<p>What do you guys think? Unique in any way I mean. Like ability, racially, culturally, etc.</p>
<p>No way. They want cohesiveness as a student body, meaning almost everyone they admit will be white, good looking, protestant, president of something, 4.0 GPA, and very high SATs.</p>
<p>^ No jokes please. I really mean it.</p>
<p>^ I honestly can't tell if that was sarcasm or not.</p>
<p>Well, all of this uniqueness will surely put their whole "Stanford Cardinal Army" thing to the side for a few years. I guess world domination can always wait...</p>
<p>But seriously, of course.</p>
<p>Locke19, really? Maybe a reevaluation of your rhetorical skills is in order. It is common knowledge that Stanford wants unique people, they prize diversity over just about everything there. You get in by showing them how you are unique, how you stand out, and how you will excel. I'm sorry, but this is a pretty stupid thread.</p>
<p>"You get in by showing them how you are unique, how you stand out, and how you will excel. I'm sorry, but this is a pretty stupid thread."</p>
<p>Maybe that's what you feel, but the OP may be newer to the admissions process and be legitimately asking. No harm in that. We all were ignorant at some point.</p>
<p>^Yeah, I for one didn't know Stanford prizes diversity specifically. I always thought Stanford admitted people based on awards and test scores. MIT and Caltech for one isn't always bent on diversity. I got the fealing that MIT and Caltech were more talent / making-best-of-what-is-given geared . . .</p>
<p>Stanford is selective to the point that you have to be incredibly talent/making-the-best-of-what-is-given geared, have great awards and test scores, and still be unique. These qualities aren't mutually exclusive in a school, and to get in--especially this year--you have to be a little or a lot of everything.</p>
<p>Beef: The latter three criteria seem to be Stanford staples. ;D</p>
<p>Of course they want "unique" people, but only those that they think will fit in well at Stanford.</p>
<p>I never get this "fit" business. Doesn't everyone fit in a university (except for the extreme antisocial people, but only a few of those exist)?</p>
<p>^not really. no matter HOW large a school, each school has its characteristic environment.</p>
<p>Agreed with eats. </p>
<p>A far left individual, for example, would not fit in well at, say, Washington and Lee. Now is that a reason to not admit them, no, but if it seems like someone might cause undue conflict on campus that might be a reason. (This was just an example)</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Im not dense, I just don't get how people can't fit in. I completely did not understand the far left individual & Wash Lee example.
From where I come from, we have to adjust to things for the greater good . . . Its like you fit whether you like it or not kind of thing for me . . .</p>
<p>Well... you shouldn't have to change who you are and what you think to fit your situation. You should be your own person. The right place for you (which is the place that will accept you) is somewhere you don't have to adjust for in order to fit in.</p>
<p>At least, that's my take on it.</p>
<p>Quantum: W&L is a southern right-wing school in Virginia. There are people there at are very far to the right politically. There are also people there that are to the left, but they are much fewer in numbers. If a radical leftist were to go to W&L for a specific program and get into a massive conflict with the right-winged people, it could be awful for the school. Now, as far as I know, it's illegal to admit or deny someone because of political views, and I think that's a good thing, but it should be taken into consideration that a person may so disrupt the school and learning environment that they may have to be removed. (W&L is private, btw)</p>
<p>Now said person can't be asked to conform because the school wants "uniqueness(sp?)," but the school also doesn't want to risk the other students' learning and possibly health because some extremist has a vendetta. What's the school to do?</p>
<p>^Aha, that makes better sense. Thanks. And I also liked the post before yours.</p>
<p>But how many antisocial people would be applying to Stanford to cause big problems? Probably about a handful of them. That still doesn't explain how Stanford rejects everyone else who are qualified. Arrgh, admissions makes no sense!</p>
<p>Maybe the essays weren't up to snuff or the Letters of Rec weren't that great or any number of other possibilities. There are too many variables to try to guess what exactly was wrong with any given application.</p>
<p>Or maybe nothing was wrong with an application...
There are just so many qualified applicants that Stanford cannot accept all of them.</p>
<p>^ That is, of course, also a possibility.</p>