<p>Stats are good, but I don't see any really 'meaty' EC's. Expand on your research and your internship.</p>
<p>"You forgot ECs, recommendation letters, and essays Vissanik. Maybe he had you all beat in those aspects."</p>
<p>That is a naive assumption, and one which is highly unlikely considering my EC's and essays were about as perfect as a 17 year old human being can make them. Google my name and plenty of information about my accomplishments comes up (some of which had been featured in a national paper); upon trying his name, I found nothing. And my recommendations came from several teachers who are very eloquent, know me extremely well, and never tire of saying good things about me. Furthermore, even if he did have me "beat" in those areas, that does not completely excuse a 500 point SAT difference. End of story.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
That is a naive assumption, and one which is highly unlikely considering my EC's and essays were about as perfect as a 17 year old human being can make them.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Somebody's modest. Look they picked him for a reason. I know many URMs at Stanford and all of them are just as smart and intelligent as everyone else here. You know one URM who got into Stanford I know over 50.</p>
<p>Sorry, Vissanik, if neither I nor the others on this board take you seriously -- you're known as a troll around here (which people can easily see by the threads you've posted and your other posts). It'd be best for you to start a new account, if you care enough to make others fully appreciate how "perfect" you are.</p>
<p>"I know many URMs at Stanford and all of them are just as smart and intelligent as everyone else here. "</p>
<p>That's not the point. I know plenty of smart people who are lazy and thus would never stand a chance getting into Stanford. The point is whether you actually put in the hours of work.</p>
<p>EDIT: to kyledavid: You obviously have poor reading comprehension skills if you think I referred to myself as perfect. I said my essays and ec's (not myself) were "about as perfect" as they could be.</p>
<p>While both are important, what do you think the cut off for grades would be? Would a person with a 3.5 and really good EC's and essays have a shot? Or would it be not even worth applying?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You obviously have poor reading comprehension skills if you think I referred to myself as perfect. I said my essays and ec's (not myself) were "about as perfect" as they could be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're drawing such an inane distinction as a response? (As an added note, I intentionally referred to you and not your extracurriculars -- as seemed the implication in your comment on 'perfection.')</p>
<p>Sidra: I think that would depend on a couple factors. If it was a weighted 3.5, I think that person would have trouble getting in no matter what their EC's. If it was unweighted, I think they would have a shot if they excelled in other areas - it would certainly be worth applying in the latter case.</p>
<p>Vissank: I actually thought you were joking when you wrote this. Unfortunately, I see that is now not the case. Please remove yourself from this forum and go play on the highway.</p>
<p>Vissank, we apologize. That student only got in the basis of his skin color, taking the rightful position of another competent student such as yourself. Another damn immigrant stealing what is rightfully yours, correct? Nevermind that there are literally thousands of rejected black applicants each year, and that there are plenty of caucasian students with lower score who get in based on other factors; thats just us reaching. After all, who knows more about admissions you or generations of admissions comitee? You of course. Gold here is just being silly saying otherwise. God you're awesome. I don't know you know but I know you're about as close to perfection as someone of your age may be. Gosh...Can I be you for Halloween? I want to feel that good and be that great. I want to dazzle, baby!</p>
<p>That should keep it satisfied for a while, can we get back to the discussion now? :)</p>
<p>From reading the 2011 profile, is it evident that there's a huge difference between getting 780 in math/cr and 800? Does it mean that getting that extra 20 points is very significant?</p>
<p>shot in the dark: I think that once you reach that '800' you get the added bonus of a "perfect score". It's no longer just a high number; its flawless SAT performance. Though I'm sure MANY other factors come into play.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From reading the 2011 profile, is it evident that there's a huge difference between getting 780 in math/cr and 800? Does it mean that getting that extra 20 points is very significant?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. 20 points is usually ONE mistake on the test. It is absolutely meaningless. Once your scores are in mid-700s range, it's the other stuff that matters. Plus-minus 20 points make no difference AT ALL.</p>
<p>An interesting insight into the Stanford admissions process is Jean Fetter's book "Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions Decisions at Stanford." She was the Undergraduate Admissions Dean and some of the stories are really revealing. A surprising story, given this thread, is the one about the student who falsely claimed to be African American (admission revoked).</p>
<p>siliconvalleymom- what other interesting stories are there from the book?</p>
<p>Here are some that I found interesting:
The promising athlete who has a felony conviction he did not reveal during the admissions process (admission denied).
The transfer student with a gap in her academic record that she attributes to caring for a sick relative. It turned out that she had been expelled from another college for academic problems and omitted the information when applying to Stanford (admission revoked).
The Exeter grad who is headed to Stanford as a freshman and in the summer before he arrives on campus, robs a passerby at gunpoint. The man was a plainclothes detective who killed the student in self-defense. (Admission moot).
The terminally ill student whose parents request admission to Stanford for a student who will be too sick to ever attend as a way to recognize that the candidate would have been accepted on their credentials. Apparently, this happens often and the policy is to admit or deny without regard to the illness. She says the results are more inconsistent than ideal in this area.
The general discussions of the weight of development considerations, athletic considerations and faculty feedback were also interesting to me.</p>
<p>Thanks..
For example if someone does an EC for 2 hours a week, but he indicates on the application that he does 4 hours per week.. If he were to be ever accepted, can the admission officers find out? If they manage to do so will the admission be rescinded? Do many people kinda bolster their application like that?</p>
<p>Everyone bolsters their application like that...don't worry about it...but don't liike just make stuff up..for example don't say 20 hours a month when it's 5....</p>
<p>Like the other top colleges, Stanford looks at the whole package.</p>
<p>I would say, both (in shortest possible way)..:)..</p>
<p>JHL, no offense but thats just a stupid thing to do. Think about it. Whats the added value of saying 4 hours instead of 2? Are they really gonna go "gee...I dont know about this kid. But wait, he did 4 hours and this one only did 2 at the soup kitchen. Well, thats a no-brainer. Forget the essays: hes in!" of course not....it adds nothing. But imagine for a split second what it will remove if youre found. Everything. They will revoke their acceptance. All because you thought 2 hours made a difference. Bottom line is this...it cant get you in, but it can sure as hell keep you out. So dont.</p>
<p>Some schools pick a handful of applications in which they go really. REALLY in-depth. You have as a good a chance as anyone to be picked.</p>