<p>Although I agree with zenkoan that one can’t know for sure about it without working in Stanford admissions, I am inclined to think that REA is at least slightly disadvantageous to unhooked applicants who are outstanding, but not “beyond-super.” </p>
<p>Here is why: If an applicant is deferred, rather than rejected outright in the REA round, then the applicant goes into the RD pool. However, the odds of a deferred REA applicant being selected are no better than the RD odds (according to the Stanford deferral letter). Since Stanford rejects so many of its REA applicants, I think that the REA deferred students almost certainly constitute a pool that is significantly better than the RD group. In fact, I think it may be the case that the REA deferred students are comparable to students who are at or very near the top of the RD group. </p>
<p>Based on local observations, I think many of the students who are rejected REA might be in the top quarter of the RD group. (True, the lower 60% of the top quarter of the RD group will not be admitted either.)</p>
<p>For purposes of this analysis, I would exclude Californians and students from other schools that frequently send multiple students to Stanford (I think different rules apply in these cases). I would also exclude athletes, students with really exceptional talents in music/art/debate, offspring of highly influential people, and other hooked applicants from the analysis above.</p>
<p>When I talked with a Stanford admissions counselor, she said that nearly twice the percentage of students are accepted REA versus regular decision. She said the increase in acceptance was due to a higher quality of student. She also told me to apply REA if I felt my junior year grades were the best they could be (they were perfect). I will apply REA in September. I really doubt I will be accepted, but I am hoping and trying.</p>
<p>OK so as far as I understand, applying REA is better if you really think you’ve got a shot. You have a slight boost since the application pool is smaller. The higher acceptance rate for REA makes up for the fact that the applicants are more qualified. But if you’re a not sure/on the border/average kind of applicant, it’d be best to apply RD. Am I getting this right?</p>
<p>Not from my standpoint, Evanescence1234, unless you and I have different ideas of “average.” I think it is important for people to know that Stanford will defer REA and then reject students with 5’s on Calc BC in freshman year of high school, followed by more years of post-AP Math, 6 or so additional AP’s, all 5’s, 3 languages, 2400 SAT I, 2400 SAT II, 4.0 unweighted, in a “good” high school. State-level awards (though no real national awards), and varsity athletics. Stanford the first choice. Not related to us, so I can be objective: awesome in my books. Obviously, the essays weren’t “compelling,” but I doubt they were short of excellent. </p>
<p>Stanford might have had something I mind that I haven’t figured out yet. Or they may simply have mis-read the application or the applicant. But “average” is not what I am writing about at all.</p>
<p>QuantMech, I don’t consider 2400 SAT 1, 4.0 unweighted, etc. necessarily excellent. My stats are not like that at all but I believe they are good for Stanford. I agree with whoever it was who mentioned it before that great scores and GPA and awards aren’t the big picture of a person. If these qualities are all a person has to offer, I wouldn’t deem him “excellent” but rather if a person applies with pretty good stats but a good personality or something like that, this person could be “excellent.” I dunno, it’s just what I think…</p>
<p>Hi, Evanescence1234, I was just responding to your use of the word “average” in post #43 by mentioning the scores, GPA, etc. Those are significant to the academic qualifications of the person. I think that a person actually is excellent academically, if the person can achieve the combination of high scores, numerous early AP’s followed by post-AP work at a university (in depth, 2 to 3 years of successively more advanced courses in one area + multiple courses of shorter term in others), with a 4.0 unweighted GPA in both high-school and the university work taken while still a high-school student. It takes a lot of strong personal qualities to be able to accomplish that. </p>
<p>I agree that character and personal qualities are of paramount importance. I’ve had a chance to observe that the person I mentioned in post #44 also has those, also to the point of excellence.</p>
<p>(I am referring to a real person, who is unrelated to me.)</p>
<p>so you’re saying that this person was outright rejected from REA? wow that’s pretty disappointing. but i mean, there must have been a reason why…</p>
<p>I would like to add that I am acquainted with several students, admitted REA to Stanford over the past couple of years, who also had the stats and level of coursework described by QuantMech. In each case, though, these students had additional, significant accomplishments: national or international academic and/or artistic awards, published original research conducted with professors at local universities, completion of some graduate-level coursework in a field of intense interest, or some comparable distinguished feature.This is not to suggest, of course, that students without these credentials won’t be admitted REA; it is just an additional data point for consideration by those wondering whether to go with REA vs. RD, which was the issue raised by the OP.</p>
<p>Evanescence1234: The person I mentioned was deferred REA, then rejected during the regular decision round. A different local student–also unrelated to me–who was not so far off in qualifications, was rejected REA. There was no real “reason why,” though obviously I have wondered why. I’ve vacillated between two thoughts:</p>
<p>1) That’s just what Stanford does,</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>2) Something went wrong with the GC’s letter, so that it wasn’t as strong as Stanford expected. A few possibilities in this category would be:
a) The GC does not like for students to accelerate in math (true),
b) The GC heard about a “top” student hazing another student, and leaped to the conclusion that it was this person, when it was not,
c) The school had a Davidson fellow some years back, and ordinary excellence tends to pale in comparison, or
d) Who knows?</p>
<p>Most of the time, I am more inclined to think this is just part of a pattern Stanford follows, in choosing students. I think zenkoan and I see Stanford’s REA similarly (yes?), that some kind of national validation is very helpful in gaining admission REA.</p>
<p>Yes. I also believe that kind of national validation, or other form of genuine exceptionality, would vault a candidate with “merely” great stats over a candidate with impeccable stats but no such exceptionality. This is likely to be true at all the top schools, who want to have bragging rights about extraordinarily accomplished admitted students, and of course hope to have graduates who go on to accomplish more extraordinary things.</p>
<p>There are, by definition, very, very few of such students each year, so prospective applicants shouldn’t be worried or deterred by this. It’s just that these students are more likely to show up in the REA pool, for what that’s worth.</p>
<p>No complaint at all from me about Stanford’s choosing a truly exceptional applicant over over someone with somewhat higher SAT’s or GPA. I am not a fan of the cult of personality when it comes to choosing science/math/engineering students, though.</p>
<p>Can you elaborate a bit, QuantMech? In what way does Stanford invoke the cult of personality in selecting those students? Do you think the prominence and influence of the STEM departments there affects the admissions process a lot? (Or do you just mean that you think those students’ admission should be more purely numbers-driven than fuzzies’ admission? I don’t know that the admissions office knows what most applicants will be majoring in at the time they submit their applications anyway…)</p>
<p>Just a thought, zenkoan–I don’t know that they do weight personalities heavily for their STEM admits. The qualities that are most needed for success in different fields are clearly different. </p>
<p>Also, I’m not suggesting numbers alone as the deciding factor for STEM fields. Persistence is important in science. At any rate, it appears to me that Nature does not give up her secrets lightly. Teamwork is also important in science. Still, Nature knows the difference between simple camaraderie and real teamwork–compare BP’s recent experiences with the rescue of the Apollo 13 astronauts.</p>
<p>That’s for sure. (BP, we have a problem: a CEO who takes the day off to attend a yacht race while oil continues to gush into the Gulf at full speed due to a failed containment cap.)</p>
<p>i didn’t have any national validation or international distinctions really.
i just did a lot of community work that followed my academic and professional passions</p>
<p>NJDS, I didn’t mean that one has to have national or international recognition of some kind in order to be admitted REA–there are not enough applicants of that type to fill the class–although for certain categories of applicants, such validation seems to be a major plus. </p>
<p>I do think that an applicant of the type I’ve been describing (high stats, excellent performance in a difficult course-load including university courses, varsity sports, but no true national recognition) might write essays that are sufficient to clinch the deal, REA. However, such an applicant might instead write essays that are excellent, but not quite what Stanford is looking for. </p>
<p>If I could tell some of the people on this thread how to make the difference with their essays, I would! I just don’t have enough information to figure it out yet.</p>
<p>zenkoan: Thanks (belatedly) for clarifying that your assertions earlier were based on conversations with admissions officers. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the next best thing to hard statistics. I’d still love to see hard statistics, but I think that’s impossible by the very nature of holistic admissions.</p>
<p>Quantmech: Add me to the list of applicants who sounded a lot like post #44 and were admitted. (In my case, admitted RD, didn’t apply early.)</p>