<p>By the way, the stats I was referring to about the UC schools can be found using StatFinder. Google it.</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>
<p>This seems very true. And Kyle, I guess I am in a sense trying to see why it HAS to be mysterious, and what dimensions make "higher numbers" truly not enough. You are right on the dot in saying there's confusion as to what "academic" means among posters! My definition of "academic" is a little different from just "high numbers" though. But it certainly involves a heavy element of it. It's like....the kinds of guys who're always reading out of excitement about a subject of interest, etc. It's the kind of person who'd dream of being a researcher or a professor, perhaps, rather than dreaming of doing business. ACADEMIC. Not just "intelligent." It's a very specific term, really, and should carry neither a positive nor negative connotation.</p>
<p>I'm not going to bother responding to posters who're claiming I don't think there are highly academic STanford students, because they've not read my own post carefully, and mistook it for a bashing on the admissions process.</p>
<p>However, Kyle did address one specific concern, which is why numbers cannot cut it.</p>
<p>I honestly think people (without explicitly stating) seem to be concluding what I did, which is that there may not be enough outlets in high school to distinguish the different good scorers ACADEMICALLY. Intellectually, as Kyle put it, maybe. But not academically. </p>
<p>I think perhaps my definition of "academic" is itself just a bit hard to fully grasp, maybe because it was conceived in my own head with a very specific vision. But I really have a good idea of the class of people I'm describing.</p>
<p>"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;"</p>
<p>Another key point. </p>
<p>OK here is perhaps a slightly clarifying image -- I'd consider a school like Caltech or Harvey Mudd catering to ACADEMIC students. They're not purely about SAT's either, but I think they're looking for hardcore obsessive students, obsessive far beyond the level of your standard high scorer, I'd say. And certainly passionate about math/science (now, I don't know of the equivalent for the humanities and social sciences).</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's like....the kinds of guys who're always reading out of excitement about a subject of interest, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm, I think that's exactly the kind of student that Stanford's looking for. In fact, on the front of the acceptance package, it says, in big font:</p>
<p>["spoiler" alert, for current applicants :p]
[quote]
For all the times you stayed up late to get it right; practiced, rehearsed, and gave it your all; studied something because you loved it, not because it would be on the test; took a risk instead of following the easy path; volunteered your time, talent, and energy; we applaud you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd also say that those who dream of being a researcher are the kinds of students that Stanford looks for as well. That's probably why such a significant portion of Stanford's students go on to graduate school, and why some two thirds of students do research as an undergrad (given that Stanford has a ton of students in humanities and typically less research-intensive fields, that's significant). After all, Stanford is a major research university.</p>
<p>It's really hard to quantify how many such "academic" students (by your definition) actually get in, and is probably more driven by personal observation and anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>I think one conclusion we can make is that Stanford is looking for a big variety of students--the hardcore 'academic' ones you mentioned, the ones dedicated to what they do, the talented/unique ones, etc.</p>
<p>"Notice that Stanford requires more essays than its elite counterparts;"
In term of essay, Tufts university at its best:
Tufts</a> Tests For Creativity--Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Others Should too. - BusinessWeek</p>
<p>Mathboy, your input is interesting but, really, do you not have better things to talk about on here?</p>
<p>But, hey, thanks for that StatFinder....it's really interesting.</p>
<p>I agree with the comments from kyledavid about the essays. Of all the college apps I completed over the summer (about 11 to be exact), Stanford's was the best and most rewarding, IMO. It really gave me a chance to express and show various facets of my personality and a chance to show that my intellectual vitality was not just my ACT/AP scores.
I applaud Stanford for making its students do these essays. While time-consuming and very stressful, I think the best essays I wrote were for Stanford. Most of all, they gave me a chance to show my intellect firsthand, which maybe couldn't have been so obvious with some of my scores.</p>
<p>"Mathboy, your input is interesting but, really, do you not have better things to talk about on here?"</p>
<p>I'm glad you find it of some interest, and I guess I think there's always something good to be gained out of taking a deeper look at admissions processes -- after all, the big universities are ultimately going to yield a bunch of the most powerful minds out there! Given that I think I'm not alone in not very well understanding some aspects of the processes, I felt it'd be something to speak of. </p>
<p>"I'd also say that those who dream of being a researcher are the kinds of students that Stanford looks for as well. That's probably why such a significant portion of Stanford's students go on to graduate school, and why some two thirds of students do research as an undergrad (given that Stanford has a ton of students in humanities and typically less research-intensive fields, that's significant). After all, Stanford is a major research university."</p>
<p>I have no doubt some wonderful such minds make it in! I found it tough, however, to pinpoint how exactly the school identifies them, because I know some really really exceptional guys who didn't make it in, and I cannot for the life of me explain why. I think it comes partially down to the fact that not every "intellectual" is the same, and to some degree the school will force there to be very, very different kinds around. </p>
<p>I guess what comes out of all of this is that the foremost research minds are not THE students Stanford looks for; some of them, and some of other varieties. Their "intellectual" has a pretty colorful meaning =] perhaps why people like the school a ton.</p>
<p>"I think one conclusion we can make is that Stanford is looking for a big variety of students--the hardcore 'academic' ones you mentioned, the ones dedicated to what they do, the talented/unique ones, etc."</p>
<p>Well OK, you said it before I did anyway!</p>
<p>I just don't understand why you're talking about it here on the Stanford forum.....</p>
<p>How's UC-Berkeley though? Are you a freshman?</p>
<p>"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>You hit truth with your comment on US secondary education: it is surprisingly subpar for a country with so much wealth and research going on. There is not even a national standard, which states how much a student is expected to accomplish before graduating from high school. Even in a country like Roumania or Bulgaria or Algery, there is a national graduation examination. And those examinations are REALLY tough. The classes in those countries are not grade-inflated, where everyone can get an "A". Getting an A, even a top private schools in the US, often means being dedicated enough to actually do you homework and not sleep in class. In countries in Vietnam, it means you actually have TALENT in that subject.</p>
<p>If you guys don't believe me, just look at sample IIT-JEE examinations (the Indian equivalent for SAT to get into top engineering schools): I bet even most valedictorians in the US can't score a 50% correct on that examination (it's probably as hard as what is found on National level Olympiad exams, like USA PhO semifinal exam, or USAChO national exam or AIME). In vietnam or china, to graduate, you need to write math proofs on your exam, not bubble answers.</p>
<p>The ludicrous level of US High Schools causes top colleges like Stanford to be skeptical of a 4.0 GPA or 2400 SAT, because neither the SAT (or even AP tests) or the GPA (unless you're at a place like Stuyvesant or Phillips Exeter) really testifies to a high-level knowledge of basic subjects or an intellectually active mind. That's why students are expected to have more than 2400 and 4.0 to get in. A child from India who scores a 200/450 on the IIT JEE has proven much more than a 2300, 4.0 GPA with all AP's from the US.</p>
<p>So Moral of the Story:</p>
<p>Don't decry all Standardized testing and forms of academic measurement because the US GPA system and SAT sucks. I bet Stanford seems anti-intellectual because it does not emphasize on the SAT and GPA, which, arguably is an appropriate test for 8th grade high-school hopefuls, but not high-achieving college hopefuls. And justifiably, Stanford is on the right side to not emphasize such deficient measures of academic capabilities. Thus, top schools like Stanford have to rely on other things, like USAMO etc...</p>
<p>Haha, faraday as it happens the JEE was heavily what I had in mind when I was posting ;) I'm rather surprised someone actually mentioned it!</p>
<p>It's a clear cut system, and is definitely a much better test of ability than any scoring mechanism we have. I do have some criticism of using a test as the basis for admissions, but all the same, it's an interesting idea. It certainly, I think, does a whole lot more to distinguish students than scores here do. Now, BEYOND A POINT the JEE is not good at distinguishing either, but again, it helps a whole ridiculous ton more than over here. Sure, there are math and science competitions out here, but the point is there are some ways of making a clear cut process. </p>
<p>Now, one thing though is that Stanford definitely isn't catering ONLY to students who can ace the JEE, or those who can research. Which is why a 2400 and 4.0 are not at all necessary. But anyway, I've noticed lots of people go "Oh please....judging people on the SAT is so stupid. Stanford's process is so much better." And I'm glad someone brought up academics in foreign countries, because I believe </p>
<p>"The ludicrous level of US High Schools causes top colleges like Stanford to be skeptical of a 4.0 GPA or 2400 SAT, because neither the SAT (or even AP tests) or the GPA (unless you're at a place like Stuyvesant or Phillips Exeter) really testifies to a high-level"</p>
<p>is incredibly true.</p>
<p>Come on - how many people with those scores can come CLOSE to the level of Math 55 at Harvard? You don't have to be an Olympiad winner to do Math 55 at Harvard - you have to be a beast at pure mathematics! </p>
<p>Oh, and I'm doing this on Stanford's forum for no great reason, except that I think it's one school whose process I've observed more closely than others. </p>
<p>UC Berkeley is nice -- I am a second year, and am enjoying myself. I have both criticism and good things to say, just as any other student I guess! That's a story for another forum, though I'll be happy to answer anything over PM.</p>
<p>"Haha, faraday as it happens the JEE was heavily what I had in mind when I was posting I'm rather surprised someone actually mentioned it!"</p>
<p>Lol :D I am using Irodov problems in Physics to learn a bit extra because our Physics course is way too easy, and honestly, when I took a practice IIT-JEE for fun, I was raped by that exam!!</p>
<p>It definitely make me respect much more foreign students.</p>
<p>Well, the sample math questions for IIT-JEE is way too easy compared with AIME. It is about the level of Honors Pre-Cal at the competitive high school. All you need to do is to coach students to solve those kinds of problems.</p>
<p>"questions for IIT-JEE is way too easy compared with AIME. It is about the level of Honors Pre-Cal at the competitive high school."</p>
<p>Uh.. recheck your source because I actually got a practice test for the math section, and I don't think you learn how to evaluate integrals in precal. And BTW, I scored a 6 on the AIME with almost no preparation, which is probably an average score. I probably can't score more than 60-70% correct on the IIT examination.</p>
<p>"It is about the level of Honors Pre-Cal at the competitive high school."</p>
<p>From what I heard about it, unless it's changed a ton since earlier times, it's definitely higher level than this.</p>
<p>Anyway, the point is really that scores can be made to mean much more with a better high school system.</p>
<p>6 at AIME may not be good enough to make you into Stanford. How many get into IIT, 2000 every year from 1 bln people?</p>
<p>Here's one thing - I know of people who didn't take anything but AP Physics and AP Calculus, didn't take competitions because they aren't into them, and didn't do a million extracurriculars...who could head to my own school's EE and CS program and definitively do better than half the people there. Knowing them personally, I can SEE their abilities. </p>
<p>If only our standardized curricula actually said something about what we can do, we'd not have to go everywhere to the ends of the earth to show we're unique!! This goes back to my belief that even Cal's system is flawed, because it'll often just take someone who has higher GPA and scores with no other reasoning, even to a CS program, when they're really not so into math, science, or engineering. And others who could've used the slot don't get it! Because their standardized curriculum said nothing about how bright they actually were. And I believe in a foreign nation, such people would've stood out if they just followed the standard course without being application fiends.</p>
<p>And I think there are enough of these who could make great use of academic resources that I'm actually not happy at all with our current system -- again, in many, many schools.</p>