Stanford and Private School Admissions - A Mystery

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
1

<p>I thought I'd start a thread asking people what they thought. Someone was commenting on the thread about how a student with great numerical stats, but few EC's, likely wouldn't make it into Stanford, while students with something "unique" in their application could, even at the price of scores.</p>

<p>A disclaimer - I consider myself in the category of the well scoring student, but want to make a case to try to understand why it's so hard for private universities to classify what they want in students. Most importantly, I am not discrediting any sort of student or university here, so if you comment, I'd appreciate only constructive ones. Here was my post in the prior mentioned thread (reproduced):</p>

<p>--</p>

<p>Excerpt to someone's post to which I respond: "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>--</p>

2

<p>As a note, I think a university like Cal admits more easily the "high scoring but nothing else" type, because they just have more slots available. Not so with super selective private universities.</p>

3

<p>Well, I think the uniqueness of Stanford is what makes people want to go there. </p>

<p>By the way, I've been looking but haven't found it.....mathboy, do you know what percentage of the student body at Cal are American Indian?</p>

4

<p>"uniqueness of Stanford is what makes people want to go there. "</p>

<p>Perhaps for a good number of people, sure. I guess they do the best they can with uniqueness, but you know, I think people can be fairly unique in ways that don't appear in applications - you have to meet them to find out. Of course, a university generally can only do so much.</p>

5

<p>Oh, and I wasn't aware of this - someone, I believe kyledavid, mentioned at some point that Cal (just UC's in general?) publish statistics of how many people GET IN from different categories. </p>

<p>Not sure if this includes something about student body. I'd go look - I myself don't have somewhere to point you!</p>

6

<p>Really, that's interesting. Do you think it would be on their website?</p>

7

<p>I guess! I mean, assuming they put this stuff up, it seems like it! I'm only recalling what I think he said, so I won't make guarantees of course =]</p>

8

<p>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.</p>

<p>I'd say virtually everyone admitted to Stanford is really academic. Roughly 95% of the admitted class had unweighted GPAs of 3.75 or higher (undoubtedly with the most rigorous or almost most rigorous course load available) and about 93% of students were in the top 10% of their graduating class.
The <em>only</em> thing that's really unpredictable about Stanford's admissions is the way they view SAT scores. I'd say Stanford, more so than other schools, de-emphasizes SAT/ACT scores a lot (with the possible exception of SAT 2s). This isn't limited to just Stanford either. A lot of schools are beginning to realize SATs don't mean much and have been dropping it as a requirement; Stanford's really just the only top 10 university that's seemingly (ie-without any actual evidence to back up this claim) been working itself towards dropping it as a requirement so far. AND EVEN SO, Stanford still manages to pull off one of the highest SAT score ranges out of any school in the nation. Sure it's a bit lower than HYPM and Caltech, but not by a lot (with the exception of Caltech which has really high scores, due to high SAT 1 Math ranges of 770-800). Yale's math range, for instance is 700-790, while Stanford's is 680-780. Are you going to tell me that that's really much of a difference? </p>

<p>So see, even though Stanford seems to make "odd" choices, and even rejects incredibly qualified (academically) students, the incoming class each year still manages to to be very impressive in terms of GPA, rank and even SATs.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: you may be wondering where I got these statistics from, but a while ago Stanford sent me a brochure type thing along with a viewbook, and they listed all of these statistics in there. I'm sure they're also somewhere on the website as well. They also had statistics for the racial breakdown of the student body, so Stanford isn't THAT mysterious with its data.</p>

9

<p>Yeah, what really impresses me, being a Native American, is Stanford's Native community. It is rivaled by no other school in the country, both in the percent of Native undergrads (4%) and what students there actually do. It's really quite amazing. </p>

<p>And, without thinking of diversity, Stanford really does attract amazing students. Like Hippo said, Stanford still has awesome ranges even without emphasizing standardized testing like some other top schools. </p>

<p>Can we talk about SAT IIs though? What did you mean, they don't really de-emphasize them like the SAT I, ACT, etc.?</p>

10

<p>For undergraduate, Stanford and Ivy schools look for political leaders more than intellectuals. That was probably why Bill Gates left H. If you brilliant, go to a strong undergraduate like Chicago, Williams, Carleton, Tufts, Ponoma, etc... and then go to one of the top ten schools for graduate program. It's better</p>

11

<p>"I'd say virtually everyone admitted to Stanford is really academic."</p>

<p>See, this is where I would call the students you speak of "good students." I'd not yet call them "really academic." But this isn't disagreement with you, it's just my choice of terminology from above. Because I think there are QUITE a few students who take lots of AP classes and such, and these guys end up all over the place at a bunch of good schools. I'm saying Stanford doesn't consistently admit the MOST academic student body possible, or even close - meaning I would not say that everyone with good scores in high school is academic to the same degree. My point above was that it may be hard to distinguish who these are, and their true colors come out in college, often. I make a distinction between awesome high school students and ACADEMIC students. The kinds who'll chase after top grad schools and such are much fewer in number than those who'll chase after good undergrad schools, I think.</p>

<p>And I don't at all think Stanford should start emphasizing SAT's more at all, whew, that's one very good thing they do - take SAT's with a grain (however large) of salt.</p>

12

<p>Most importantly as someone alluded to earlier Stanford realizes that it is more than academic playground and that the most important learning comes from bringing people from different backgrounds together and having them on Undergraduate Senate advocating for students, or at the dining table debating policy, or 3 o clock in the morning in the dorm room on study break. Stanford is so amazing because it values test scores but not at the index of "social scores". A lot of Stanford students have 2200 SAT's but also were cheerleaders, or class Presidents and have GREAT social skills. I must say Stanford is the first really " smart" place where the people for the most part weren't socially awkward.
Stanford truly looks for people who are Well-rounded....people who figured how to be freakishly intelligent and good people skills.</p>

13

<p>All good points. I guess one thing to add to my own assessment is that a school like Stanford specifically WANTS certain variety in its students.</p>

14

<p>I suspected that all along, but wanted to see if people chimed in.</p>

15

<p>Great post, MR. Tubbz! I agree; I'd be surprised if some Stanford students (with the exception of maybe athletes) aren't academic. They may not have 2400 SATs, but they love learning and have a high degree of intellect.</p>

16

<p>I don't understand the principle here.</p>

<p>My friend's Stanford math class has six IMO medalists. </p>

<p>Oh, but they're not academic at all! Please stop saying that admit anyone who is not stellar as a way to rationalize denial (whether it be yours or not). SAT scores do not determine capability, and AP classes, sometimes GPA don't either when you're stuck in a ghetto with few opportunities.</p>

17

<p>^ Agreed. I wish people would just get over Stanford Admissions. If you have a problem with it, don't apply.</p>

18

<p>My friend thinks for private schools in general...</p>

<p>They roll a dice.</p>

<p>Feelin lucky? ;)</p>

19

<p>However, as everyone knows, every school wants something different and most want genuine uniqueness in the class they select. Stanford is highly slective, congrats to those who were admitted--- there's no secret formula, just the theory do well academically/ be well rounded.</p>

<p>And -be- passionate about something, then act on it.</p>

20

<p>I think there's confusion over what "academic" means. And it seems that mathboy98 means that it's having high "numbers." Let's look at the different numbers in the admissions process:</p>

<p>-SAT
-SAT IIs
-GPA
-rank</p>

<p>The average W GPA is something like a 4.4, and about 94% of the students were in the top 10% of their classes, so I don't think that Stanford's lacking in those areas. As for SAT IIs, I don't think Stanford has released statistics on those, so we can't say. But as for the SAT, it seems that Stanford de-emphasizes them: sure, students may have super-high SAT scores, but it doesn't see as much difference between a 2200 and a 2350.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that Stanford is looking for much more than the "numbers" student, or as you'd say, the "academic" student. They're looking for students who are engaged in what they do; this could mean students who are heavily involved in a few ECs, or students who are very talented in something, or students who are simply passionate about something (like learning languages, or designing airplanes, or whathaveyou). This may be what someone meant by being "unique."</p>

<p>So I'd say that this facet of Stanford's admissions is expressly NOT "anti-intellectual"--quite the contrary. It seems that Stanford is looking for not so much "academic students" as "intellectual students"--students who are engaged, passionate, and dedicated. Notice that Stanford requires more essays than its elite counterparts; namely, a long essay, three shorter essays, and a bunch of short short essays. As at many top schools, the numbers--the "academic" part--will get you "to the door," but it's the rest of the application--your essays, your ECs, your recommendations, etc.--that get you "through the door." Stanford puts more weight on the latter, and justifiably so.</p>

<p>Most of this post is directly from Stanford's admissions site/FAQ. Stanford doesn't make what it's looking for a "mystery," but the fact that what it looks for is more intangible may make it seem "mysterious."</p>