Hey community! Let me begin with a little bit of academic background of mine:
I go to the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science (TAMS). I have decent grades, when I was in my old high school I made A’s and B’s, but after I transferred to TAMS (after 10th grade), I have been maintaining a 4.0. My SAT score is around 2200 I’m going to take it next week. Let me make a statement first, these numbers don’t mean much and my eyes (please don’t get mad at that statement).
I want to major in computer science, a major that both schools are renowned for. I’m debating on weather or not I should apply to Brown Early or Stanford Early. Now Brown Early is Early Decision; thus, if I make it to Brown I have to go there. My heart is at Stanford it’s a school that I have been wanting to go to for years. Brown on the other hand is up there as well. I feel like I have a better chance to get in Brown because I have a lot of ties with the computer science department there and will be doing research there as well. Since I have a higher chance of getting into Brown, it would seem logical to apply there early instead of risking the chance by applying to Stanford early. Where do you guys think I should apply?
Stanford: The school that will see me from my academic records and plethora of computer science extra curriculars. (Dream School per say)
OR
Brown: The school that will already know me and the school that I have a higher chance of getting into. And won’t risk anything
Both are still a reach despite your supposed connections at Brown but Stanford is a true crapshoot for everybody and currently claims the most selective undergraduate school title. I would do Stanford ED if you have your heart set on Stanford and Brown RD if it doesn’t work out. However, since you’re going for computer science at Stanford it will probably still be more difficult than Brown RD.
You could do Stanford Restrictive Early Action because they don’t have an ED. Then, regardless of the Stanford results, you could do Brown Regular Decision.
However, you are not very competitive for Stanford.
This is what I meant when I said numbers don’t matter, I have (in my opinion) outstanding cs extra curricular which will (hopefully) strenghten my profile. @JustOneDad @texaspg
@aviator9997. I understand your enthusiasm and dream of attending Stanford…but it is for so many…and not just for future CS or engineering students. Be careful how you craft your application next fall…Stanford is not looking for “one-dimensional CS at all costs” types of students…they are looking for multidimensional complex future thinkers, creators, leaders, technology disrupters in ALL areas of human endeavor…students who can “benefit” from a liberal arts courses (outside of their majors) in the humanities, social sciences, art, music, acting, etc…
…the last thing you want to “appear” like is a “horse with blinders on”…because they want to admit students who come in with “eyes wide open” and are willing to take “chances”…make mistakes along the way…experiment and try new things…fall down and get back up…while learning and growing along the way…
…remember, most of the admissions officers are “human” with liberal arts degrees (most from other colleges) with human foibles and tendencies and emotions…they are looking for students who will not only thrive at Stanford in their chosen area of study…but, they hope, will leave with a sense of humanity…
It is very helpful, thanks so much it helped me realize my true aspirations; thus, helping me realize I should apply to Stanford early and give it my all. Thanks @gravitas2
Probably not for Stanford. Most of their CS or non-CS students that I know have almost perfect scores AND great ECs. They need high academic achievers to keep the high score averages since they have many athletes with lower scores to balance out.
Looking at the scores of existing students gives you little information about how much test scores influence acceptance decisions since the admission pool may be loaded with top stat students (if top stat students apply, top stat students will be accepted), and top scores are correlated with numerous other areas of the app. A applicant with top scores is likely to also have top grades, high course rigor, excellent ECs, … than a lower test score applicant, so even if Stanford ignored test scores in admissions decisions, one would still expect a notable correlation between test score and admission result. That said, rate of acceptance by SAT scores for posters in the stickied REA thread who do not appear to be recruited athletes is below:
The original poster’s 2200 seems to be right in the middle of the high acceptance rate group among CC posters. Obviously CC posters are an incredibly biased sample, and the overall application pool has very different acceptances stats, but the point is I see nothing to suggest a 2200 is too low. Stanford admits on far more than stats, so there is not enough in the original post to estimate changes, but I will say that one needs to really stand out among the tens of thousands of applicants in ways besides stats. This might include things like really excelling in a field you are passionate about and having unique and impressive accomplishments in that field, coming from a unique background from most students or otherwise having unique experiences, etc.
Back when I applied several years ago (have since graduated), I had a 800 math and 500 CR. My CR score was in the bottom ~6 students of the entering class, an area many would think reserved for athletes and other hooks. Nevertheless, I was accepted to both Brown and Stanford unhooked as a prospective engineering major. I considered majoring in CS and did quite well in the CS classes I did take, including having the highest final average in my CS 106x class, which partially related to winning the final project competition (related to programming strategy for a chess game). However, I majored in EE instead.
@aviator9997. I have read @Data10 's profile in his past threads (he is rather modest like most Stanford students/alums)…despite his CR 500 he was extremely passionate and excelled in certain areas that compelled Stanford to admit him…
…and most, if not all, need to have a compelling application to get in…whatever that “specialness” is…yes, even the “recruited” athletes…
@texaspg Interesting point about athlete admissions at Stanford. It does seem like Stanford can set whatever academic standards they want to for recruited athletes . . . obviously the school doesn’t want to admit people who can’t do the work, but it seems like it’s really up to the school to decide where to draw the line.
Whereas in the Ivy League schools for example, it’s not just up to each school as they have to abide by league rules on Academic Index for recruited athletes. They have discretion about what sports to use the lower AI slots for - presumably their highest priority sports - but there’s a floor AI they can’t go below, and the overall average for recruits has to be within a certain distance of the school’s overall average.
This assumes they would all score evenly in each section which most people don’t.
Assuming that 15% athletes, 10% internationals and 10-20% are given an advantage on their expected scores, the rest have to make up.
Gone are the days when Stanford received 20k apps and admitted 10-12% of applicants. At 5% admit rate, they are very very choosy and won’t settle for a kid who is content with the expected 2200 scores.
I saw an interesting presentation by an ex-Princeton admissions officer that was consistent with post 16 . . .for those who don’t have athletics or another hook, think 75th percentile on grades, test scores etc. Obviously even 75th percentile won’t make anyone a shoo-in, the point is a “regular” applicant generally needs to be very strong on academics.
No, the CC posters had a much higher number of admits at 2300 than 2100. My point was the number of admits was higher at 2300 because there were more 2300 CC poster applicants, not because the admit rate was notably lower for 2100+ CC poster applicants. For example, a huge portion of the entering student body is from California. However, I would not conclude that means Stanford favors admitting students from California. It instead means they get a disproportionately large number of CA applicants. It’s a similar idea for looking at the existing student body’s SAT scores. If you load the application pool with high scoring applicants, then you expect the admitted students to be loading with high scoring students, regardless of how the college feels about 2200 SAT vs 2300 SAT.
The numbers listed in the CDS are all a bit lower than what you listed. Nevertheless, having the majority scoring about 700 is also consistent with a 2200 score. If you roughly estimate median score by ( 25th percentile + 75th percentile )/2 (I realize this is a far from precise methodology), then you get a estimated median sum of almost exactly 2200. There are clearly both a good number of 2200 scoring acceptances and 2200 students in the student body, which is consistent with the large portion of ~2200 scoring acceptances among CC posters…
This thread also discusses Brown, who provide more detailed stats about acceptance rate by test score as listed at http://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/explore/admission-facts . Note that the acceptance rate for an ACT composite of 33-35 (2200-2300 SAT) is 10%, while the acceptance rate for an ACT composite of 29-31 (~1950-2200 SAT) is 7.3%. That’s not what I’d call a huge difference. Scores on SAT subtests follow a similar pattern. If you filter for a constant GPA range with varying SAT scores, then the differences in acceptance rate get even smaller (as suggested by Parchment filter).
If Stanford requires far higher test scores than in the past, then you’d expect the scores of the current student body to be tremendously higher than the past, right? Let’s look at the actual scores for different periods:
2014-2015 CDS : the 25th/75th percentile scores are
CR: 680/780, Math 700/790, Writing 690/790
2004-2005 CDS : the 25th/75th percentile scores are
CR: 680/770, Math 690/780
Comparing 10 years ago to present, there has been hardly any change in the 25th and 75th percentile scores. The acceptance rate dropped tremendously from ~13% to ~5%, yet SAT scores hardly changed. Why do you think that is?
I’d expect the answer is Stanford is not basing their admissions decisions by searching for the pinnacle of top stats among the tens of thousands of high-stat applicants, and is instead searching for students who are likely to make a positive impression on the college and world beyond. At a certain point admissions needs to consider whether the student can handle the coursework, but 2200 is far beyond this point.
