<p>"but I think it reflects something disturbingly shallow and anti-intellectual about Stanford."</p>
<p>I have thought a lot about this. And concluded that the faculty at Stanford is all too brilliant, and the departments all too strong....then WHY this really bewildering admissions policy, which almost no Stanford student can claim to decode? Why NOT just let in the students one thinks would be most likely to be "the most academic"? (I make a disclaimer, I am not being elitist and saying only the most academic students DESERVE anything...just commenting at how the policy is bewildering, and with no simple pattern of description.)</p>
<p>There are two reasons that come to mind for me. One, Stanford realizes that the best students will never stop applying to it. And some of these, I think, they let in. Some of them don't get in, and go elsewhere and end up doing great. Instead, Stanford admits a variety of people for a variety of reasons, to maintain some distribution among its students...and nobody complains, because a good portion of Stanford students actually ARE really academic. Perhaps the only thing we can legitimately criticize is how shrouded in mystery the admissions policy is. </p>
<p>The second reason is that I don't think Stanford OR private schools has a great way of judging WHAT a student with good scores will do with his/her time there. After all, they haven't revealed enough about what they're good at or want to do in college, where there is some degree of specialization required. So how to judge them?!! I even would say that our high schooling system in the U.S. is in some ways responsible for the difficulty in distinguishing students...it's all real generic. Half the kids take AP Calculus and AP history, regardless of what they want to do in college. The only way a math/science kid shines really is by doing Olympiads and such, and not everyone is interested in those. The point is, a lot of people seem "the same" based on a high school application, but really are not once they get to college and start getting to choose from a huge set of departments what to do with their time.</p>
<p>Maybe someone could suggest that private schools ONLY admit the highest scorers...but really, a few points on the SAT don't distinguish students. So, while they do make REALLY REALLY unacademic admissions offers at times, these schools I'd say are run the way they are because of the current state of affairs?</p>
<p>I am open to lots of thoughts on this. Just sort of a random musing of mine.</p>
<p>rofl admiting students based on test scores ^.. soo stupid. I personally like Stanford's process. It's random, but some amazing and interesting people are picked from it. I personally know many people who are just sooo "uninteresting". All they do is study, try to do as many clubs as possible, and do other things to get their rep up. Stanford in a way sees past this. My friend who got in last year, is not the smartest of kids lets just say, but his life story is really inspiring. I know he will be sucessful because of it. Stanford wants "unique" kids.</p>
<p>would skating be looked down upon by universities, cuz im truly passionate about it but i just feel that most colleges would think it won't contribute to the community</p>
And what a joke that a serious university might indeed be swayed by skateboarding more than by 15 APs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're a joke. Colleges should reject kids with that many APs in defiance of the college board. There are other ways to show you're smart, and AP is not even much of an indicator of intellect. You can achieve a 4 on half of the exams with only a month's worth of cramming if you plan correctly.</p>
<p>If the skateboarder kid did not take any APs and also submitted a supplementary 20-page paper on linguistics, then I would definitely take him over the kid with no life and 15 APs.</p>
<p>"There are other ways to show you're smart, and AP is not even much of an indicator of intellect. You can achieve a 4 on half of the exams with only a month's worth of cramming if you plan correctly."</p>
<p>I agree with this, and this poster may be interested to see the latest developments of my thread asserting exactly that scores aren't taken seriously for a reason. </p>
<p>However, I do not agree with the attitude of the poster - because the one to whom he's responding is expressing a concern that I think is legitimate. I think a lot should be done to actually lend some weight to high scores from high school and on AP's. Let's not forget that a lot of what a high school student does is study. I think it's kind of silly that nowadays, that doesn't matter very much, and something "unique" that has nothing to do with high school studies HAS to be why people are accepted. Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate unique individuals, and think they lend color to campuses, but I think we should address the heart of the problem -- which is why scores don't mean much anymore.</p>
<p>^ Well, it's not that scores do not matter. I just believe that they are starting to discriminate against alleged score-grubbers. To take 6 or so APs before you apply is reasonable, but 15 is ridiculous. I get the feeling that with the AP program and SAT Subject Tests students are aiming more to get high scores in whichever subjects they can as opposed to studying their genuine interests.</p>
<p>I have friends that opted out of taking an honors philosophy course that is known to be the hardest humanities class you can take because the class wasn't AP. The class is more difficult than any AP humanities course, but students won't take the risk of getting a B in a non-AP class. Students will not learn for the sake of learning.</p>
<p>I believe that the academic standard is still high, but that many posters here are underestimating the power of recommendations (GC, two teachers) and GPA. The colleges are fairly good at determining which schools have grade inflation. Furthermore, teachers and GC's will give an accurate idea of how much a student studies and to what extent they thrive academically.</p>
<p>Finally, even if you do not accept my point of view, all the admitted students' stats that I have seen this year are rather high. I just think that some posters put too much weight on the difference between a 2200 and a 2400, which is rather small when you consider how sharply the curve rises on the high end. I cannot think of a student that hasn't listed high AP scores either. Where are you getting the idea that academically successful students are discriminated against in the process? My understanding is that all those students with a distinguishing factor or unique attribute are academically successful (to the extent we can determine this with CB tests)...and their distinguishing factor is just a bonus.</p>
<p>End note: My posts tend to come off pointed, but this post reads as genuinely inquisitive in my inner monologue. I respect the questions you are raising and have found myself asking the same ones.</p>
<p>Brendanww - I see that we actually agree in general. I was mainly responding to the "You're a joke" remark, because I felt like there is something to be considered in what the poster was saying, even if I don't agree 15 AP's is in and of itself amazing.</p>
<p>I am in fact all for how the universities conduct their admissions process right now GIVEN the current state of affairs. At one point, I actually argued against someone that scoring super high on the SAT I (like a 2350) actually means a ton, regardless of how hard it is to achieve.</p>
<p>My own personal view on how to improve our system (to better give universities info about the students it's accepting) actually would work to discourage this 15 AP's business. I'm in favor of much more rigorous AP classes, which actually reflect more of the students' abilities in the respective areas. Right now, every other fellow can take AP Calculus, AP History, and a ton of other AP's and do well in them, and I know personally a fair number of cases where students just really good at math and physics didn't get recognized...because others had the same 5 they did on the AP Physics tests, and these guys had nothing "unique" to show. My issue is that I don't believe all 5-ers are the same - not even close to all 5-ers can really succeed in the most rigorous curricula at the top universities; I know for a fact, for instance, how well some of these do in the Berkeley EE program. My view is that a 5 in AP Calculus should really reflect that you can go out there and ace college math, and a 5 in AP Physics correspondingly. Which I do not believe they do currently.</p>
<p>"At one point, I actually argued against someone that scoring super high on the SAT I (like a 2350) actually means a ton, regardless of how hard it is to achieve."</p>
<p>Bad phrasing - I am here agreeing with you that we shouldn't obsess over SAT I scores.</p>
<p>Mainly, I am sad that certain students who don't do many EC's, and just have high scores, are all called "THE SAME, not unique enough." Because they're NOT all the same. And in fact, it's not that the 2300-ers are going to be better off than the 2200-ers. I think using the SAT to predict success is highly dangerous anyway. The only good indicator of success, in my opinion, is demonstrated ability in a good high school curriculum, where AP's are really rigorous, and can't be aced by an inflated number of individuals.</p>
<p>I believe upping the levels of AP's and SAT II's will automatically cause lots of high schools to wake up and rise to the challenge. After all, AP courses are meant to prep you for the AP tests to an extent at least ;)</p>
<p>In our school in order to get the designation of "took the most rigourous courseload", the student needs to take at least 11 AP's. This is a chicken or the egg situation for many students who would be happy to take fewer AP's if they could still get the coveted "most rigourous courseload designation which they can't unless they take the AP's.</p>