Bad GPA...should I EA/ED at all?

[Redroses]

<p>But most don’t or they would not be rejecting 93% of applicants.</p>

[decrescendo]

<p>

Top 10% at the vast majority of high schools is not what Stanford is looking for. They reject the majority of vals and 2400s and could fill several classes with very high stats kids. I think you don’t understand how competitive this is.

</p>

<p>I am fully aware that over 50% of vals and 2400ers are rejected. I’m certainly not an idiot or uninformed in regards to this process. What I’m saying, which I think you caught on to but refuse to acknowledge, is that the majority of applicants who are accepted to Stanford in the like were not valedictorians (only 30% of acceptees or so are) or 2400 SATers (only 238 HSers in the United States scored a 2400 on the SAT last year). Many of them were not Val or Sal, and some were even at the bottom of that 10% or even a little bit outside of it. </p>

<p>If Stanford accepted people based solely on numbers, their 25% marks for matriculants on the SAT sections would not average in the mid-600s. I am fully aware of how competitive admissions to a school like this are; but academics, and class rank specifically, are only a small part of a bigger picture that constitutes the “why” of acceptance letters there. Students from particularly interesting backgrounds, those with diverse life experiences, those who have something else going for them in the form of extracurriculars, and others who faced hardship in different ways, most certainly do not have to be Valedictorian or Salutatorian to get into Stanford. If so was the case, Stanford would be a student body consisting almost entirey of Vals with a few Sals here and here.</p>

[Erin_s_Dad]

<p>

Students from particularly interesting backgrounds, those with diverse life experiences, those who have something else going for them in the form of extracurriculars, and others who faced hardship in different ways, most certainly do not have to be Valedictorian or Salutatorian to get into Stanford. If so was the case, Stanford would be a student body consisting almost entirey of Vals with a few Sals here and here.

Yes, we call those accepted students athletes. PAC 10.</p>

[decrescendo]

<p>

Yes, we call those accepted students athletes. PAC 10.

</p>

<p>Erin’s Dad - what I’m trying to say is that being Val or Sal of your class isn’t a must if you want to get in. Does it help? Sure. But if you’re a URM, or come from an underrepresented state, or have won nationally in a competition, or write incredibly moving essays that truly stand out, you might get into Stanford with less-than-perfect academic stats. Athletic recruits aren’t the only ones who accomplish that feat.</p>

[Erin_s_Dad]

<p>Red Roses said that earlier:

EA/ED admits at the ivies and Stanford include most of the recruited athletes, legacies, staff kids and development candidates. This is largely why the admit rate is so much higher.

You were stating that SATs were more important than grades:

I imagine that a candidate with a 2400 SAT score who is at the lower end of the top 10% of his or her class would have a significantly better chance at getting into Stanford than a candidate with a 2100 SAT score who is his or her school’s valedictorian.

It looks like we all agree now. Grades/scores can get your application to the consideration pile. It’s up to something else (sports, whatever) to get you selected.</p>

[footskineater]

<p>Stanford is REA; Restrictive Early Action- and you made another chance thread???
What is up with you, davidoga???</p>