<p>How would you gauge Stanford's admission process? Is it more axed towards academic success and grades or more favorable to well-rounded students with great ECs, recs, essays, etc..</p>
<p>YES both are taken into account, YES the vast majority can't get in without or the other for those with experience, which would you say prevails in terms of importance or given more value?</p>
<p>The latter, though grades are very important, too. I would say ECs, recs, essays, etc. together are more important than grades.</p>
<p>The truth is there are so many people that apply to Stanford with amazing grades that differentiating between them based on it would be splitting hairs so Stanford instead focuses on other things (ECs, Recs, Essays etc). Still to be even considered your grades have to be really good.</p>
<p>Academic success and grades are a given. You have to be able to stand out among thousands that have those and more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Still to be even considered your grades have to be really good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is your definition of "really good"? I believe the Stanford site says the majority of students have between a 3.6 and 4.0 UW GPA.</p>
<p>^^^good enough to put you into top 10% of your class.</p>
<p>I mean good enough compared to your current situation. Stanford realises that people have different opportunities and that some people are at an advantage academically compared to others. I know a student in my class who's SAT score wasn't very high (compared to Stanford of course) but still got in. Why? because he was doing so much better than everyone else in his High School and showed that he had great potential. </p>
<p>So yeah at the end of all that ramble I agree with what nngmm said. Showing that you're at the top of your class (top 10% or higher) is pretty much required.</p>
<p>What if you have a great SAT score, and good GPA (above 3.7) but arent in the top 10%....</p>
<p>especially if your school doest rank people.</p>
<p>91% of admitted students are in the top 10% of their class (adm rate 13%)
46% are in the top 1-2% of their class (adm. rate 18%)</p>
<p>You can draw your own conclusions about your chances from this.</p>
<p>Schools that don't rank usually still provide enough info to shoe which decile you fall into.</p>
<p>I think Stanford focuses somewhat more on your personality and leadership qualities than your academics, mainly because they have so many academically qualified applicants.</p>
<p>The prevailing opinion of posters on this board is more or less that out of all the top-tier colleges, Stanford probably gives a greater than average weight to things like EC's, essays, and recs.</p>
<p>Now let's be clear: Stanford is too good a school for anyone to overcome bad grades with even the best of EC's. If you got straight B's in high school you are more than likely just not good enough for Stanford, even if you were a three sport Captain, editor of your school paper, etc. Now what if you got the occasional B, hovered around the 10-15% spot in your class rankings, but participated in several extra curricular activites and did some really interesting stuff during the summer, are you competitive then? You certainly have a shot, but how much of one, that's anybody's guess.</p>
<p>As for the example the person above listed about a person with a good SAT score and a 3.7 GPA, I would say the numbers given certainly wouldn't make them jump out at me as a shoe-in, but then again a person with a perfect 2400 and a 4.6 isn't a lock either if they have no EC's and they write crappy essays. I think if a candidate with numbers like the above (3.7 one) would need to show some pretty interesting EC involvement, but then again that's true of basically every candidate.</p>
<p>lol, yea it's funny when people who have great grades and like a 2000 SAT score and every single person say they have 0 chance of being accepted.
Especially when 35% of those accepted have a Verbal score of less than 700
and 28% have a math score of less than 700.</p>
<p>Docketgold said it perfectly: objective evidence (based on posted admissions stats posted on here and elsewhere) clearly show that Stanford doesn't just look at grades when it admits students. I always say that Stanford is looking for people that have vitality and something to gain from learning at Stanford. They want people that aren't admissions-crazed and would rather become involved, help other people, etc. than pad a resume. It's more about potential than past accomplishment (in my opinion looking at admissions decisions and discussions).</p>
<p>How about good test scores, a variety of extracirculars, coming from a single parent (no father) low income family with a 92 gpa at a public elite high school.</p>
<p>Assuming good test scores means competitive test scores, your class rank is decent, and depending on your definition of 'variety', the above could have a chance. Or not. You'd have to be more specific.</p>
<p>92 gpa Bronx science
sat 2's 710 750 800
act 35
research, key clube, dental internship, pre-med society , classes at columbia med</p>
<p>poor family</p>
<p>Your stats are fine. Being from low income family may give you a boost with admissions. However, if you have a father that does not live with you or provide any financial support, but has money or assets, it can be a real problem with regards to fin aid at most private schools.</p>
<p>Its not like He can fill out any forms. He was abusive and I doubt I am going to risk my safety in order to get financial aid forms filled out. Plus He feels for bankruptcy every year to get out of child support so i doubt there will be any problem.</p>
<p>there's one member of my class (stanford '11) who has admitted to a 1760 SAT score. No, he's not an athlete, legacy, or famous, he is a URM. So just be black would be the best advice I can give you.</p>
<p>edit: my sat score was almost 500 points higher</p>
<p>You forgot ECs, recommendation letters, and essays Vissanik. Maybe he had you all beat in those aspects.</p>