Screw Stanford

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
21

<p>it just makes me upset, because Stanford was my first choice school, and they really did get my hopes up with their deferral. I was foolish for thinking I actually had a chance after I did all that stuff. I obviously did not qualify for whatever it was they were looking for in the Update Form/ Midyear report. I'm just clueless as to what I could have done differently since my deferral to boost my chances. I did everything under the sun, and they still turned me down, not even waitlisted...</p>

<p>edit: to the above post, I epitomized that-always spending extra time practicing, volunteering, studying, since freshman year, while my friend laughed at me as she did whatever she wanted. Guess what? She got in with ~2000 SAT, virtually zero leadership experience or ECs (though she did lie and put a few down that she really wasn't involved in hardly at all more than paying her dues), but with decent essays.</p>

22

<p>^eek let's not get racist here!
I really don't know why they didn't accept you, but don't be too angry at Stanford, because I along with about 5? other defer-ees at my school got in =x I don't know how many didn't, but feel like they gave you a "polite" reject</p>

23

<p>i dont feel sorry for trackstar23, and im beginning to not like him</p>

24

<p>I don't know ... the more I look at college admissions the more they seem like a crapshoot... seriously! I know of amazing people that were rejected, and mediocre people (like me) who were accepted!
It doesn't make any sense. They don't even judge fully based on merit... they try to do this whole subjective thing where they look at your background and rely so much on "personality" as demonstrated through essays. I think it is wrong-- I feel like they should take it back to where it is a little bit less subjective.
And I can see why people are bitter about URMs... I'm not saying URMs are smarter/dumber or whatever but the fact stands that they get in with significantly lower scores than non URMs... and that is enough to be bitter about!
It would help out if admission were a bit more standardized... but hey I got in (probably due to my essays) and was happy about it last year ... so I am kind of a hypocrite.</p>

25

<p>I think Stanford goes largely on personality and passion. Many who are awesome applicants don't show either in their applications.</p>

26

<p>Well it's easy to say that those who were rejected didn't put passion or personality into their application--- I worked on my easy since the beginning of summer and they certainly were not dull</p>

27

<p>The way I see it, and I could very well be wrong, is that admissions people are not stupid. They know what they want in students. If you don't get accepted, then chances are you might not have been the kind of student who would excel at that particular college or university.</p>

28

<p>I'm just conjecturing, but maybe adcoms don't like to be pestered with 5-page long resumes where you talk about how you washed the wheels of cars at the carwash for your club and worked at the soup kitchen every Christmas or whatever. I don't know. I didn't do any of that stuff (I mean the resume) and I came out fine.</p>

29

<p>um, did you ever think that there were about 40000 other kids who have nearly perfect stats that are better than yours? just because you worked hard in hs doesnt mean other people didnt. did you have MAJOR extra curriculars (something you kept for a long long long time, preferably all 4 yrs of hs???????), or did you spend most of your time studying? my sister was admitted to stanford undergrad 2 yrs ago, and she was able to balance extra currics, good grades, and perfect SAT scores </p>

<p>there are ppl who deserve it, who are NOT black, so don't automatically assume the color of your skin had any effect upon your rejection.</p>

30

<p>I am Asian and got in to Stanford. Tell me I don't deserve it.</p>

<p>Stanford chooses people to build a class they know will add to the vibrancy of the school and that they believe will thrive at the school. Its not your fault you didn't get in.</p>

31

<p>Wow, a lot of you are really condescending:</p>

<p>"I think Stanford goes largely on personality and passion. Many who are awesome applicants don't show either in their applications."</p>

<p>Or maybe they just have too many applicants, and many who do have personality and passion still get denied. Don't make such generalizations like this saying that those who got denied have no personality and didn't deserve to get in.</p>

32

<p>the majority of people who were rejected by Stanford are more than qualified to attend stanford. It's not because you're dumber than people who are accepted that stanford rejected you. See the thing is, stanford or any elite college can choose whoever to build perfect/balanced university. </p>

<p>It's like stanford won't admit all genius who got 4.0 with perfect SAT who also won IMO, IBO, IPho and all science competitions because that will make the student body imbalanced. There would be no one doing humanities or social sciences.</p>

33

<p>I agree with Nineteen. There isn't enough room.</p>

<p>It's not because these kids lacked "personality". Are you joking? How is someone supposed to show their "personality" on an application? Yes, with their essays and their dedication to extracurriculars. Anyone can fake those. I know kids at my school who fake them and are just really good liars.</p>

<p>And no, I don't think colleges can separate the posers from the genuine people. That's why you have some very arrogant, over-the-top people going to some of the best colleges in the country.</p>

<p>If it was truly about "personality", there would be a lot more hardworking students, not just naturally intelligent slackers, getting into the top schools.</p>

<p>I feel sorry for the OP and for those ripping him apart. Please put yourself in his shoes. He is upset and is allowed to be upset and feel emotional because he didn't get into his top choice school. Let the guy have some time to grieve.</p>

<p>For goodness sake..</p>

34

<p>Of course many of these rejects lack "personality".</p>

<p>They personally think that colleges should just accept them because of their perfect SAT score and nothing else.</p>

<p>Colleges know when students pursue things that they truly love or when they pursue things just to improve their chances of getting into a particular colleges.</p>

<p>This is more of a problem with many Asians since they do the exact same EC's, therefore lacking any originality as they do what their parents instruct them to. When these people get rejected they then wonder why their 2400 didn't get them in.</p>

<p>I'm at Stanford right now, and from interacting with the students here I can see why Stanford would easily reject such unorginal "i need to get a 2400 otherwise my life is invalidated" kinda applicants.</p>

35

<p>"This is more of a problem with many Asians since they do the exact same EC's, therefore lacking any originality as they do what their parents instruct them to. When these people get rejected they then wonder why their 2400 didn't get them in."</p>

<p>You know what's a bigger problem? People like you who help spread the Asian stereotype (lacking personality, math grinds). </p>

<p>Yeah, blame the Asians, because it's easy. Are you kidding me? The stereotype of Asians is perpetuated by people like yourself, who actually believe such things. There are Asians out there that like math and science, and would still like math and science even if their parents didn't pressure them. And just because there are many Asians with similar interests doesn't mean that they lack "originality". They are pursuing what they love, and not something "exotic" just to please adcoms. Geez.</p>

<p>I'm Asian. I like literature, philosophy and politics. I am not the only one. There are many, many Asians out there that have a variety of interests. It's sad that there are people out there that actually believe this stuff.</p>

<p>Yes, some of the rejects lack "personality". I don't think one application is adequate enough to show personality, nor is it a very good measure. And there are lots of fakers. An application is not the end-all be-all of "personality". In any case, I think it has more to do with how you present yourself on such an application, rather than any absence of "personality".</p>

<p>There are many, many people who are rejected. But I don't believe for one second that most of them are rejected because they lack personality.</p>

36

<p>"Well it's easy to say that those who were rejected didn't put passion or personality into their application--- I worked on my easy since the beginning of summer and they certainly were not dull"</p>

<p>Yet, from your post in February:
"is it a joke because i thought i had no shot of gettn in i decided to apply the weak before the deadline and wrote my essays in under 2 hours"</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3638327#post3638327%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3638327#post3638327&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Trackstar, the problems with making up stories is that they are so darn hard to keep straight!</p>

37

<p>"Or maybe they just have too many applicants, and many who do have personality and passion still get denied. Don't make such generalizations like this saying that those who got denied have no personality and didn't deserve to get in."</p>

<p>Hmm, can you point out where I said that all or most of those rejected didn't have personality or passion? No, you can't, because I never said it. For one thing, I said many; for another, I said didn't show personality or passion (I never said they didn't have it).</p>

<p>You'll notice, more often than not, that a person who was rejected from Stanford spread him or herself out too thin and didn't show a passion for something specific. And, again, you'll often see many of those accepted show a passion for something specific, but weren't the uber-amazing-wow applicants.</p>

<p>Stanford chooses their ~2,500 students (of the ~23,000 who applied) by meticulous scrutiny and discussion. It's not as though they single out the great applicants and randomly choose 2,500 students. No, they continue to narrow down the pool until they get roughly that number. Those applicants are the ones who showed a personality: academic excellence and integrity, intellectual curiosity and vitality; and a passion: distinguishing characteristics such as awards or events, coupled with their ECs and essays, classes and intended major -- all would, ideally, show a focus.</p>

<p>Sure, they have to deny many excellent applicants (some of whom go to Harvard, or Yale, or Princeton, or MIT), but they eliminate them because they find others to be stronger applicants. They consider each applicant in the context of the entire pool.</p>

<p>In the end, I'm saying that many of those rejected showed neither passion nor personality, even if overall they're awesome applicants.</p>

<p>to murkywater:</p>

<p>There may not be enough room, but again, many rejectees don't show what the college wants. And what really distinguishes Stanford--and indeed all top university--students is that despite the limitations of the application, they showed who they are. Notice, also, that I said Stanford's admissions seem to depend on personality and passion. Those hardworking students who show a personality may not have shown a focus.</p>

38

<p>go ahead enjoy your "superiority" because you are accepted at stanford and continue to stigmatize rejects who are obviously lacking "personality" and "passion" </p>

<p>I am done with this thread.</p>

39

<p>I am inclined to disagree. There are way too many applicants for them to really be like 'Hm, yeah, this applicant is way better because of X and X.' For about 85% of the applicants, I can see them doing this. But for the last 15%, it is very, very hard to distinguish, and I believe that most of the last applicants to be weeded out do not lack any passion or personality. I don't mean to reduce the adcom's efforts, because they are very notable and probably one of the hardest things to do is to reject an applicant that they would have admitted if there was enough room.</p>

<p>Also, pearlygate.. Kyle isn't a Stanford kid. We're both juniors. Please get your facts straight.</p>

40

<p>Pearlygate, thank you for your support. Some posters are really adding insult to injury. Just because one person got into Stanford doesn't mean they know what Stanford is looking for. Heck, I spent years devoted to everything Stanford is looking for, or so I thought (No need to make a post that trying to do what Stanford wanted was my problem. I did what I like to do (except studying way too much) but I also made sure that I would be able to demonstrate those interests). It's really unfortunate that some posters think they know you and why you did/did not get into a given college. The only one who knows me is me and I know that they made a mistake. Only time will tell but the wounds Stanford has given me will hurt for a very long time</p>