<p>There's a difference between saying that Stanford is an NFL feeder school and then providing a list of about 200 players that goes back to the 1930s of Stanford players in the NFL as your 'verification'.</p>
<p>Stanford graduates maybe 1500 students a year. So for the past 80 years Stanford has graduated about 120,000 students of which about 200 have gone onto the NFL That is a very, very small percentage.</p>
<p>How can that be a feeder?</p>
<p>And when you say that Harvard is different in its attitude toward athletics than Stanford because Stanford gives athletic scholarships while Harvard does not, you overlook the fact that Harvard gives out no scholarships based on any kind of merit--athletic or academic.</p>
<p>Harvard has the same attitude about athletics as Stanford and the NY Times even ran an article questioning if it was not lowering standards to admit athletes. </p>
<p>I guess my point is this: most of the tippity-top students, with stellar SAT/ACT scores, astronomical GPAs, graduate-level research projects as junior high school students, etc. do get into at least one of the most academically respected colleges in the country. They may not get into Stanford, but they do get into Cal Tech. How does this show the system is off-track? Maybe from the point of one particular school this process seems odd, but if you look at overall acceptances, students do get into tippity-top schools. I recall the flack over the Texas student with the perfect SAT/ACT scores, great GPA, the black belt in karate, the volunteer hours, a research agenda, who did not get into Harvard, Stanford, Princeton etc., but did get into Cal Tech and Duke. Again, overall the system seemed to work here, even if the Harvard or Stanford rejection seemed off.</p>
<p>I also think this particular discussion is getting this thread off-track, so maybe we should stop. But please recognize that there are many good athletes with good academic achievements who should be studying alongside your D at top schools.</p>
<p>As metioned previously, the top schools (HYPSM etc.) seek to build a class of diverse students. They do not want a class full of science research wonks. Thus they mix in the athletes, the writers, the musicians, the politicos, and yes, the athletes. They also want a class with cultural and socio-economic diversity. This, unfotunately results in them turning down many terrific qualified students. I know at least 3 current or prosepctive MIT students who have no science research backgrounds and no major math/science awards. They are not athletes either.<br>
So going back to the original thread issue: Intel semifinalist does not assure admission. It depends on the other applicants and what else the student has to offer. All of the 2400s and 36s don't get accepted either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Could you share where you read --let alone verified-- the data that allowed you to offer such as strange statement about the undergraduate and graduate schools at Stanford? </p>
<p>Please checkout the admissions stats at the stanford grad schools and then compare those to that of other schools and you will be in for a big surprise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, perhaps, my first question was not that clear. I do not expect a reply that sends me in some nebulous direction. So, allow me to rephrase it more clearly. </p>
<p>Please post excerpts of the data that would reveal the ... big surprise. You made a very strong and pejorative statement. For someone who seems to know Stanford inside out and does not hesitate to send his daughter to a high-falutin research program at the Farm, this should be a cinch. </p>
<p>Perhaps you could keep it simple and compare Stanford UG and graduate admission patterns against high-powered graduate houses such as MIT and Harvard plus public powerhouses such as Berkeley and Michigan. </p>
<p>Please remember that your statement was "If you look at the graduate school admissions at Stanford it heavily favors international students because most of the sports quota under-graduates fail to make it to the graduate school at Stanford." </p>
<p>It is the element that comes after the "because" that you need to explain via data, or admit that is nothing else but your unsubstantiated opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look at the graduate school admissions at Stanford it heavily favors international students because most of the sports quota under-graduates fail to make it to the graduate school at Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most undergraduate programs at top research universities strongly encourage their students to do their graduate studies at other institutions. It has nothing to do with "sports quota undergraduates" and everything to do with wanting the students to be exposed to different mentors, experiences, and points of view. As well, some students prefer to go where the strength in their particular subfield lies--and it is not necessarily their undergraduate institution, however stellar that might be (speaking from first-hand experience here).</p>
<p>
[quote]
So going back to the original thread issue: Intel semifinalist does not assure admission. It depends on the other applicants and what else the student has to offer. All of the 2400s and 36s don't get accepted either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thing the point was lost somewhere in the thread as the question was " For a strong applicant as evident by early acceptances at MIT/Caltech, will becoming Intel Semifinalist tilt the scale of acceptances at HYPS?"</p>
<p>The question was not whether or not being only Intel semifinalist get you into the top schools but for an otherwise strong applicant will this make the difference in acceptance or rejection?</p>
<p>I don't know if anyone really knows. You may be first. If your DD gets rejected will you say that it was for some other reason? If your DD gets accepted will you say it was because of the Intel Talent Award. I'd say that because your DD has the capability in doing a project, that her chances will be more enhanced. But any project can be an indication of success.</p>
<p>LongTime: Thanks for closing the thread so that means she is in no better position than she was before the award. It is a crap shot to begin with and will stay like that. Toss it up "head you accepted tail you loose".</p>
<p>Xiggi -- there you go again with your cockamamie concept that Intel -- as opposed to every single other award or honor on the planet -- should hold back naming its award recipients until after college decisions. What is it that makes Intel different than all other competitions? Why do you loathe it so? Dbate also listed some hard-earned science honors. Shouldn't the naming of those be held back as well? I don't think they should, but maybe you do. </p>
<p>Dbate -- you sound like a fantastic budding scientist. Blessings on all of your great achievements. And since you are allowed to list them on your apps (unlike if we lived in "Xiggiworld" and you weren't allowed to), colleges will see your passion and your accomplishment and I am sure they will accommodate you accordingly.</p>
<p>ParentOfIvyHope, do you want us to believe that you really do not know the answer to your question? For someone who has obviously invested much time in researching the process of preparing an extremely competitive applicant, the impact of earning an Intel semi or final nomination should be old news.</p>
<p>I don't think the question is if she is in a better position to be admitted to HYPS after disclosing to HYPS then she was before she won the award. I think informing the respective schools of her status with regards to Intel would be another avenue in which she confirms to the ad coms what she brings to the table, hence what MIT/CalTech saw for her early admittance(s).</p>
<p>Since her resume already reflects her abilities and talents I would think it would be icing on the cake. It certainly can't hurt, and how much it would tip the scales in her favor would be dependent on her current application cycle and the current needs of each respective school and what they view her bringing to their community AFTER she matriculates.</p>
<p>I send your daughter best wishes and BIG CONGRATS on her early admits. She has some wonderful opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi -- there you go again with your cockamamie concept that Intel -- as opposed to every single other award or honor on the planet -- should hold back naming its award recipients until after college decisions. What is it that makes Intel different than all other competitions? Why do you loathe it so? Dbate also listed some hard-earned science honors. Shouldn't the naming of those be held back as well? I don't think they should, but maybe you do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote about the inequities of the competition and try to compare the example of Dbate in Texas with the candidates who benefit from the Long Island Intel "greased pipeline." And perhaps you should ask yourself if that greased pipleine exists for the sole purpose of advancing science or ... for its impact on college admission. If the answer is the former, then why would a delay of the scholarship winners be an issue? However, if the answer is the second one ...</p>
<p>If you think that has anything to do about not listing awards on an application, just try again!</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If your DD gets rejected will you say that it was for some other reason? If your DD gets accepted will you say it was because of the Intel Talent Award. <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Or you could be in the situation that you'll get accepted by some of HYPS and rejected by others! Then what is one to think? :-)</p>
<p>
[quote]
ParentOfIvyHope, do you want us to believe that you really do not know the answer to your question? For someone who has obviously invested much time in researching the process of preparing an extremely competitive applicant, the impact of earning an Intel semi or final nomination should be old news.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, I should know the answer to the question as really I've done enough research to actually know it. But the reason for asking the question is to document the case for future parents of high school students. When I first started I used to look for all such cases and analyze what may or may not have caused the applicant her acceptances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>> If your DD gets rejected will you say that it was for some other reason? If your DD gets accepted will you say it was because of the Intel Talent Award. <<</p>
<p>Or you could be in the situation that you'll get accepted by some of HYPS and rejected by others! Then what is one to think? :-)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If D get rejected by all then it will indicate there is something missing in the application and will give lots of hours of researching D's stats to figure out the mystery. In this case not all 4 schools will be making a mistake and something must be missing in the application.</p>
<p>If she get accepted to some and rejected by others then my analysis say this:</p>
<p>If Harvard --> then Princeton
If Stanford --> then Princeton
If Princeton --> ?
Yale is a coin tosser anyway.</p>
<p>Parent: your thread title makes me laugh every single time. My kids are safely out of college--my son from MIT, my D from Reed--but I really think you're overanxious here! You've got a great kid, you've got some great early acceptances, you need to let the colleges know and THEN FORGET ABOUT IT UNTIL APRIL. Really. Let your kid have some fun and even slack off a little! I promise you that you'll be glad later that you did.</p>
<p>Having been accepted to MIT and CalTech...it's not likely there's much missing in her application --- especially as it relates to math and science.</p>
<p>After all of this discussion, you've certainly piqued our curiosity. I hope you'll return later in the week to let us know if she's an Intel/STS finalist...and...in late March/early April to let us know where else she's been admitted.</p>
<p>"If D get rejected by all then it will indicate there is something missing in the application and will give lots of hours of researching D's stats to figure out the mystery."</p>
<p>Sigh. POIH, you are so off-base. If she gets rejected, it doesn't mean there is something "missing" in her application. The schools your dd is looking at could fill their classes many times over with fully qualified dream classes. They just don't have the room to select everyone who qualifies, so they make choices, and sometimes those choices are arbitrary. Sometimes Bob and Mary look equally interesting, but on that day they had to choose one, and so they chose Bob. It doesn't mean Mary was inadequate or had a hole in her application. That's all. I seriously hope you haven't let on to your daughter that if she doesn't make it into these schools -- which are crapshoots for EVERYONE (except potentially big-donor families) -- that there was something missing, inadequate, or not good-enough.</p>
<p>"True, I should know the answer to the question as really I've done enough research to actually know it."</p>
<p>In other words, you wanted your ego stroked! Your daughter sounds like a delightful and well-accomplished young lady. Since she's already been accepted at MIT and Caltech, I don't know why you need more ego-stroking than that.</p>
<p>ParentOfIvyHope, unfortunately, I am afraid that it is really impossible to draw deep conclusions from the applications process. In fact, while it is extremely hard to know why an application is accepted, it is virtually impossible to know why it might have been rejected. </p>
<p>In the past, we have had spirited discussions on CC about individuals "cases" that seemingly were baffling. You might remember the story of the young man from Austin, Texas who earned an admission to Caltech but did not fare that well at other hyper-competitive schools. Here's one of the threads related to the story of Mr. Ghosh.</p>
<p>At best, astute readers can look for some patterns and correlations, but in the end, except for the actual adcoms, most everybody is left to idly speculating with various degree of success.</p>