<p>Hey Guys!
I am going to be a senior next year and Stanford is one of my top choices. I was hoping I might get some advice on whether I should apply SCEA, EA, OR RD.
SAT- 1960- Took this without studying at all
Math- 550
Reading- 660
Writing- 750</p>
<p>ACT- 31- Again, took this without studying at all</p>
<p>4.0 Unweighted GPA, 5's on all AP's, basically the typical good student thing</p>
<p>My hook is my emphasis on science-
-5-year research project
-2nd in category at ISEF
-Publishing paper this fall
-In the process of getting a provisional patent on my research
-Community Service w/ integrating my project into my community (It has to do w/ water remediation)</p>
<p>Other Extracurriculars
-Varsity Sports- Not a recruited athlete (w/ the exception of not very good schools), but I'll probably try and walk on the team
-Community Service- I started a summer science camp at the local Boy's and Girl's Club
-Plenty of other well-rounded student stuff I won't bore you with</p>
<p>I'm definitely not relying on this, but I am a girl and interested in engineering</p>
<p>So, should I try and improve my scores and apply RD or apply SCEA/EA (keeping in mind I can take the ACT and SAT in October)? Thank you!</p>
<p>With the exception of your test scores (though your ACT isn’t THAT bad…it’s right at Stanford’s 25th percentile), you are a highly competitive applicant. In particular, you seem to demonstrate a sincere “passion” for science which (if past admits are good indicators) Stanford will really appreciate…it seems to like students who have highly developed interests and who really take their interests to the next level. In your post, you write, “Plenty of other well-rounded student stuff I won’t bore you with.” Don’t try to come across as well-rounded. Instead, come across as someone with a passion for one or two things. As I mentioned above, you seem to already have this “passion” thing nailed. </p>
<p>I would recommend waiting for RD just so that you can improve your test scores. Study for the SAT/ACT, and throw at least two Subject Tests in there as well. As I recall, you haven’t taken any of those.</p>
<p>I agree with the above poster. You seem to have very good emphasis on science, and I appreciate very much that you spared us the tedious stuff that doesn’t matter as much. I would highly recommend retaking the SAT or ACT. ACT score is okay, but if you can raise it even a point it wouldn’t hurt. SAT would look better above 2100.</p>
<p>Also, think about getting 2 SAT IIs. Ideally subjects you will do best in-- based on your penchant for science, I would have guessed a science (Chem, Physics, or Bio) with Math II, but that 550 is worrisome.</p>
<p>Make sure you get good recs, and write good essays. Best of luck to you.</p>
<p>I’m usually the first person to say that you don’t need stellar test scores, yet even I agree that the SAT is concerning. It’s more the distribution than the overall total. You said you are applying as a woman in engineering, yet your math SAT is in the bottom 2% of the Stanford class of 2017 and by far the weakest score. An AO might also wonder why you are choosing engineering over a field more closely related to your research and passion (I am assuming research is in a hard science, rather than engineering). That said, the rest of information you listed looks great, especially the Intel ISEF award, research, published paper, and patent.</p>
<p>I agree with everything stated above. That 550 math can certainly crush your chances in general, never mind for engineering. Do you really know what engineering entails or does it just seem like a good idea? I think you may enjoy a more science and less math oriented field. I would reconsider applying with that major instead; unless you are certain engineering is for you. I wouldn’t send your SAT score, and now just focus on the ACT. A 31 is definitely low for Stanford. A 34 would be ideal, but at the very least try to get a 32-33 composite with math and science being your highest sub-scores if possible. Take SAT IIs to show your math and science skills as well. If you can’t get your ACT score up with the September test then definitely just apply RD so that you can get another shot at it. Good luck!</p>
<p>I would disagree with the first poster, it’s best to come across as well-rounded BUT also with a passion for specific subjects. Unless you are one of the nation’s best high-school scientists (which you could be depending on that project), it never hurts to show a diversity of interests. Stanford values flexibility between subjects in its students. </p>
<p>For example, the only “intense subject” student I know to get in was a 16-year-old physicist, he’s one of the top 10 physics students in the US and he’ll be competing in the international olympiad. He’s the type that can get in with a singular focus. And yet he’s going to MIT now. </p>
<p>Stanford likes well rounded students in addition to a well-rounded class, compared to some schools that want a well-rounded class comprised of very very intensely focused students. </p>
<p>It actually makes you a much more interesting applicant when you can show exceptional performance and interest in one or two particular subjects in addition to a broad base filled with a love of learning. With that attitude and some higher test scores (you’re required to send that first SAT and ACT score so one of them needs to get better), your chances are good.</p>
I haven’t seen anything to suggest Stanford prefers well rounded students to a greater degree than other selective colleges. I am not saying it’s false, but it would be good to confirm whether Stanford has actually said this or you are just guessing based on well rounded students you have met.
A student’s full app often does not come across well in casual conversion. I was probably one of the least well rounded students in my HS, so much so that there was a 300 point difference between my math and verbal SAT scores (800 vs 500) and a similar difference between tech vs English in GPA + course rigor, choice of ECs, LOR selections, etc. Nevertheless, I was accepted with far weaker overall stats than the vast majority of the more common, well rounded applicants.</p>
<p>I’d expect that excelling in a particular field instead of being well rounded and pretty good at everything fits with Stanford Admission’s comments about showing a passion. It’s better to be genuinely passionate about a specific focus and really do amazing things in that focus than to just fill up a list of typical ECs to show you are well rounded. Ignoring test scores, I think the OP does this well with her Intel award, research, published paper, patent, and starting a science camp. She strikes me as the type who is likely to do continue to do amazing things in this field, both in college and beyond, as well as the type of app where Stanford would be inclined to look beyond stats to see potential (but not necessarily to the point of ignoring a 550 in math with a prospective engineering major).</p>
<p>I am more inclined to agree with Data and Alea here…of the 8 students I know personally this year that were accepted to Stanford (plus many of its peer schools) 7 were lopsided specialists…2 were nationally recruited athletes, 3 were star musicians (national/international/Presidential scholar prize winners), 1 was science/math Olympiad wizard, 1 was CS prodigy…and 1 student was what you would call a general “all-arounder” (as far as I know he did not have a high-level focused specialty)…</p>
<p>I guess my perspective from meeting students accepted this year is I’ve seen many more well-rounded students than specialists. Now, I’m not saying at all to tone town the specialty (I completely agree with Data’s comments on passion), it’s just that having a broad base can be a good sign to Stanford admissions because this fits with their ideas of academic flexibility and intellectual vitality. They love people who like exploring varying intellectual paths and how these may intersect with an area of focus, at least from what I’ve seen and heard. The scientific research of the OP is an excellent demonstration of passion, and her integration with community service reflects very nicely with admissions. I’m saying that in my experience I’ve met many students that seem more well-rounded than specialized, however you’ll find a mix of both on campus at any selective university.</p>
<p>^^I agree littlebuilder that the students should have broad-based knowledge and be well-rounded in their “overall academics” as exemplified in their high GPA and test scores to go along with their “specialization”…</p>
<p>…but, I think, the point that you may be missing is that most of these lopsided “star” students that I mentioned earlier won’t “talk” about their accomplishments in public (even the athletes)…especially in “first encounters” like at AdmitWeekend/cocktail parties or let alone several encounters…it’s like pulling teeth…so, to the casual observer/acquaintance they may all seem just like “normal” all-around guys and gals…as you have noted…</p>
<p>…as I have said in another thread…they don’t like to wear their exceptional knowledge or accomplishments on their sleeves…most are genuinely humble and unassuming… </p>
<p>…many of the fellow students ultimately find out about their colleagues by googling their names in “secret”…I know…right…</p>
<p>Yeah Googling the names of my classmates is quite humbling. I’m almost guaranteed to dig up something extraordinary every time. </p>
<p>It’s really important to remember that there is no “formula” for gaining admission to Stanford. I’ve known a couple people who had NO extracurriculars (I thought their Stanford applications were wastes of time and money until they got their decisions) and who were admitted because the committee liked their Intellectual Vitality or What Matters to You essay. Basically, they just read all the applications and pick the 2,210 that appeal to them most. I feel like the admission officers apply Justice Potter Stewart’s views on pornography to college admission: They can’t describe an ideal Stanford admit, but they know one when they see his/her file. </p>
<p>It’s possible to be well-rounded even if you have a well-defined passion. For instance, I know several people whose passion was music (or debate or law or the environment or tons of other things) yet who still participated in sports, theater, and other activities. </p>
<p>But for the most part, a lot of the people I know (both in high school and now in college) who were admitted to elite schools did one or two activities really well and became passionate about them. They weren’t necessarily national/international champions of those activities, but they did them well enough to earn school-wide and local recognition. By admitting them, colleges were doing a great job of filling specific extracurricular niches.</p>