<p>
</p>
<p>From what I remember, you're a current student. You and I both know that athletes, on average, don't have as good of test scores. Specifics are debatable, but I don't think there's any getting around that their average stats are lower.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you take Stanford's median SAT score excluding their athletes’ score, I bet it would be in line with HYP.
[/quote]
Assuming what you said is true although I doubt it, Stanford doesn't publish athletes' scores separately and the overall low median score still encourages prospective students with low scores to give it a try since they don't know how much athletes contribute to the low score as witnessed in the debate between Kyledavid80 and Docketgold.</p>
<p>Obviously not all athletes test scores are lower, indeed I would argue most of them are more or less "normal" for Stanford. However, there are the more extreme cases, therefore, overall, the scores are lower for athletes. I cannot point to the specifics, but I really didn't think this was an issue of debate.</p>
<p>I don't know though of kids with 1800's and 3.0 GPAs admitted to Stanford due to athletics. That's more than just rather extreme (well not the SATs, but definitely the GPA).</p>
<p>I think the reason Stanford's sat ranges are lower than that of HYP is because they don't care as much about them. I mean, Stanford gets over 25,000 applicants (this year 27,000), which is more than I can say of Yale or Princeton and rejects swarms of 2300+ scorers every year. I'm sure if it wanted to, Stanford could raise its score ranges to match those of HYP easily. </p>
<p>Don't forget, that even if it's scores are lower, Stanford is still ridiculously selective, with an estimated admission rate of 8% this coming year. So, lower scores doesn't mean easier to get into, especially considering there are plenty of people who get into HYP but rejected at Stanford every year. </p>
<p>If a school routinely rejects 2400 sat scorers, such as the case with HYPSM, then ranges don't really mean much, since even the perfect tip of the top scorers still can get rejected from all of them.</p>
<p>Stanford wants the best of everything, just like what the others want. Getting a perfect 2400 on SAT does not mean that you are an academic superstar. They also may not want everyone to apply, only the ones they want to apply. Imagine to process 25000+. Not long ago when I asked one of the admission officers about how to make a decision in the end, she said that they would select what they wanted and crapshoot the rest. What do they want? It seems nobody has the answer.</p>
<p>I've had a lot of opportunity to talk to current and former Stanford admission officers, and the brand name of what Stanford is looking for really is "intellectual vitality." That has been Stanford's way through a few different admission deans. Another consistent practice of Stanford is giving most early round applicants a DEFINITE answer, rather than deferring many applicants to the regular round. That has the painful consequence of telling a lot of applicants that they are rejected in December. But most of those applicants will have time to regroup and apply to other colleges, where they may be much more competitive. </p>
<p>Question for all in the thread: how many of you have attended a Stanford admissions information session? </p>
<p>Stanford</a> in Your Area : Stanford University </p>
<p>I've been to two Stanford sessions, and two Exploring College Options session that included Stanford. I've also been in an online session with a current Stanford admission officer twice (two different officers), and have attended talks by a former Stanford admission officer who is now a college counselor for a high school. And that's not even to mention that my son's college counselor at his high school is a former Stanford admission officer.</p>
<p>I strongly believe that those regional admission officers will not know the actual process of selection. Their main duty is for PR. I saw Yale's rep too not long ago. All of them could not answer most of my questions. In my vague memory I think that Stanford and MIT use some kind index by the selection committee, which includes the people who can make a decision. If your number is not there, you will be rejected on spot, otherwise, you are going to the next round. They never disclose the info on the index, certainly it is not based on SAT. Sometimes I am good at guessing those things, but I made a lot of mistakes at doing that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From what I remember, you're a current student. You and I both know that athletes, on average, don't have as good of test scores. Specifics are debatable, but I don't think there's any getting around that their average stats are lower.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I not just state something to the contrary? I think it's complete BS that athletes are always the low scorers. If their average is different from Stanford's overall, I sincerely doubt that it would be very far at all. I'll wait for some data on the subject.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the brand name of what Stanford is looking for really is "intellectual vitality."
[/quote]
The "intellectual vitality" thing is totally B*. If you are a legacy, athlete or a member of a disadvantaged group, you automatically have more "intellectual vitality" than other applicants. This is the most disingenuous thing I've ever seen. Stanford admission probably will gain more creditability by getting rid of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, let's put athletes aside. Yes, they get advantages in the in admissions process, but they get those some advantages in some form or another at every college in America. Even at the Harvards and Yales of the world they get help through the admissions process as part of being recruited.</p>
<p>As for legacies, they don't automatically have more intellectual vitality than other applicants. It's been said and posted time and time again that, in the absence of other distinguishing characteristics, Stanford will most likely take a legacy over a non-legacy, BUT being a legacy is by no means a guarantee nor a golden ticket. It's very easy for it to appear as if legacies have a huge advantage, but the statistics show that's just not the case.</p>
<p>Being a member of a disadvantaged group works in much the same way. If you're not competitive, you're not competitive--you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But, putting aside all doubts about whether the "disadvantages" a candidate has faced are real or imagined, if a disadvantaged student has the exact same stats, etc. as a non-disadvantaged one, being disadvantaged can serve as a tie-breaker between the two people.</p>
<p>An applicant can be disadvantaged, a legacy, or an athlete, or some combination of the three, without showing any intellectual vitality at all. Just because somebody was poor, busted their ass to get good grades and now has great stats doesn't men that they will be perceived as having the intellectual vitality Stanford desires. However, if someone overcame all that, it's likely that they had some sort of intellectual vitality/desire that helped them overcome all the obstacles they had to face.</p>
<p>Particularly with the case of disadvantaged groups, there's a better than 50/50 chance intellectual vitality (assume it's some binary metric for the sake of argument) will be present in a given applicant because there are some major lurking variables there. You don't overcome legitimately disadvantaged circumstances without something driving you, right?</p>
<p>Similarly, excluding yourself, the only other applicants you're going to know anything about are likely to be above average, right? Few people are going to come on an internet message board, or talk openly for that matter, about below average stats. People you're going to know stuff about are those who are going to form the top X% of the applicant pool. </p>
<p>So, if they are URMs or whatever, they're likely going to show intellectual vitality, because that same drive that's making them be proactive about their college admissions likely made them bust their ass in school and/or find something they enjoy to try and pursue.</p>
<p>You've got to remember the candidates you're not seeing before you make judgments about the whole applicant pool.</p>
<p>Docketgold,
I understand what you are saying. You see the peril of using the words "intellectual vitality" which can be subjected to a variety of interpretations. Apparently, you don't like my interpretation of it. It seems like some admission officers at S didn't want to spend time to explain what they were looking for or couldn't explain what they were looking for and came up with these two words to cove everything.
There are two problems with the use of "intellectual vitality": 1) how do you define it? and 2) how do you measure it from an applicant's file? They try to explain away a holistic process with two words. It sounds clever, but it won't help anybody except the admission officers who can do anything they want with it.</p>
<p>Very well-said, docketgold. I agree completely.</p>
<p>I'll add, also, that legacies may also be more qualified by nature--their parents typically graduated from said university, whose graduates are typically successful and can offer their children the opportunities to nurture their intellectual vitality. It's not surprising that legacies are somewhat more successful than most other applicants.</p>
<p>I agree with Professor101. "Intellectual Vitality" is a vague term.</p>
<p>stumbled upon this thread....</p>
<p>Back in teh 1960s, Stanford accepted over half its applicants.</p>
<p>Back in the 1950s, Harvard accepted over 35% of its applicants.</p>
<p>So no, it hasn't always been like this. Most people over 40 today who attended Stanford would likely not be admitted today... </p>
<p>No, it hasn't always been like this...</p>
<p>Stanford has rejected many applicants because many of them already have high test scores and GPAs. Thus, Stanford must be hollistic with them by reviewing their ECs and essays. At least, that's my theory.</p>
<p>Stanford</a> Commit List for 2009</p>
<p>I disagree STRONGLY that athletes do not get some help from their hook. I'm sure they're all pretty intelligent, because I know that colleges don't take ANYONE that is way too underqualified. However, if you were to go just on GPA and SATs...I did not see (of the recruits listed for 09 with their academics listed) any player with a 2000+ SAT or 30+ ACT, and there are at least 4 that have a 3.6 GPA or less. Being a football player myself, I know how difficult it is to be a student athlete when you train with your team year around (including 10+ hours per day for 2-3 weeks right before the season starts) and to maintain grades. My friend got offered a football scholarship to a school with a 30% acceptance rate and over 70% of the student body had a high school GPA > 3.7 . My friend's gpa was around a 3.2 in all regular classes and a 1700 SAT. If you look up other schools on Rivals (site I linked), you'll see that all of them have players (although some are as qualified as the other applicants) that definitely would not have gotten in had they not played football. Look up ANY school: Berkeley, UCLA, Texas, Harvard, etc.</p>
<p>^The football player Stanford recruited from my school was the farthest thing from having a brain. Total a-hole. Classic jock. </p>
<p>In fact, he chose Eastern Michigan over Stanford, because he thought Eastern had a better football team. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Now ... if only I was recruited by Stanford ... </p>
<p>Dreams are awesome; reality simply hurts.</p>
<p>(collapses into a small sad heap on the floor in front of the computer)</p>