<p>Many good reasons to apply. Many great programs. But kids should get a bead on what advances their chances, what S really looks for. </p>
<p>Admit rate is not a reflection of the quality of the school. It is a reflection of high school senior’s perception of the school. If 40,000 people applied to a community college, the admit rate would be low.</p>
<p>@tk21769. I’m sorry but you seem to be leaving out something very important…with your misguided misinformation
… done much simple web research?</p>
<p><a href=“Subject Ranking 2013-14: Arts & Humanities | Times Higher Education (THE)”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/subject-ranking/subject/arts-and-humanities</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do parents cloud every thread with their assertions countering claims that haven’t even been made? Where did anyone on this thread say that the admissions percentage equates to the quality of the institution? Those of us attesting to Stanford’s quality were doing so in response to the remarks implying Stanford wasn’t that great, a conclusion that also can’t be drawn from the 5.1% admissions rate. It’s a data point that indicates that a lot of students (and their parents) regard the school highly and wish for a chance to attend. It’s also a statistic taken into consideration by various ranking systems, which in turn impact the institution’s reputation and prestige–whether it should or not. Let’s be honest, for years reputation (leading to high application numbers) was a key factor that kept the same few schools at the top of the rankings lists, and few people questioned whether the reputation of HYP was deserved or not. Now that Stanford is right there along with them, the statistic means nothing?</p>
<p>Um- numerator AND denominator. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why we still compare Stanford with HYP? Stanford did not even bother to release its numbers till it had to… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a very good point as there seems to be a very interesting culture developing at Stanford: there is a techy culture there, but also a sports culture, and a social entrepreneurship, and an international relations, and a humanities culture. But there seems to be a fusion culture emerging that is fun to watch. STEM is not separate but rather is getting integrated in:</p>
<p>There is NO better picture that summarizes this as this one:
<a href=“http://elitedaily.com/sports/revenge-nerds-stanford-players-wear-nerd-glasses-post-game-press-conference/”>http://elitedaily.com/sports/revenge-nerds-stanford-players-wear-nerd-glasses-post-game-press-conference/</a></p>
<p>After a big win and potentially win and potentially on the way to the title game and this is what they do in a national audience.</p>
<p>And of course, the cowbell guy at the Sweet 16 - a mechanical engineering major passionately supporting the basketball team in a non-traditional way:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/03/27/ncaa-tournament-made-famous-among-the-madness-the-stanford-cowbell-player-keeps-rocking-out/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/03/27/ncaa-tournament-made-famous-among-the-madness-the-stanford-cowbell-player-keeps-rocking-out/</a></p>
<p>Oh, and want to know what the woman who is likely to be topic draft pick for the WNBA does, besides getting an IR degree and developing a relationship with former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimo4etmKMM”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimo4etmKMM</a></p>
<p>Part of their long term success will depend on how much the country and the world value this fusion. It is interesting to see that Stanford is going, in part, for “Nerd Nation” while one would think that is the mantle for MIT. At the same time, Yale is investing loads of money in Engineering and CS. These are interesting times.</p>
<p>Yes, I understand that there are superstars and sports fans at all top colleges and Stanford is not unique about that - I am more intrigued by how this is all seemingly blending together at Stanford.</p>
<p>Athletes have a different experience at Stanford. Upon arriving on The Farm as freshman, they are not secreted off to an all athlete dorm. They move in on that first day, just like everyone else, and meet their roommate for the first time as they haul their belongings into their new digs. Football players and cellists, gymnasts and rowers…every combo you can think of exists in every freshman dorm. fThey spend their first year bonding with all sorts of kids with whom, on the surface, it would appear they have nothing in common. It has made for an amazingly rich experience for our D. The other two major universities she was recruited by would have given her a great education, but her world would have been more athletically insular. Just another reason why we think Stanford is special.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I made an observation about the admit rate being so low. I expressed an opinion. An opinion is not “misinformation”. I’m familiar with the T.H.E. and Shanghai (ARWU) rankings and their methodologies. They are strongly influenced by faculty publication and citation volumes, which in my opinion are not necessarily very good indicators of undergraduate program quality. </p>
<p>However, if you want to know what information suggests to me that Stanford’s ranking is a little inflated (not grossly inflated), here are a few comparisons:
First, it has bigger classes (in terms of percentage >= 50 students) of any T20 national university other than Cornell, Berkeley, and MIT.<br>
Second, Caltech, five Ivies, Harvey Mudd, Chicago, and MIT all have higher average test scores (75th percentile SAT M+CR).<br>
Third, Stanford has a lower 4 year graduation rate than all of the Ivies, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, WashU, Duke, JHU, ND, or Rice.
Fourth, it doesn’t show up in the top 10 for PhD production overall, or in any major arts & science subcategory (<a href=“Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College”>http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a>). In this measurement, it is outperformed by Caltech, MIT, Chicago, Princeton, Rice, Brown, Cornell … and quite a few LACs. </p>
<p>Stanford’s US News rank seems to be driven up by its very high subjective Peer Assessment score, which is probably driven up by the deservedly high opinion academics have of its faculty quality and research output. If you measured only objective indicators of undergraduate quality, I suspect its ranking would drop a few spots. </p>
<p>I’m familiar with Stanford’s awesome faculty and financial resources, since one of my kids is a PhD candidate there. However, he says if he had to do college over again, he’d never choose a research university over a liberal arts college. He seems to think the classes are too big and the classroom teaching isn’t as good at Stanford. Of course, he couldn’t possibly have sampled more than a few classes there. I’m sure many teachers are superb.</p>
<p>To repeat, I think Stanford is great.<br>
It’s just that I don’t think it is so much greater than the alternatives that it is worth the trouble, for most top students, to gamble against a 5.1% admit rate. You can get smaller classes, comparable academics (in many arts & science fields), and a more interesting setting than Palo Alto at many of the other 50-60 colleges that claim to meet 100% of demonstrated need. </p>
<p>Why do we still compare Stanford with HYP? </p>
<p>Why do we use the sticks of class size, SAT scores, even better the 75th percentile SAT M+CR, or USNWR to measure Stanford? Why can Stanford not find a few 2400ers or 36ers to raise its averages. </p>
<p>Why did those 43000 students apply to Stanford? Why did they not know the basic facts? Why will eventually about the 80% of admits attend Stanford? </p>
<p>Why do we use our own kids to measure a school good or bad? Besides some numbers we can get from them, what else do we know? If you want, my son did go to Stanford and went to Google. If that was the motivation for my daughter, she applied and was rejected last year. She had to settle with one of the not-so-good choices at State University of New Jersey at Princeton, after turning down the chilly New Heaven School and the low-tech school at Cambridge. She had a 2400 SAT and a 36 on ACT, all in one sitting. Why was she not qualified for Stanford? Even at this famous depressing NJ school, she has a 3.8 GPA so far.</p>
<p>Why are we so yesterday?</p>
<p>You mean there is no touted grade deflation at the State university of New Jersey or 2400/36 kids are superior beings at the state university? :D</p>
<p>@ewho. I feel your pain. I empathize with your daughter’s depressing NJ school…our K1 can’t wait to graduate from the other “dream” school and get back to Cali…</p>
<p>
I’m guessing by ranking you mean USNWR and are basing the stats on USNWR criteria that is listed in the tables, which are visible to subscribers. Focusing on such numbers without looking into the reasons for the differences can be misleading. There are actually good reasons for the differences that you listed, which in some cases are reasons many students would favor Stanford. </p>
<p>For example, you mentioned a higher percentage of class size of 50+. ~70% of Stanford class have under 20 students, ~80% have under 30, and small portion are over 50. The 50+ class are primarily introductory lectures in foundation requirements that are taken by many or intro classes in popular majors. Many selective colleges control major size and ultimately size of certain intro classes by admitting students to a specific major/school/division and making it difficult for students to switch from a less popular major to a popular major. Stanford does not do this. If 25% of the class wants to major in CS, Stanford lets 25% of the class declare a major in CS. Many selective colleges have limited spacing for popular classes, so one needs to rush to sign up quickly and get a spot before the class reaches max size. Stanford does not generally do this. Instead they add sections to accommodate however many people want to take the class and let the class size grow however large it needs to . Many selective colleges split up larger classes into smaller sizes taught by less experienced persons, in some cases grad students. Stanford generally does not do this. Instead it’s common for intro lectures to be taught by an expert and top name in the field. For example, one of my most memorable classes at Stanford was intro bio class taught by Robert Sapolsky. An amazing person at the top of his field was teaching an intro bio class to underclassmen. Some of my friends who did not attend Stanford read the Salpolsky books I had for textbooks for fun. They are that interesting. His lectures also were incredible, particularly when talking about his experiences darting wild baboons in Africa and measuring hormone levels. After lectures we’d break into small sections where we could ask questions and get more individual attention. Sure Stanford could have had split the class into several different intro classes taught by less experienced persons or had the grad student section leaders teach separate classes, but I’m glad they did not and I had a chance to take a class taught by Sapolsky. </p>
<p>Regarding test scores, yes some colleges have slightly higher 75th percentile scores. These are generally colleges with higher admit rates and lower yield that usually lose cross admits to Stanford. The most likely explanation for this is Stanford places less emphasis on test scores than the schools you listed, not that Stanford is less selective. Different persons have different opinions on this policy, but I agree with placing less emphasis on test scores.</p>
<p>Regarding 4-year graduation rate, it’s common for Stanford students to enter coterminal masters programs where they simultaneously work towards a bachelors and masters, and finish both degrees in ~5 years. I did 2 of these, so I simultaneously worked towards a bachelors and 2 masters. Many selective colleges make it far more difficult to pursue grad degrees while an undergrad, so I’d consider this program a big positive for Stanford, even though it interferes with 4-year graduation rates. If you look at 6-year graduation rate, then Stanford falls in the middle of the ivies and does notably better than other selective colleges with a similar percent of students in tech/CS majors.</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with PhD production rates, but if you look at what Stanford students as a whole have accomplished after graduation, it rivals any college. For example, Stanford would do quite well at rate of students who founded successful companies or number of jobs created by Stanford grads (2012 study estimated the total at over 5 million jobs).</p>
<p>"Many selective colleges control major size and ultimately size of certain intro classes by admitting students to a specific major/school/division and making it difficult for students to switch from a less popular major to a popular major. "</p>
<p>Yeah, but Stanford’s competition doesn’t do this, unless you’re including Berkeley as a Stanford peer. None of HYPMC do it, nor does Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, etc. Nor do they cap classes instead of adding sections the way you’re describing.</p>
<p>“If you look at 6-year graduation rate, then Stanford falls in the middle of the ivies”</p>
<p>Yeah, but if you’re trying to counter the argument that Stanford’s #1-in-the-country admit rate outpaces its performance on some other measures, that data point isn’t helpful.</p>
<p>Why not just say that Stanford is in world-class company on virtually all measures of student strength, and that being #1 in admit rate and #4 or whatever in SATs, versus some other combination of single-digit, world-class achievements, simply doesn’t matter? That’s my point of view about Stanford and its closest peers. This is angels dancing on the head of a pin.</p>
<p>
Some of the colleges you listed admit by school. For example, Columbia has different degrees of selectivity for Fu engineering and their general college. It’s my understand that it’s difficult to switch from one school to the other, so one could not get admitted to the less selective school than easily switch majors to the more selective school upon admission. There have been posters in the Stanford forum who did their undergrad at colleges you mentioned and seemed surprised by not having to rush to sign-up for classes at Stanford.
The post I replied to claimed Stanford’s USNWR ranking was inflated, not anything related to being the #1 school in the country. The point was not that graduation rate was #1 or comparable to it’s admit rate, it was that the grad rate is not suggestive of an inflated ranking. There is only 1 college in the United States that has a 6-year grad rate more than 1% above Stanford (less than 1% may be negligible and related to rounding), and all of the few colleges that exceed Stanford have far fewer tech/CS majors. I expect you’ll find notably different 6-year rates for different majors, and tech/CS will be on the lower end for a variety of reasons, including experience working.<br>
I agree with this.</p>
<p>GO Stanford!!!</p>
<p>Go Card! :)>- </p>
<p>“Some of the colleges you listed admit by school. For example, Columbia has different degrees of selectivity for Fu engineering and their general college.”</p>
<p>The C in HYPMC is Caltech, not Columbia. Columbia, Penn, and Cornell admit into specific colleges, but none of the universities I listed do that.</p>
<p>tk, the only schools that can be considered as a legit peer of Stanford are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT and Caltech. Those are the only schools where Stanford losses cross-admit students to. Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn, Brown, Northwestern, Cornell, Vanderbilt and etc are also great schools. But none of them can claim to have won in a cross-admit battle against Stanford. </p>
<p>But it doesn’t MATTER. Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn et all ARE great schools and it doesn’t matter if they “win” in cross-admit battles against Stanford. People of any kind of sophistication don’t say “but what do other people choose?” as part of their own decision-making process. You make what decision is best for yourself and your own tastes and preference. </p>