<p>Just one question (above). I mean, I don't know about previous years, but has Stanford always rejected seemingly perfect applicants? I mean there are some crazy ones out there that have been rejected? Has it always been like this? I mean, I know it has to some degree been consistent, but does anyone else feel that this year the arbitrariness of the decisions increased?</p>
<p>They had 20% more SCEA applicants this year than last year. They are also predicting a sharp increase in the pool for RD. </p>
<p>I think Stanford decided to fill up the EA pool with Athletes/URMs/Legacies knowing that the RD pool would still leave a lot of other qualified people they could admit. </p>
<p>Looking back, I think i should have applied regular since I had no hooks.</p>
<p>^ yeah if I had known this I would have applied regular</p>
<p>ugh me too, i had no hooks whatsoever :/</p>
<p>"I think Stanford decided to fill up the EA pool with Athletes/URMs/Legacies knowing that the RD pool would still leave a lot of other qualified people they could admit."</p>
<p>i disagree. i was accepted, and i fit none of those categories. i had no hook, and i don't think that i was so stellar of an applicant that, if that had been their intent, i would have been accepted regardless. just throwing that out there.</p>
<p>congratulations hopefulhearted. i'm soo jealous. what are you thinking for a major?</p>
<p>i'm more than a little bit undecided, but currently thinking economics or international relations.</p>
<p>Enough posts about people blaming an arbitrary or unfair selection process. The applicant pool this year was unreal. Statistics do not show essay or recommendation strength, and for the most part this is what got applicants in. URM status always factors in at about the same rate; Stanford is committed to diversity, if you have a problem with that then why apply? Stanford predicts their accept rate will be less than 8% this year overall. The truth is, many amazing people will be turned down. You need to make the absolute most of your application to get in, and you need to be a person of consequence, who isn't just the smartest person anyone has ever seen, but someone who has definitely done something. To those of you who got rejected and deferred, I sympathize with you, but you have no right to attack the process. They select applicants to create a class of a certain character and type, perhaps your application showed that you weren't exactly what they wanted. Take this time to reevaluate your applications and essays and make sure they show that you are interesting and unique. Make sure your essays have a clear voice that tells the admissions officers almost as much as the subject matter. Its not good enough to be great anymore, you need to distinguish yourself and make an impact on the reader of your application. The process is anything but arbitrary.</p>
<p>They probably reduced the SCEA acceptance number in anticipation of the RD applicant pool.</p>
<p>That and they've overenrolled every year. They don't have enough space to guarantee housing for 750 SCEAers again.</p>
<p>"I think Stanford decided to fill up the EA pool with Athletes/URMs/Legacies knowing that the RD pool would still leave a lot of other qualified people they could admit."</p>
<p>I also disagree heavily with this statement. I fit none of these categories at all and I was also admitted. My grades and test scores were good and definitely up to stanford's standards, but they were in no way stellar or spectacular like those of many of those who were rejected. I worked really hard on my essays and I'm sure I got really good recommendations too. Stanford (and most if not all top colleges) looks at EVERYTHING.</p>
<p>The housing crunch is definitely a factor in admissions this year. Both the Class of 2011 and 2012 were overenrolled, and the housing crunch on campus is pretty bad right now. After the housing draw in spring, around 130 people who had guaranteed housing were initially unassigned, which is a record high number. I think they all ended up being assigned somewhere by fall, but a large number of them had to be put in Crothers Hall, which is a graduate student dorm. Thankfully, I don't think any of them are living</a> in the basement of Crothers like some people last year, but still, it's pretty bad. With the increase in applications and Stanford's rising yield rate over the past two years causing this housing crunch, it's to be expected that the admit rate this year will be lower. Stanford absolutely cannot afford to overenroll again.</p>
<p>Editing GS's statements: </p>
<p>Technically, they do, but not without reducing RD acceptances to ridiculously low levels.</p>
<p>I am URM (Hispanic), had solid grades (3.9something unweighted) and SAT (2300), as well as 3 AP 5's and a 4 and a challenging senior class schedule with 4 APs, and I was rejected from Stanford EA. I really do not think URM plays a factor in admissions, and seeing how many people with multiple legacies were also rejected, I don't feel that hooks have anything to do with admissions.</p>
<p>^ at hopeforcollege above... im not sure i believe you. you only have one post. A URM with such great stats would definitely be accepted, unless you sounded like an ass in your essays.</p>
<p>^@ futurexreject... or perhaps instead of assuming he's lying, you could entertain the thought that maybe the admissions process isn't as straightforward for URMs as you would like to believe</p>
<p>What were your ECs and other stats?</p>
<p>So was it always this bad or not?</p>
<p>I'm not sure. At my school, two years ago, a girl applied SCEA (white, 4.0, high SATs which she first took as a sophomore, traditional ECs/stuff) and was deferred before being accepted. Last year, another girl applied (Asian, 4.0, ~2200 SAT, traditional ECs/stuff) and got rejected outright. My example is obviously not definitive enough, but it might help shed some level of insight into the decisions processes of the admissions office.</p>
<p>im just so frustated that they gave us rejections, ya know?</p>
<p>I mean, i read in a book somwhere that rejection EA round basically means "not even worthy of consideration".</p>
<p>Stanford was basically telling us that we would've sucked in the RD round so much, they just rejected us now to save them the trouble.</p>
<p>Why not more deferrals?</p>