<p>I agree; trying to figure out your chances at high level schools is a waste of time - so, in reply to OP, yes. (I am kinda in the same situation as you are - differences are that I am domestic and I got waitlisted at Caltech)</p>
<p>i was waitlisted at mit, but got a likely letter from stanford haha...</p>
<p>i agree 100% with metaldragon2400...as one goes into top ivies, MIT, stanford, cal tech...randomness begins to set in in terms of admissions...ostensibly anyway...</p>
<p>
[quote]
i agree 100% with metaldragon2400...as one goes into top ivies, MIT, stanford, cal tech...randomness begins to set in in terms of admissions...ostensibly anyway...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ostensibly, though... Caltech isn't as random, since they don't do as much of that AA stuff. </p>
<p>Although I might just be pro-Caltech because I got rejected from MIT/Stanford SCEA. Yay!</p>
<p>IMO, Admittance is not random chance. Your fate is in your hands
not that of your parents/teachers/anyone else. Remember
you get rejected based on consensus mostly. Understanding
the nature of colleges and focusing your app squarely on the
college does get results. Can you tell me the exact numer of hours
you spent on College A/B/C app examining their questions, redoing the
essays etc? </p>
<p>...Like chef boyardee...Good apps take time. </p>
<p>The obviously alluring message- you are not at fault -the system is
at fault is something we are going to be bombarded with for every
purchase decision we make from dieting to addictions. Do not
buy into this if you want to break out of your current environment!</p>
<p>When I started the admissions process (towards the end of my
sophomore year) I decided to lurk on CC and learn. I saw seemingly
half abked candidates end up in good schools, I also saw stellar
candidates get rejected. The pattern started becoming clearer after
two years of lurking. More coursework != great app; USAMO means
nothing if it reinforces your loner and uber-competitive attitude;
recs that are all praise are nto as good as recs from your A- grade
teachers; Learning music for years without doing anything with it
is very bad and indicative of wasted potential; so many small
lessons added together can be a map with bewildering directions...</p>
<p>Focusing back....
What I learned was that though in my mind I seemed balanced,
on paper I looked like every other Science and Math person who
was being pushed aside. </p>
<p>This made me stop and take a hard look at who I am. It was clear
from CC that there was no getting around adcoms. They somehow
figured out the real you.</p>
<p>I spent more time on artsy activities (it was relaxing anyway).
More time on communication and with my friends. Of course
I have a number of national and international awards that people
coudl point to and say ...aha, thats why she got in. Take this to
heart folks, I would be no different from the people getting rejected
and waitlisted if it were up to these awaards. What Stanford especially
is lookign for is passion for "an activity" no matter what and world class
quality in that field. What MIT looks for is the ability for you to laugh
at yourself/not take yourself too seriously, toahve a social side (not
necessarily uber-extrovert but definitely not an uber-introvert. What Caltech
is looking for is resillience and ability to handle their coursework- have
yous hown initiative educating yourself in Math and science...have
you demonstrated potential for world class output.....?</p>
<p>---Caltech and MIT EA admitee, Stanford (Early Approval)</p>
<p>...and ElegantDancer, I love your handle...Stanford is a great
place for a drama/dance minor; Hope you included that somewhere
in your app....</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I agree. I know someone from my school this year, who had similar grades and achievements as mine. He was the president and officer of some prestigious clubs, got olympiad places, etc. Our big difference was that I had a big community service project that entailed more than 600 hours and won a grant for. He was rejected from MIT, while I was accepted EA.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Stanford accepted someone from my school this year that had low test scores, low GPA (relatively speaking of course), no significant competitions, no significant community service. It also deferred someone with high test grades, high GPA, a lot of olympiads and competitions, and significant community service. The only difference could be the essay... we're still wondering about that.</p>
<p>the admissions process from a prospective student's point of view couldn't have been better put Arwen15--I hope to meet you at admit weekend =)</p>
<p>@ arwen - what do you mean "done nothing" with learning music for years? thanks for the advice though</p>
<p>To the OP... I REALLY HOPE SO! (Waitlisted at MIT, waiting on Stanford)</p>
<p>@ Arwen-15 </p>
<p>"What Stanford especially
is lookign for is passion for "an activity" no matter what and world class
quality in that field. "</p>
<p>Nicely said, but please explain more on "world class output."</p>
<p>Well to be fair, academic superstars have to worry less about "good essays." A medal in any olympiad is what it is.</p>
<p>I like to think I dedicated myself 100% to my apps, and I got deferred-rejected from MIT. However, I looked back at the MIT application a few days ago, and saw how unpolished it was compared to the rest. The main essay was a bit awkward and the optional essay probably hurt more than it helped. But if me saying I like to play basketball in my free time was looked upon as a negative by the adcoms in Cambridge...well, I have nothing to say to that.</p>
<p>"Probably hurt more than it helped"</p>
<p>Explain more piccolojr. I am interested.</p>
<p>" . . . unpolished it was compared to the rest"
What do you mean by "rest"? Did you get to see other apps?</p>
<p>"deffered-rejectd"</p>
<p>I am sorry to hear that.</p>
<p>Being International is too vague. If you are an international from a country which sends few students to Stanford, then I think you will have a better chance of getting into Stanford. I sense that Stanford likes world wide representation, diversity and the like. From the U.S., from this web site, it sounded like Stanford likes scholar-athletes, some preference for legacy, and likes under represented minorities. I sense Stanford has a rainbow of many different kinds of special kids whereas MIT has more kids who have similar math-science research interests. They are very different schools. MIT also has a lot of international kids but they seem to mostly be engineering types.
Stanford has a lot of different academic interests.</p>