<p>
[quote]
I mean, I don't know about previous years, but has Stanford always rejected seemingly perfect applicants?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford has long been highly desired, and thus in a position to be highly selective. </p>
<p>But what is a "perfect applicant"? I've never met a perfect human being in my life. I don't think I've even met a perfect high school student, although I've met many really amazing students. What do you have in mind?</p>
<p>Don't you think Stanford should remove SAT/ACT requirement completely if they are not going to be important when it comes to admission? What's the point?</p>
<p>MODERATOR'S NOTE: </p>
<p>All participants are reminded that if affirmative action policies are what you want to talk about, there is an on-topic thread for that in the College Admissions Forum. </p>
<p>Please also review the Terms of Service for College Confidential: </p>
<p>If you see a post in any thread in any forum that violates the rules about language or civility that apply to all participants on CC, please report it to the moderation team using the Report Problem Post link you can find on the offending post. </p>
<p>If you are college-bound, take the high road. Use reason and sound logic to discuss issues based on facts. Don't assume the worst and always be polite. That will make you a credit to your alma mater and more of a success in life.</p>
<p>Rivalries are created by weak teams</p>
<p>Duke says that Stanford is its peer school, Stanford never says that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Duke says that Stanford is its peer school, Stanford never says that.
[/quote]
Layman repuation wise, Stanford is closer to HYP, but score wise is closer to Dartmouth, Duke and WTSL. That is one of the reasons that creates the application frenzy at Stanford IMO - a reputable school with low scores- almost everyone with a decent score wants to try.</p>
<p>Two kids from my local school this year applied to MIT. They have almost the identical perfect records -- 2350+ SAT, class rank (1 and 2), etc. One got in, the other did not. I was so sorry to tell my friend that I guessed the results correctly. Why? because their AIME scores were 6 and 10. Usually you can achieve a perfect SAT math when you can score 3 at AIME. Can you tell the difference? HYPSM can. I have not seen anyone who qualified for USAMO did not get into HYPSM. SAT is meaningless for the kids and the schools. Most of those kids get close to perfect SAT scores when they are in 9th grade.</p>
<p>If you are an intellectually gifted 17 year old and are extremely competitive and have worked hard on academics your entire life, perfecting your scores, GPAs, writing skills... it is very hard to discover that the world's most selective universities do not necessarily open their doors. It seems... arbitrary. Why not you? </p>
<p>The answer, which is available on cc in numerous forums every year after EA and RD decisions come out is that there are less quantifiable aspects that become important in the final analysis, and that makes gaining acceptance so much more abstract than simply who can get closer to the number 2400. One great candidate who sings opera with a professional company may look fantastic to add to a class. Seventeen highest stat such singers means a school like Stanford may only take one or two. Bad luck if one year holds an applicant pool with many achievers in your particular area of expertise. </p>
<p>As a process intended to select a well-balanced and brilliant class of 1500 or so students out of a fabulous pool of over 25,000 applicants, it's not arbitrary. It's not random. But for an individual student who is a super-high achiever, it is not at all easy to understand how or why he/she wasn't in the accepted pool for a given year.</p>
<p>Another potential bad news for this year applicants is that Stanford may accept less compared with last year. They already said that there were over 25000 applicants and the acceptance rate would be below 9%. This roughly translates into 2250 compared with last year's 2400 students, if they assume the yield will keep at 70%. The number can only go lower if they decide to draw enough from the waitlist, like other HYPS did last year.</p>
<p>They're expecting over 27,000 applicants this year, and they only want a class size of about 1600 (they're accepting less than previous years, last years class was over 1700)</p>
<p>These admissions rates are getting ridiculous!</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a process intended to select a well-balanced and brilliant class of 1500 or so students out of a fabulous pool of over 25,000 applicants, it's not arbitrary. It's not random.
[/quote]
It would be very interesting to compare the class selected by the admission process and the one by a randon draw. Maybe some researcher at one of those universities can do a study on this. To take into consideration AA, put a URM's name twice in the drawing pool.</p>
<p>@ tazo20: Stanford actually does not require SAT IIs, the same which cannot be said of the ivy league. It's an example of Stanford's love of the qualitative rather than the quantitative aspects of applicants.</p>
<p>@ ewho: Stanford certainly does not consider Duke, Harvard, or MIT to be their rivals. They recognize Berkeley as an athletic rival and as a rival for fun charitable competitions, even though the size and nature of the two schools are vastly different -> the same cannot be said of the more homogeneous comparisons within the ivies. </p>
<p>The USAMO info is just completely and utter BS. Using your sample size of 2, you managed to make a generalization which is just wrong. Qualifying for USAMO does not guarantee you admission to any of HYPSM at all from factual experience. While you are right in saying that SAT Math scores are not representative of true math ability, the AIME is just as bad. There are many more important factors than the simple comparison of AIME scores 6-to-3. Also you should realize that there is more to success than high school math competitions.</p>
<p>@ Professor101: Layman's reputation wise, Stanford is often mistaken as an ivy, making it one of a mix of elite colleges. From a college obsessed person's view, then yes, Stanford is considered among HYP. I find it hard to believe that the lower average SAT statistic would be a major factor in applicant numbers. Cross-applying, the schools with the largest numbers are still Harvard, Yale, MIT etc. in accordance to their similarly sized applicant pool.</p>
<p>What are you trying to say Professor101? Are you saying that the admitted class of Stanford is no better than random draw? That URM's have twice as likely chance of acceptance? There's no point in beating around the bush with flamebait.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are you trying to say Professor101? Are you saying that the admitted class of Stanford is no better than random draw? That URM's have twice as likely chance of acceptance? There's no point in beating around the bush with flamebait.
[/quote]
No, no. I am serious about a scientific study. In the random draw, you need some way to take into account the AA.</p>
<p>Weatherbottle,</p>
<p>My link was deleted on that post. It was not my intention to say the Rivalries stuff. You misunderstood what I tried to say. I always start with examples to express my main points, even though it is not very good way to do it. Now I am very curious that you can prove your point to show me the counter-example: people who qualified for USAMO don't get into HYPS, of course, those people have to qualify for the basic SAT, GPA etc requirements.</p>
<p>Of course to respect the confidentiality of others, I will say that I know of 2 people who qualified for USAMO but failed to get into all of HYPSM (yes even M) that they applied to. One had somewhat above average total SAT (english areas worse) & GPA for the schools, the other was much above average. In fact I even know of a MOPer (granted it was red) who only managed Berkeley. I will venture a guess to say that essays and recommendations are what done them in.</p>
<p>Another more personally gratifying example if you have facebook: Search up the USAMO 2007/2008 groups. Many students do not attend HYPS, even some do not attend M. Although it does not prove they didn't get in, in the end what matters is matriculation.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info. Some of familiar names popped up. I believe some of them went to the state schools because they might have a free ride, CS.</p>
<p>The slightly (but insignificantly) lowered SAT of Stanford compared to HYP is probably attributed to its superior athletic program (world class athletes/ Olympiads). I dont have problem with admitting world class athletes with somewhat lowered but still quite reasonable STATs. Stanford gives athletic scholarships in additional to need based. </p>
<p>Last year, when I went to visit Stanford with D1 to the admitted student weekend, D1 was hosted by an athlete, who was trying to make 2008 US Olympic swimming team. I had a chance to chat with the host lady. We talked about her swimming training (24+ hours/week) and I was very inspired. </p>
<p>I heard a rumor that a top female mathlete, a 4-time USAMO qualifier (may be 5-timer), a MOPper (red/ there are no blue/ black female MOPpers among the class 2013), a GMO member and medalist (girls math Olympiad, 8 top girls in the country selected from 9, 10, 11, and 12 grade to make US-GMO team based on USAMO performance), who also went to RSI, got flat rejection from Stanfords SCEA. I was shocked. I still hope that it was just a rumor.
By the way, Harvard rejected multiple female applicants with similar qualifications last year. However, Yale and Stanford admitted them all (last year) as long as they applied.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kyledavid, with all my respect, I have to say that most people, whether blue, green, black, white, yellow (OK, ROYGBIV, invisible IR and gamma rays included ), who was born and lived in the US since birth should be considered Native speakers. A URM who started learning english since 2 yrs old has much more english advantage than a non-URM (asian or even white) who immigrated 2 yrs ago. In that case, the asian should be given the bump, not the URM who was born and raised in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no idea what this has to do with my point, which was that first-gen/low-income =/= non-native English speaker.</p>
<p>And no, I dont agree that this person should be given a bump for only having learned English two years ago, unless that person was not given as much of an opportunity (low-income, perhaps) to learn English as well.</p>
<p>But in either case, that person needs to prove proficiency in English, which is a basic requirement for Stanford and for most US schools.</p>
<p>FYI - a USAMO champ got deferred from Yale.</p>
<p>There's a definite correlation between lower SAT requirement and number of applicants. I know of many students who applied to Stanford (chance) who wouldn't even think of applying to HYP or MIT (no chance).</p>
<p>Stanford's lower median SAT score is without a doubt the result of its athletic program. They're willing to take SATs below 1800 with GPAs around 3.0; HYP wouldn't touch those students with a 10-foot pole.</p>
<p>MindBoggling: The USAMO winner/ champ was rejected (not deferred) from Yale. I was not sure this specific applicant was serious about Yale. His CR and WR were not very high. I still wished that Yale would take chance to admit him. Yale has not produced any Putnam fellow since 89. </p>
<p>If you take Stanford's median SAT score excluding their athletes score, I bet it would be in line with HYP. I actually prefer Stanford's approach to athletics, to admit the real world class athletes, rather than HYPs quasi approach to athletics. There are certainly much fewer athletes from HYP, who can compete with Stanford's athletes on the same stage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford's lower median SAT score is without a doubt the result of its athletic program. They're willing to take SATs below 1800 with GPAs around 3.0; HYP wouldn't touch those students with a 10-foot pole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about a source on that?</p>
<p>I for one don't buy this BS about athletes always having lower SAT scores. That certainly isn't true. All the athletes I know are pretty damned smart as well, and I really doubt their SAT scores were lower.</p>