<p>Stanford doesn't defer because they don't want to waste <em>your</em> time. They know who has a chance at their RD and they know who doesn't. They'd rather tell you the truth now than keep you in anticipation unnecessarily. And no, they're not saying "you suck." They're saying "2400 (accepted) people are marginally more qualified and better for Stanford and Stanford's reputation than you." Stanford's applicant pool represents the top 1% of the nation, and none of them "suck." You'll do perfectly well in life even without Stanford's help.</p>
<p>To those who were rejected and feel "wronged": </p>
<p>What use does it do you to whine and complain about Stanford's admission process? Has it occured to you that many people who are at least equally proficient to you in some respect were accepted? Of course, there will always be more qualified candidates than slots at the top universities and colleges. Luckily, there are many outstanding colleges from which to choose. Stanford's decision has been made. Accept it and look forward. Seeing that most of you seem supremely confident about your various successes and qualifications, you should have many other worthy colleges begging you to apply. So, chin up and stop trying to downplay the students who are celebrating admission!</p>
<p>I can't tell you how many times I've heard of kids getting rejected from Stanford SCEA who ended up getting accepted to Harvard, Princeton, etc. RD. It really IS NOT the end of the world. Life goes on.</p>
<p>Very good point, Faelivrin. An older friend of mine was rejected to Stanford and Yale (and he was a minority first generation btw) and ended up receiving acceptances from Princeton, MIT, and Penn.</p>
<p>Yes, it's always been this crazy. Search for past decision threads; it's been insane for years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The majority of those admitted SCEA are probably not in one of those groups. They still admit plenty.</p>
<p>By the way, if Stanford thought it might admit you in the RD round (since you have no "hooks"), then it would have deferred you. I assume you weren't deferred, which to me shows that you would've been rejected in the RD round as well, despite there supposedly being fewer "hooked" applicants.</p>
<p>I also think many of you overestimate the helpfulness of the classic three "hooks." They don't have that much sway in admissions, won't greatly affect one's decision, and won't greatly affect others' decisions.</p>
<p>^disagree. of all my friends who applied to crazy competitive schools like stanford, only the athletes and URMs have gotten in. (wait, what does URM stand for anyway, something racial minority??) And those hooked applicants were by no means smarter or more EC'd-up than the unhooked ones.
Hooks matter. There are certainly loads of people out there who get in without them, but it will always be a crapshoot for the 2400/4.0 white/asian unathletic student.</p>
<p>Stanford's AA addiction might be a symptom of why HYP graduates have spent the past few decades running the country (government, business, etc.) while Stanford dominates...computer software. The past three US Presidents have been Yale alumni, and only at Princeton would two freshmen roommates both become the Secretary of Defense at different points in their careers. Just some food for thought.</p>
<p>Selection</a> bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Think about where you people are getting your observations from. You're imposing trends that you see from your friends or classmates, or even your own application, on an entire sample of applicants. Clearly the two are not going to match up.</p>
<p>A sample is a pretty good representation</p>
<p>GeoffereyChaucer, I don't think your statement really makes much sense. First off Bush didn't get to be President based on his brains, skills, or anything like that. Indeed, without legacy and money, no top school would have admitted him now or then. Also, I would like to challenge your assertion that HYP graduates have been running the country for the last few decades. One needs look no further than the Supreme court to see where Stanford has made its presence. Indeed, "only at Stanford would two future Supreme Court justices date each other" (Rehnquist and O'connor fyi). Lastly, it is quite contradictory that Stanford would dominate computer software if it didn't select for brains primarily in its admissions process. I seriously don't understand why Stanford gets so much flak for its admissions process when all of Stanford's other peer schools, HYP, practice admissions in such a similar manner! I thought the serious applicants knew this was how the game works! At these ultra-selective institutions they can fill classes with bright, motivated, and talented students so therefore they resort to softer factors to demarcate those whom get admitted and those whom do not. Seriously guys, how come I don't see a thread on this at HYP's forums, or at least Yale's considering they've done SCEA already?</p>
<p>^
i have no dog in this race, so to speak, but HYP's decisions on the whole (based on various threads here, at least) make more sense than stanford's did in this SCEA according to the results posted on this board. why do you think this is the only board that has truly erupted into ugly fighting after EA this year?</p>
<p>yeah, we can't see the recs and essays of everyone, but why should we assume that kids with high stats have worse essays and recs? that really makes no sense. people set up this strange dichotomy between personality/passion and numbers that doesn't really reflect reality.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
yeah, we can't see the recs and essays of everyone, but why should we assume that kids with high stats have worse essays and recs? that really makes no sense. people set up this strange dichotomy between personality/passion and numbers that doesn't really reflect reality.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I fully agree with you and I have criticized others on this board for assuming there's such a dichotomy. However...the problem is that from what I have seen, HYP also practice admissions in this way, not always taking the best numbers but taking some combination of whom they feel fit to attend their school. Looking at least at the Yale's EA admission board they are calling it the "Bulldog bloodbath" as opposed to the "Stanford Slaughter" yet no one there is going crazy like it seems some of the rejected applicants have here.</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/616548-bulldog-bloodbath.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/616548-bulldog-bloodbath.html</a>
It seems that at Yale some really awesome kids stats wise were deferred or rejected. Yale was only better in that they deferred more of the high stat kids but Yale defers kids so much more than Stanford does.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that the admission committee at Stanford, as does every other highly selective college in this country, chooses a "class". None of these schools are interested in a bunch of 2400/4.0s because that would be a boring "class" of individuals. They are searching for a cross section of wonderfully talented kids who will enhance each other's strengths. Thus, when choosing this "class", they are only going to be accepting "X" number of 2400/4.0s, "X" number of athletes, "X" number of (fill in the blank types of kids). So, obviously that strategy will lead to disappointment for many who are not used to or maybe never have been disappointed with anything academically in their lives. </p>
<p>To say that the admission process at Stanford is arbitrary or capricious is flat out wrong. If you are using this forum to vent your disappointment, that's understandable. But don't toss logic and reason to the wind when you are attempting to figure out why you or someone else didn't get an acceptance letter.</p>
<p>^
i'm not sure if you're referring to me or to the OP, but as i said in my last post, "i have no dog in the race." in fact, everyone in my family who has applied to stanford has been admitted, and my sister attends there now. i was just stating my <em>opinion</em> about the SCEA decisions this year on this board.</p>
<p>of course stanford wouldn't fill a class with 2400/4.0, but one imagines they might take more than just a handful. it is an incorrect assumption that kids with great stats are boring robots. obviously the decisions aren't capricious or arbitrary, and stanford can accept people based on whatever criteria they want anyway. however, looking at the results on the SCEA thread, i would advise a kid with an ostensibly great application to apply elsewhere early.</p>
<p>morsmordre, yale definitely rejected and deferred tons of great kids, but, in my admittedly subjective opinion, they seemed more "fair." i do think the anger on this board reflects the less "fair" feeling of stanford's decisions.....so, yeah, it was a "bloodbath" at yale, too, but it was a "bloodbath" bc they had so few spots and a crazy number of applicants.</p>
<p>What I don't understand is the principle behind the thinking that guides some people. How on earth is a low-income, first gen applicant supposed to have the same stats as a native English speaker who goes to an expensive private school? They're not rejecting qualified applicants in favor of unqualified ones; they're giving everyone an equal chance and perhaps using OPPORTUNITY (not race, class, etc.) as a tie-breaker. </p>
<p>For anyone to claim that they have any knowledge about the candidates beyond what is posted on the forum is ridiculous. So please don't second-guess the adcoms at one of the top four schools in the country. I'm told they know what they're doing.</p>
<p>Thank you for making sense, Baelor. That is the point of why Stanford, and other top schools, use affirmative action.</p>
<p>Amen, Barlor.</p>
<p>Stanford's decisions are NOT like HYP's. You can even see that looking over the Yale results forum (decisions were, with a few exceptions, more 'predictable'). I know so many people who have gotten into multiple HYP schools and NOT Stanford. For example, I have a close friend who got into Harvard and Yale but not Stanford. Their stated criteria are the same, but the ultimate decisions are not. That is what many people find frustrating.</p>
<p>Well in a sense it is not entirely unreasonable to say that Stanford's decisions are NOT like HYP's because of the difference in the supplement. While HYP have nearly identical supplements, Stanford has many short questions and short essays so that applicants cannot just copy and paste the same optional essay there with HYP. Also, their system gives a more in-depth profiling of applicants apart from statistics so the comparisons, as well as the decisions, will be different.</p>
<p>"Thank you for making sense, Baelor. That is the point of why Stanford, and other top schools, use affirmative action."</p>
<p>Olive tree, while AA may be good for aesthetic reasons (avoiding too many asian nerds), your reasoning shows a certain degree of superficiality.</p>
<p>Baelor said that "how on earth is a low-income, first gen applicant supposed to have the same stats as a native English speaker who goes to an expensive private school?"
In her description, in no way did she/he refer to the applicants' skin color. I wholeheartedly agree with his reasoning. Someone from a disadvantaged background, should be given a bump, regardless of their skin color. However, bumping an applicant based on skin color is absolutely foolish and counterproductive (unless it is such a big deal for Stanford to have X number of colored students on their postcards/flyers).</p>
<p>As it is currently practiced, AA can and will favor URM's who had both disadvantaged and advantaged backgrounds. Only the former category should be given a bump. The latter should be considered like other ORM's, such as whites and asians. On the other hand, ORM's who suffered from a disadvantage background should be given a special consideration commensurate to URM's with disadvantaged background. </p>
<p>I know I probably will be criticized for my objective and callous reasoning, but I try to be logical in the way judge things. This is not out of bitterness, since I got in (yay!! :) I am so excited) but out of careful thought.</p>