***Official Stanford 2013 SCEA Decisions****

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
441

<p>MODERATOR'S NOTE: </p>

<p>I was asked to visit this thread by a student. First of all, congratulations to all of you who were admitted to Stanford. My condolences to all of you who were rejected. (Stanford differs from other "peer" universities with an early admission round in giving most applicants a definite yes or no decision by the early round decision date. Rather than polite deferrals, Stanford communicates a definite rejection.) Good luck in your other applications. For those of you who are deferred to the regular round, good luck, and make sure to apply to other colleges too. </p>

<p>Some comments on the results posts: </p>

<p>1) It is impossible to reverse-engineer ANY college's admission process just from reading threads here on CC. The threads are not representative of the relevant population (all students who applied and all admission results those students received) and the information in the individual posts is from interested persons who don't themselves have complete information. (Not all of you have any idea what your teacher or counselor recommendations looked like, especially in the context of all other applicants to Stanford.) </p>

<p>2) Through the administration of about three admission deans now, Stanford has talked up that it is looking for "intellectual vitality." That is not a secret. That's something a little different from grades and test scores. </p>

<p>3) Subject to the caution I put above under point 1), it appears that Stanford, a QuestBridge partner college, is attempting to identify high-potential, low-income students and admit those in cases of applicants being otherwise indistinguishable. </p>

<p>4) Most all the applicants to Stanford this year will get into GREAT colleges where they will thrive. </p>

<p>Now, about off-topic posts. Extensive discussions of URM status and the definition of "URM" and what "affirmative action" is are OFF-TOPIC in this thread. The title of this thread is "<strong><em>Official Stanford 2013 SCEA Decisions</em></strong>*," so I would expect the college-bound young people posting here to know that the thread is mostly about posting SCEA decisions for applicants to Stanford class of 2013. </p>

<p>There is a thread </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/568159-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-2-a.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/568159-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-2-a.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>set up on the College Admissions Forum for general discussion of the role of ethnicity in college admissions and discussion of affirmative action policies. Anyone who desires to participate civilly while following the College Confidential Terms of Service </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item&lt;/a> </p>

<p>is welcome to visit there. </p>

<p>P.S. Thus far I know three of the students who applied to Stanford SCEA and who were admitted. All are Asian, one from Taiwan and two from India. They are very accomplished students who, yes, have intellectual vitality. </p>

<p>Good luck in your further applications.</p>

442

<p>Please explain through PM how I was being racist. I don't think it needs to occur in the thread any longer, but I want to at least see why you think I am being racist.</p>

443

<p>
[quote]
P.S. Thus far I know three of the students who applied to Stanford SCEA and who were admitted. All are Asian, one from Taiwan and two from India. They are very accomplished students who, yes, have intellectual vitality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks for the note, by any chance do you recall any significant accomplishments of the students you mentioned?</p>

444

<p>
[quote]
Now, about off-topic posts. Extensive discussions of URM status and the definition of "URM" and what "affirmative action" is are OFF-TOPIC in this thread. The title of this thread is "<strong><em>Official Stanford 2013 SCEA Decisions</em></strong>*," so I would expect the college-bound young people posting here to know that the thread is mostly about posting SCEA decisions for applicants to Stanford class of 2013.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just delete that whole portion of the discussion, then.</p>

445

<p>EDIT: This post is directed towards tokenadult.
Thank you for your post and I apologize for being off-topic.</p>

446

<p>ok, in reference to all those people who say the character of this thread has gone downhill because a few people are trying to make sense of their rejection, i don't agree with you. When there is overwhelming evidence (admissions last year and this year) that your chances will be cut in half because you are an ORM or not a legacy or something, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to help the problem, yes, you will feel rejected and defeated. Stanford doesn't have the best admissions policies at all, and i think by keeping this up, they are separating two groups of people (ORM and URM), thereby escalating this problem. i don't think taking race into account is going to make the student body more diverse necessarily, but socioeconomic background is something else. large fractions of URM only makes Stanford look good, which is why they do it</p>

447

<p>You don't know why Stanford accepts who they do, so don't make assumptions please.</p>

448

<p>Also, a note to all the URMs in the thread:</p>

<p>Any insults or racism were purely unintentional, because that is not what I was trying to communicate with my posts. I apologize if it caused you to interpret it that way, but please, understand I am I am not being racist, but merely venting frustration over Stanford's admissions policies, which, while you benefit from them, are not under your control and are thus not your fault in any way.</p>

<p>Also, I agree with cookiemon completely.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't know why Stanford accepts who they do, so don't make assumptions please.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The data, though, suggests that race is a factor in accepting who they do.</p>

449

<p>
[quote]
seems like stanford has no love for 2400s

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or 36's for that matter, haha.</p>

450

<p>IDK, amciw. IDK anymore. :[</p>

<p>TBH, after looking at these admissions threads, few people stood out to me. I looked through the deferred or rejected posts, and while everyone was SUPA QUALIFIED, I didn't remember much beyond test scores.</p>

<p>Of course, maybe I didn't look too closely. But maybe that's what happened?</p>

451

<p>i can't say this for other schools, but i do think, from the stats and trends, that stanford does do things this way</p>

452

<p>I'm not sure, because I didn't really see much difference in terms of everything between URMs and whites/Asians (except race). Since I think it would be foolish to assume every URM wrote better essays than every ORM, it is, to me, logical that race played a factor in the final decisions in many circumstances.</p>

<p>That is to say, not many people in the accepted posts stood out to me, either, except that many were URMs.</p>

<p>Seriously, I'm not trying to be racist (if anything, I'm arguing for complete inconsideration of race, because I think culture is usually dependent more on money than race, and thus socioeconomic conditions in the modern world are what truly makes different people, as opposed to the superficial nature of skin color), but I think that was what played into their decisions.</p>

<p>(This is now relevant to Stanford, so its not off-topic anymore.)</p>

453

<p>@LightBright. </p>

<p>You might only have seen their test scores but you definitely didn't see their essays. Those were probably a deciding factor (other than race) that got people into Stanford.</p>

<p>It's interesting though because [generally] people with high test scores tend to have better essays (I know it's a very very stereotypical assumption, but think about it--it's true). On the other hand, you might find that not every individual with low test scores has exceptional essays.</p>

454

<p>make a separate thread about "speculation about stanford's admissions policies"</p>

<p>Its off topic here.</p>

455

<p>Technically, the title implies its everything related to the decisions, rather than just the decisions themselves.</p>

456

<p>I agree w/ cookiemon that this discussion is pertinent in this thread. I am less interested in whether perceived admission policies that Stanford has are right or wrong. (I do not have control on them, they are a private university so they can do what they please). But I want to infer what they might be. Based on discussions in this thread, I decided not to apply to Stanford. Not because I don't want to go there. But because now I think my chances are way lower than I thought (due to ORM, URM factors). While Stanford will not miss me (they have an amazing applicant pool), I can at least spend my winter break working on other schools.</p>

457

<p>cookiemon trolls all of the threads for AA debates, he/she hardly posts at any other time...</p>

458

<p>@askabob:</p>

<p>I'm saying that the DEFERRED OR REJECTED CANDIDATES DID NOT STAND OUT; not the accepted candidates.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if she was one of the Stanfordites (quite sure she was), but this one girl did all these amazing community service projects and such, despite living in an inner city neighborhood.</p>

<p>I think that those kinds of things stand out more than LOL 2400 SAT GUD STUDENT LOLZ. They get enough of those.</p>

<p>So I think you misread my post. Remember kids, knowing how to read is important if you want to get into college! </p>

<p>lol jkjkjk that was messed up.</p>

<p>EDIT: And I'm not saying that everyone isn't qualified so shush.</p>

459

<p>GUYS
this is ridiculous
can you please stop talking about this
this is not what i wanted out of this thread when i made it!
now i love ya, but i would really appreciate it if you would stop</p>

460

<p>Sorry Oprah. :[</p>