<p>is it true that stanford's acceptances are a bit random?</p>
<p>random is certainly not the word, it's more of collecting a diverse study body. not specifically diverse as in race, ethnicity etc. but diverse as in educational aspirations and backgrounds. although they do expect high test scores and GPA's, they tend to look past them for a candidate they feel has the potential to succeed acadmically at their insitution. aka, stand out, and of course write a good essay!</p>
<p>Yup, though it is an oversimplification of how the college student selection process seems to work (mostly to those rejected).</p>
<p>Once you are past a certain GPA/SAT threshold (about 3.9+uw/2300+) it tends to be "random" I believe that the essays then become the determining factor.</p>
<p>I think rrielo5 summarized it pretty well. Admissions certainly isn't random, but Stanford is known to be a little bit less quantitative than its peer institutions (HYPM). Stanford does not hesitate to accept a 3.9/2250 student over a 4.0/2300 student if the former writes truly standout essays.</p>
<p>my S applied early to stanford with outstanding grades, test scores, extracurriculars. he wrote a solid essay and has an interesting background growing up... he was rejected, not deferred, but rejected... everyone we knew including the (very experienced) guidance counselors at his (competitive public) h.s. were flabbergasted. so, yes, i would say that there is a random element to admissions at stanford. i'm a bit bitter about the experience and would tell most students not the "blow" their ED/EA card on Stanford unless they will regret not trying for the rest of their lives... btw, my S got accepted to a bunch of other highly selective colleges RD and had an embarrassment of riches to choose from... he is very happy now and never thinks about stanford (though it was a very long, uncomfortable wait from december's rejection until spring acceptances)... good luck with whatever you decide!</p>
<p>My understanding is similar. Your presentation of the 'softer' sides of your application - including ECs, interview, and especially essays - dominate the evaluation, once you're roughly in their target range for stats.</p>
<p>My understanding is also that they have a preference for in-state vs out-of-state, and that the ratio of acceptance rates for instate-vs-out-of-state is more skewed than that of peer institutions.</p>
<p>So I hope you're in California and can write really well. Best,</p>
<p>D</p>
<p>
[quote]
My understanding is also that they have a preference for in-state vs out-of-state, and that the ratio of acceptance rates for instate-vs-out-of-state is more skewed than that of peer institutions.
[/quote]
I don't have time to dig up the numbers right now, but I think Stanford's acceptance rate for in-state and out-of-state are practically identical. It's just that Stanford gets so many more applications from California, so they wind up admitting more students from California (roughly 40% of the class). The admit rate isn't higher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
including ECs, interview, and especially essays
[/quote]
Stanford doesn't do interviews</p>
<p>Stanford is just weird. My friend had a near perfect SAT 2390 and near perfect SAT IIs 800/800/750 was #1/830 students, national merit finalist, great essays and recs, and everything. however, i feel that she got rejected b/c there wans't anything ot set her apart from the other students. The girl who did get accepted last year was a good applicant ( 2100 SATs, 3.9 GPA), but nowhere near as outstanding as my other friend. She got accepted. I think it's because she's a nationally ranked synchro skater...</p>
<p>so it all depends what they're looking for from year to year.</p>
<p>When students who appear in every way outstanding are rejected, it's easy to fall into the trap of explaining it away in terms of the students lacking that "special something," being somehow ordinary while accepted students who appear less academically outstanding were nevertheless more sparkly. I just don't buy it. At the hs with which I'm most familiar, something of a Stanford feeder, a couple of stellar students, who ended up at other superb schools, were rejected from Stanford EA. Even our valedictorian, who was selected not just on the basis of grades but research and other fine qualities, didn't get into her first choice university (not Stanford), while more than a handful of other students were accepted there. Go figure. All of these colleges reject a great number of highly qualified students, and it's not because the students lack charisma, true leadership, or the whole package; it's because there's not enough space! These wonderful students are very, very likely to be accepted at a very fine school, just not necessarily at any particular, specific very fine school. This is why, IMHO, it's a poor idea for seniors to become attached to their One True Love of a college unless their daddies plan to buy the One True Love a very large building. (And with Stanford, rumor has it, Admissions is less impressed by big checks than some other schools we might name...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
with Stanford, rumor has it, Admissions is less impressed by big checks than some other schools we might name...
[/quote]
tell that to Chelsea Clinton, CCSurf</p>
<p>I dunno, I think its fairly random, even some qualified legacies I knew that were rejected, for less qualified non-legacies. I'm sure there was a reason, its just kinda strange whatever the case. And Chelsea Clinton was rich and influential, cant get much better than that.</p>
<p>CCSurfer, i agree with everything you wrote... until the last line! stanford is no less susceptible to certain types of "influence" than any other college or university. let's not get too crazy here defending the lack of space! let's not forget that it was the colleges and universities that stirred up this whole out-of-control admissions frenzy!</p>
<p>Yeah exactly. Fairburn, where does your son go now? He sounds like myself...good thing I didn't waste my time SCEAing at Stanford.</p>
<p>I actually have heard that Stanford considers legacy standing to be much less important than HYPM do. This is just from word of mouth though...of course Stanford admits some developmental/rich&famous people too, but does anybody have info as to whether Stanford's numbers for those types are lower than its peer institutions?</p>
<p>I also don't really understand why people keep saying they don't want to "waste" their EA on Stanford. Is there evidence that Stanford admissions is somehow less fair than HYPM? I think that if you SCEA Stanford, you do it with the knowledge that Stanford's process may be a little bit less numbers-driven and that your essays will carry more weight. I don't think that this, by any means, constitutes "wasting" your time. Nor does it mean that you won't get accepted, or that those who get accepted aren't worthy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also don't really understand why people keep saying they don't want to "waste" their EA on Stanford.
[/quote]
I agree with you, Jimmy. I think people should do EA if the school is their first choice and they want to know the decision sooner. No matter when you apply, there isn't enough room for all the awesome students out there... so do what you feel is best.</p>
<p>And shouldn't you be working on your paper?</p>
<p>"And shouldn't you be working on your paper?"</p>
<p>:(</p>
<p>b4nnd20, my S goes to pomona college.</p>
<p>Lols its been 5 years</p>
<p>Closing old thread.</p>