<p>I wholeheartedly disagree, but what does that even matter? SAT scores and GPAs exclusive, meaning if they're not up to par they will keep you out, but if they're in the right range they're meaningless. Its all about essays and recs and things you've done, which isn't conveyed in these decisions posts at all. You completely missed what I was saying. You can't judge people from numbers and brief descriptions.</p>
<p>You do realize that Admissions staffs aren't God right?</p>
<p>and a 35 ACT + 3.8 UW GPA + 2380 SAT does not make you a stronger applicant than almost all of the rejectees. Sorry, it just doesn't.</p>
<p>I wasn't finding fault with you statement "You can't judge people by numbers and brief descriptions," I was finding fault with your ego.</p>
<p>GimmeStanford, you act like you seem to know everything about the admissions process now that you got accepted. You yourself don't actually know whether you "deserved" to get in or not - you just did. </p>
<p>Congratulations on being accepted though, but a little humbleness would probably carry you farther in college.</p>
<p>An example from me that gives a bit of proof towards the "Adcoms don't know everything"</p>
<p>Michele Hernandez, former assistant director of communications at Dartmouth, details a story in one of her books. I don't remember the exact details, but it was something along these lines. They had a girl apply to Dartmouth before strong test scores, strong grades, passions, E.C's, great essays etc. Basically the works. Then in her teacher recommendations, the teachers stress that she doesn't talk all the time, but when she does, she ALWAYS had something of high content to say, usually greatly altering class discussions. In other words, she did not talk and blather on about things she did not know about. The Dartmouth staff however, took it as "She doesn't talk very much, so therefore she will have no impact on classes her at Dartmouth. She did not get in, as 11 of 13 voting against her being admitted.</p>
<p>Because you got into Stanford does NOT make you one of the best applicants. It just means that the admissions team and their bias saw you in a good light. So please stop strutting around here like you are "all that."</p>
<p>In GimmeStanford's defence, I dont think (he,she?) is acting "all that". He/she is just expressing their opinions/beliefs on whats happened. The truth is that no one knows why they were admitted, rejected. deffered or whatever else. If they did, it wouldnt of happened because they would have fixed the flaw that they thought would hold them back( other than test scores and gpas). I just dont see the point in attempting to explain anything that has to do with admissions at ANY school with the way things are now.</p>
<p>Stories from the early 1990s from a college other than Stanford are not current information about Stanford.</p>
<p>Here goes a killer for all the international students out there!!</p>
<p>Decision: Deferred</p>
<p>Stats:[ul]
[<em>] Fee Waiver Used?: NO
[</em>] SAT I (by section): CR 750 / M 800 / WR 740 (essay 11/12)
[<em>] SAT IIs: three 800's on MathIIC, Physics, Chemistry
[</em>] GPA, Weighted and Unweighted: 4.02 weighted (not exceptionally high, but I got all the B's in my freshman year tho)
[<em>] Rank: we don't rank
[</em>] APs (including this year's): Comp Sci AB 5, Calc BC 5, Physics C:M 5, Physics C:E&M 5, English Lang 4, Microecon 5, Macroecon 4, Physics 5, Chemistry 5
[<em>] Senior Yr Courseload: Linear Algebra and some other stuff, including many AP's
[</em>] Number of Apps from Your School: 10 - we were all either deferred or rejected
[li] Other stats (Awards, etc.): i won like 20 awards in my high school but i'll list only the important ones[/li]** Intel ISEF 1st Grand Award + scholarship $8500 **
** National Olympiad in Informatics 1st place Gold Medal **
** 1st prize in National Science Fair **
** Samsung Scholarship of $200,000 (full-ride to college)**
** World Robotics Olympiad**
** Silver Prize in Intelligent Robotics Software Competition given by IEEE**
** Research published in an international science journal**[/ul]</p>
<p>Subjective:[ul]
[<em>] ECs listed on app: Tennis, student government, researches (government-funded research), robotics, community servce, films, chief of this founder of that, etc.
[</em>] Job/Work Experience: Science instructor in an elementary school for 2 yrs
[<em>] Essays (subject and responses): Wrote about my passion in research. Almost everyone who read it for me said it was really good.<br>
[</em>] Teacher Recs: from what I was told, 'there was never like one, and never will be' (..which means 'extremely good', by the way)
[li] Counselor Rec: Don't know about this one [/ul]</p>[/li]
<p>Location/Person:[ul]
[<em>] Citizenship: International (Ouch!!)
[</em>] Ethnicity: Asian (Ouch ouch!!)
[<em>] Gender: Male (Oh.. bad !!)
[</em>] Why you think you were deferred: You tell me[/ul]</p>
<p>.. and yes. I was deferred. De-Ferrrred.
Get the meaning of 'Stanford Slaughter'?</p>
<p>^ Holy mother of God.</p>
<p>What the heck does Stanford want?!</p>
<p>
[quote]
What the heck does Stanford want?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's actually a good question for discussion. What do YOU think Stanford wants? What's a profile you could imagine for an applicant who you think would SURELY get in?</p>
<p>I have a question!!!!!!!!
Seeing that Stanford gives so much importance to the URM status... do you think this will continue through RD?? Or was this just a EA thing!?????
(Im URM applying RD, so I hope Stanford is as URM firendly as it was on EA... yeah I know.. sorry :s)</p>
<p>Holy GOSIJFSODIGNOD, HeWhoDreams, your stats further the theory that NO internationals seeking aid (did you seek aid?) got accepted. I'm an international who got deferred as well, but compared to you, my stats pale very very significantly in comparison.</p>
<p>After looking through this thread, I'm glad I decided not to apply to Stanford and waste $60, haha. Look at my stats profile if you want a laugh. :)</p>
<p>HeWhoDreams,</p>
<p>The reasons that possible are that they have a hard time to evaluate international students from foreign countries, what about the 2nd place in your contests? second, the country you come from may be a factor too if they want to compare other international students; third, they may think that you may be admitted by other peer schools and may not really want to come to Stanford.... Anyway, sorry to hear that, and I am sure that you will get into a school you love. Good luck.</p>
<p>HeWhoDreams, you are the most amazing applicant in terms of ECs I have ever seen applying to any university. That is plain ridiculous. I hope Stanford has a real good reason for not accepting you... b/c you make us look like toddlers.</p>
<p>In response to tokenadult, some of you may already have seen this, but here is my thread about what Stanford is looking for. If I had to sum it up in a few words, I would say passion and intellectual vitality. It can't hurt to be unique either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's a profile you could imagine for an applicant who you think would SURELY get in?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think so, because if Stanford used reproducible criteria it would skew their class composition.</p>
<p>Stanford knows if it went more so on the basis of SAT's and stats, its class would be more International and Asian than it wants. Stanford explicitly admits fewer International students, but cannot be so explicit about admitting fewer Asians. UC Berkeley uses predominantly stats, and ends up with 42% Asian and 31% white. Stanford is 41% white and 24% Asian. If Stanford too used predominantly stats, it likely would end up with enrollment more like Berkeley. And Stanford never wants to be more like Berkeley.</p>
<p>So Stanford seeks to maintain their 2:1 White:Asian ratio, but needs to cover their Asian discriminatory tracks. To do this, instead of using stats, they use such ineffable qualities as "Intellectual Vitality", which they claim to divine from the applicants' essays, EC's and recommendations. The application must makes the reader's leg tingle. Using these inscrutable criteria produces an entering class composition more to Stanford's liking.</p>
<p>This means rejecting a lot of non-Asian applicants as well with great SAT's and stats. Unfortunately, these must be rejected so it doesn't appear that Stanford is singling out the Asians. This is analogous to the actions of the Beltway Sniper, who set out to kill his ex-wife, but had to take out many others to make his wife's demise appear random.</p>
<p>This policy is probably not spelled out, nor even discussed in the Admission Committee's inner sanctums. It may even be unconscious. If you posit however (1) Stanford doesn't want a predominantly Asian class; (2) Going on stats would end up with a predominantly Asian class; (3) It can neither admit nor reveal a discriminatory bias against Asians, then the only solution is for the Committee to rhapsodize about "Intellectual Vitality", and admit the class composition they want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Holy GOSIJFSODIGNOD, HeWhoDreams, your stats further the theory that NO internationals seeking aid (did you seek aid?) got accepted.
[/quote]
No, I didn't apply for financial aid. I didn't need one because I have a full-ride scholarship already.
But I did hear that internationals who apply for fin aid have a very thin chance of getting in. Almost like... no one I guess</p>
<p>Yeah... only around 40 internationals seeking aid will get in this year. Apparently no one so far.</p>
<p>JW I'm not sure you really have facts to support your statements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think so, because if Stanford used reproducible criteria it would skew their class composition.</p>
<p>Stanford knows if it went more so on the basis of SAT's and stats, its class would be more International and Asian than it wants. Stanford explicitly admits fewer International students, but cannot be so explicit about admitting fewer Asians. UC Berkeley uses predominantly stats, and ends up with 42% Asian and 31% white. Stanford is 41% white and 24% Asian. If Stanford too used predominantly stats, it likely would end up with enrollment more like Berkeley. And Stanford never wants to be more like Berkeley.</p>
<p>So Stanford seeks to maintain their 2:1 White:Asian ratio, but needs to cover their Asian discriminatory tracks. To do this, instead of using stats, they use such ineffable qualities as "Intellectual Vitality", which they claim to divine from the applicants' essays, EC's and recommendations. The application must makes the reader's leg tingle. Using these inscrutable criteria produces an entering class composition more to Stanford's liking.</p>
<p>This means rejecting a lot of non-Asian applicants as well with great SAT's and stats. Unfortunately, these must be rejected so it doesn't appear that Stanford is singling out the Asians. This is analogous to the actions of the Beltway Sniper, who set out to kill his ex-wife, but had to take out many others to make his wife's demise appear random.</p>
<p>This policy is probably not spelled out, nor even discussed in the Admission Committee's inner sanctums. It may even be unconscious. If you posit however (1) Stanford doesn't want a predominantly Asian class; (2) Going on stats would end up with a predominantly Asian class; (3) It can neither admit nor reveal a discriminatory bias against Asians, then the only solution is for the Committee to rhapsodize about "Intellectual Vitality", and admit the class composition they want.
[/quote]
Very insightful. I have expressed similar views before, but this is more eloquent than what I said.
[quote]
JW I'm not sure you really have facts to support your statements.
[/quote]
Until Stanford releases their admission rates by races, one can only use circumstantial evidence. I suggest that you look at the student compositions at Cal Tech and UCBerkeley, the other two top California schools.</p>