Official 4.4 W +, or 2300 + SAT thread but got rejected from Stanford thread

<p>Also, I don't think you understand what kinds of students I'm saying. I'm talking of the kind of students who'll end up at top grad schools in certain areas. I'm talking REALLY REALLY academic students.</p>

<p>They exist both at Cal and Stanford. </p>

<p>I'm NOT talking about mere 2400 SAT-ers. If you think every other guy even GETTING INTO a top college is a top academic student that I'm talking about, you're quite mistaken. I'm talking the future researchers....</p>

<p>Undergrad admissions seems to favor many Olympiad high-scorers, those with some deep things to say in their essays, good extracurriculars, and such. And less of the pure academicians. I think grad schools are much better at picking those out. </p>

<p>Now this may be the POINT of grad school (as opposed to undergrad). But I'm just making an observation.</p>

<p>This last point refers to when I say "fiery...etc students" Again, a concrete word of encouragement from someone inside CAl to such students who were a victim of the admissions mania, not to say Cal students are more academic than Stanford students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
read my posts FULLY. I don't think Berkeley is better...I said in as many words that a lot of its students are average ACADEMICALLY.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Re-read what I said, which was that you attempt to prove that Berkeley is better in some way or another.</p>

<p>Here, it's somehow that half the students at berkeley are more "fierily" academic than those at Stanford.</p>

<p>
[quote]
every time I say some more ACADEMIC students don't go to Stanford, you seem to say I'm demeaning the others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please point to where I said that. (And no, your assertions that Stanford's admissions policies are "shady" because you know of a few students who you think were "not naturally brilliant, have mediocre grades at best, mediocre scores, no huge extracurriculars, etc who got in." As you said: "It IS a problem.")</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm talking of the kind of students who'll end up at top grad schools in certain areas. I'm talking REALLY REALLY academic students.</p>

<p>They exist both at Cal and Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then be precise next time--you seemed to be implying some superiority in one.</p>

<p>I've read your posts, and each one has something to do with why Berkeley is better in some way--from being better for choosing classes/planning your schedule, to more "academic" students, and so on.</p>

<p>If this wasn't your point, then make your purpose clear next time.</p>

<p>Lol, StanfordMom, you're awesome.</p>

<p>Wow, I just typed in the url StanfordMom mentioned. That's pretty funny...</p>

<p>lol, Yes its very funny..</p>

<p>Hi all, I made myself plain in the "For all who were rejected..." thread. Main responses to Kyle and StanfordMom. Since the points on either thread seemed to be similar, and there was a lot of intermixing going on, I won't repeat myself here. </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Bump. I fit the reqs and was rejected :(</p>

<p>No idea what GPA is on 4.0 scale (97 W on 100 point scale, though), but I had a 2310, and got the good ol’ “You got rejected” letter. </p>

<p>So hi, everybody!</p>

<p>uh oh i’m scared now… :(</p>

<p>the college admissions process is more and more about personality traits. the kids who have unique and original essays and extracurriculars get in over the pure bookworms with really good scores simply because “this kid wrote this amazing essay about all the cool things he’s gone off the beaten path and done on his own” is a hell of a lot easier to sell to a selection committee than “well, here’s just another perfect score with the typical checklist of ec’s and leadership position resume padding.”</p>

<p>^ So very true. Especially when the school cares more about the community it builds rather than the average SAT scores and GPAs it projects</p>

<p>ngolsh314, well said. I really wish that this could be displayed on the front of the CC webpage. I’m glad to be going to a school that seems to value those things.</p>

<p>ngolsh, I couldn’t have said it better myself.</p>

<p>this is such a feel good thread…</p>

<p>Not if you’re average in all areas (academics, EC’s, and essays- though I haven’t written them yet, I suspect it will be lame like me)</p>

<p>I understand Stanford doesn’t only look at test scores, etc. of course. However, the best essay in the world won’t necessarily help if you have extremely low scores, a low GPA, few EC’S, etc. Additionally, test scores typically come into the picture when they’re comparing two applicants with almost equal applications in terms of EC’s, essay quality, GPA, etc. (hypothetically). I would think that at that point, whoever has the highest test score would get in. That’s the scary part, and I think that’s why people worry about getting the highest scores they can even when they’ve already got above-above average scores.</p>

<p>its hard to have equal applications in terms of ECs imo, usually something stands out. i don’t think most top tier colleges really care about that 2400 anymore. there are too many good-grade / good gpa people out there. </p>

<p>though granted you should still have avg/above avg test scores.</p>

<p>Well there is always <a href=“http://www.stanfordrejects.com%5B/url%5D”>www.stanfordrejects.com</a></p>

<p>I want to express my condolence to everyone here</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The cynic in me wants to point out that people with cool ECs, an “amazing essay”, and top academic stats get rejected.</p>