mamlet. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=75666%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=75666</a> What, if anything, does someone who may actually know more about the philosophies of these people think will change about Stanford's admission decisions for the class of 2010?</p>
<p>A focus on taking top students nationally.</p>
<p>does that mean more emphasis on geographic diversity?</p>
<p>I think from the few articles I've read written by Robin, she seems to have the "emphasis on the intangibles" philosophy and that seems to be the Stanford philosophy as well. I dunno about the guy from Yale though but hopefully there is no drastic change in mindset or philosophy about what kind of students to take in.</p>
<p>I think Richard Shaw will, hopefully, learn how to operate in a school that gets large numbers of really top-flight engineering and otherwise quantitative (math, physics, chemistry, economics) applicants. At Yale, where the entering classes he built were mostly humanities oriented and pre-med was as "sciency" as it got, it was difficult to tell whether he intentionally went light on the quants and techies, or simply went along with applicant pool he was dealt, given the school's reputation.</p>
<p>^ I think he built such a class on purpose because Yale traditionally loses a lot of sciency/techy cross-admits to Stanford and Harvard. There was an article I read about how Yale's Asian-American population isn't as high as at its peer institutions because of its perceived weakness in the sciences.</p>
<p>I'd guess they hope he'll bring with him familiarity with the East Coast schools and, with that, lure more of the top students West. I just hope he gets converted to the culture of the Stanford admissions office, which has been well-organized, warm, personal, without a whiff of snobbery in our experience.</p>
<p>now as i understand it, stanford had a more qualitative (though equally competitive) approach than yale. will that change? </p>
<p>pretty much, do we have an idea whether the 800-kid will trump the 700-activist-athlete-writer-dancer?</p>
<p>Stanford really does seem very qualitative. I believe they would take an involved, passionate student with unique EC's over the nerdy kid with the 1600 who has no life outside of academics. I think this may apply more towards asians since theyre commonly stereotyped as the stats driven, no life outside of academics, classical music, math kind of applicant.</p>
<p>oh goddamn... i just submitted it and I wrote engineering as my first choice major.... and i'm asian.... oh goddamn.... does it help i'm a girl?</p>
<p>TKnows--I'm not sure exactly what DiamondT meant about admissions differences, but I really don't think that an applicant's choice of major matters much. Colleges know that the minute the freshmen get to campus, they will be exposed to so many new disciplines and that many, many will move away from whatever major they listed on their application.</p>
<p>I think that Stanford loves and celebrates BOTH kinds of applicants--the brilliant math and science types who have an early passion for research and innovation, and the "involved, passionate student with unique ECs". There are many of both at Stanford and it is what makes it such a distinctive campus and student body.</p>
<p>An article about him from the Stanford Daily from a few days ago:
<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=17858&repository=0001_article%5B/url%5D">http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=17858&repository=0001_article</a></p>
<p>patient, thank you so much, i was going a little crazy (two of my really close friends also decided to apply who are very differert profiles academic/EC-wise) and you really helped calm me down.</p>
<p>and Tknows, being a woman in science in this day and age can NEVER hurt you. promise.</p>
<p>I think the axe-grinding about how hard Asians have it is a little ridiculous.</p>