Stanford and Private School Admissions - A Mystery

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
41

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think what both Berkeley and Stanford want are people who intentionally challenge themselves (with advanced classes) and who visibly pursue their interest (in competitions, in ECs, etc.). They can't (always) tell who those brilliant students are without some proof.</p>

<p>I personally know plenty of people from my high school who didn't get into Stanford (or even apply), but who would thrive here. Some of them in particular have more pure genius--or are more "academic"--than some students I know.</p>

42

<p>Kyle, I most agree. The main point of the above is that I think Berkeley and Stanford both find it harder to best pinpoint who these guys are because the standard scores here are not enough to see anything. I am happy for those who DID make it into Stanford and Cal. I'm also happy for the ones with less of the pure academic side, because they contribute something important to these campuses. I am sad, though, at the fact that our high schooling system could be a lot more effective at speaking to these schools, even if no system is the perfect answer.</p>

<p>I.e., I don't believe someone who did AP Calc and Physics should have to do AP History to get a good GPA to get into Cal. I think they should instead have to demonstrate HOW good they really are at math and physics. Similarly for the humanities side. Even if people needn't pick their majors ahead of time (which I think is hard to do anyway), I think they should be judged vaguely on what they're really into WITHIN the scope of the standardized high school curriculum itself.</p>

43

<p>"I think what both Berkeley and Stanford want are people who intentionally challenge themselves (with advanced classes)"</p>

<p>THe real problem is that most of those "advanced classes" like AP physics/ AP chemistry, are rather shallow. They cover a lot, but require little rigorous reasoning. Those classes do not do justice to really smart people who are unaware/unable to take Olympiad tests.</p>

<p>For example, you can tell me you scored 5's on AP chem/physics/bio and got A+ on all those classes but I wouldn't be impressed at all. But you tell me you scored more than 70% correct on the IIT-JEE and I'll start worshipping you :D (OK, maybe not, but still, you'll see sparkles in my eyes)</p>

<p>Secondly, I'd rather spend my holidays working on a prep book like Kleppner/Kolenkow Introduction to Mechanics or Irodov Problems in physics to prepare for an exam like IIT-JEE, rather than work on mindless speed-based questions to prepare for the SAT. Preparing for exams like the IIT-JEE will be much more rewarding later when you actually have to think through complex science problems in college than solving SAT problems, which tests 8th-grade level math.</p>

44

<p>Well, getting a 5 isn't a huge deal, but getting an A+ in some classes can be really difficult. Oftentimes, the teacher requires much more beyond the curriculum. (My AP Calc teacher started us on linear algebra half way through the course, for example.)</p>

<p>I think the exams for IIT-JEE would have the right idea, but they're applied wrongly. Admission shouldn't be based solely on an exam. Furthermore, not all students know what they want to major in, so having to take an advanced exam on a specific subject doesn't work for US universities.</p>

45

<p>"Admission shouldn't be based solely on an exam."</p>

<p>Agreed. I believe that such an exam should EXIST, though, in place of the SAT or at least in addition. We have SAT II's and AP's, and I'm just asking for a better version of those, which actually plays a role in the process. That way, with all the info, the given university can make the best informed decision possible. The thing is, there is a vast discrepancy in how good different high school curricula are, and I think there should exist a standardized test that actually reflects something about where a person's strengths lie, which I don't believe the SAT's do at all. </p>

<p>Now, whether such a change will ever plausibly happen, I can't say. But it's certainly possible to run an education system differently from how ours is, if a good number of places do it!</p>

46

<p>Yes I know, the topic has spiraled quite a bit off from Stanford itself =] but it's interesting, at least to me.</p>

47

<p>Do you all know who takes the JEE and the process? Let me walk you through it. At the end of 1Oth grade you practically give up on everything, no sports, no music, no hobbies, do the minimum at school in languages, history, etc etc. Go to prep class between 5.30 am and 8, then again from 4.30 to 9 or so, throw in weekends. If you are real serious you go to a boarding school where all you do is IIT prep and you ignore all other subjects. If you are prepping for IIT and get reasonable scores in practice exam your high school will cut you slack and give you social promotion in all other subjects, because each school takes pride in the no of students getting into IIT so these students are worshipped like cricket stars.</p>

<p>As to the actual exam, there are only 3 subjects, math, physics and chemistry. If all of you studied just these 3 subjects for 2 years I bet quite a few of you will crack the JEE handsomely. The nos, 1 gets in among a hundred thousand or so etc is crap. Most of the aspirants are way below par, they take it because their parents push them.</p>

48

<p><a href="unless%20you're%20at%20a%20place%20like%20Stuyvesant%5BB%5D*%5B/B%5D%20or%20Phillips%20Exeter">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>*You meant to say BRONX SCIENCE, faraday.</p>

<p>Yes, I'm a Sciencite :D.</p>

49

<p>Oh nobody said the JEE is perfect....I am saying it adds an element of standardization. I am well aware how it's done -- my cousin went through it recently. But thanks for describing it all the same.</p>

50

<p>I think grad schools have this idea for standardization when they give prelims. But I would rather be tested before I get in and have it be a factor among many others than have a gin to head once entering ;)</p>

51

<p>^But Mathboy, throughout this thread you've been saying (and so have others) that the United States should implement something similar to the JEE because the SATs etc aren't good enough. So, the fact that the kids who take this test basically stop living and study nonstop in 1-2 subjects for years is a HUGE drawback. Do we really want a test like that here? Do we want our sophomores through seniors to basically give up on their ECs, liberal arts curriculum, etc so that a test like JEE can be implemented in US college admissions or would you rather keep things the way they are? Because a test like JEE would completely undermine everything American universities have tried to accomplish; and that is getting well rounded, driven and passionate people for students.</p>

52

<p>Standardization is all fine but it does it in only 3 subjects. That's the way to go if you want idiot savants. The Indian approach is the extreme type of English/Continental method where kids are separated early on to different tracks. In India everyone is in awe of the IIT aspirants, everyone else is made to look stupid and India loses great historians, artists, basic scientists, linguists, philologists, etc etc. Also, many who are not interested in engineering twist themselves to get into IIT to please their parents. The IITs' big secret is the large (relatively speaking in comparison with similar colleges) no of suicides, drop outs, etc.</p>

<p>The American way, in my humble opinion, is much better, a mix of standardization like SATs and APs and the subjective, like teacher recs, etc. Incidentally, the IIT problems are at the level of AP Physics and AP Chem and BC Calculus, any kid in this country at a good prep school will do well.</p>

<p>Please remember, the kids who take the IIT test already go to the Indian equivalent of private prep schools even if they are not boarding schools. That is, since public high school education, that is, state funded ones, are horrible, the students who even have a shot at the IIT come from private schools. So, if you ask the students in the US who go to Exeter etc and take the AP courses, to take the IIT exam they will sail through it with less prep than the Indian students. Let's compare apples to apples.</p>

53

<p>If you all take a look at some of my posts, I don't favor that a single exam ever be the basis of admission. I am saying that our system should be kept the same in philosophy, but that our high school curricula and standardized tests, if more rigorous, would provide more useful input to schools on how to make their choices. </p>

<p>I.e., take the best of both worlds.</p>

54

<p>Hippo and Ramaswami -- I know it's too much to ask to look at all my posts, since they're numerous, so I'll clarify here that I've explicitly stated that having one test being the sole basis of admissions is never a good idea. Because no one test is the best judge of ability, and I think consistent effort is more important.</p>

<p>I am saying that our curricula and tests are just terribly lacking! So make those better is all I'm saying, because then, I think JUST getting good scores + GPA's would have more meaning. Think about it -- having a terrific GPA from a tough engineering program like Stanford's, Cal's or MIT's means a WHOLE LOT! Not so for our high school GPA's, at least not in enough schools that it matters. </p>

<p>Sure, some high schools are fantastic, but certainly not every course is the same. I'd prefer that all high schools were fantastic, and that GPA's meant a ton, but it seems more feasible to have some standardized testing, like the SAT II's, which is more challenging and reflective of the academic level of students.</p>

55

<p>Actually if I were to criticize the IIT system, the MAIN criticism would be that standardized tests can't be the end-all. </p>

<p>Also, as a note, no I don't think everyone should be forced into math, physics and chemistry =] the point is to judge people on something a little less general than our high school curriculum. Actually I like how in our system we can choose what SAT II's and AP's to take. That's a good principle. Now just make them a whole lot better, and play a significant role (not the only role), and I think we have a more solid system.</p>

56

<p>hippo has reflected my view well. Mathboy, with SAT 2s, APs and GPA in rigorous curriculum we do have what you want to implement already. Adcoms at the top schools know what GPA means in different high schools, they visit, keep notes, they even know that a B from teacher X is better than A from teacher Y, etc.</p>

<p>Anyway, between 4 or 5 AP scores of 5, 3 SAT subject tests and SAT reasoning we have good measures.</p>

57

<p>Let me address some objections I've seen:</p>

<ol>
<li>IIT-JEE kids have no life, and are 1-dimensional problem solvers.</li>
</ol>

<p>Well, many of them are like that, and I have to say I am really sorry for them. Whether it is there fault or their parents fault, you do not have to become like them, even if you improve your problem-solving skills (I did not become like them, in fact, I made more friends through math/science extracurriculars than ever before).</p>

<p>Secondly, I have in no way said that Indian education is perfect. IIT-JEE was just an example of test that seems more appropriate for ambitious HS students, which I believe would be much more appropriate than the SAT. There are many examples of countries where the general national level in math/science/etc.. is much higher than the US, where math proofs are tested for graduation. I prefer that educational model rather than wasting my time in a multiple choice test that tests very basic and superficial knowledge of science on tests like AP Physics B MC.</p>

<p>Thirdly, being passionate about science does not mean giving up social life. While it may be true that many IIT-JEE kids surrender their life to pass the exam, you DO NOT have to follow that model. All I'm asking is to imitate what is well done abroad, and not imitate what is badly done.</p>

<ol>
<li>Basing admission on standardized testing is bad:</li>
</ol>

<p>I do not believe standardized testing as a sole factor in admission. However, I do believe that the SAT and US level of education could be improved so that GPA and SAT (or another test that can be created) will be of better indicator to admission officers. But such move once again seems elusive, because the educational system must be improved 1st.</p>

<ol>
<li>What about literature, the arts, etc..?</li>
</ol>

<p>In many european countries, HS graduates on average are much more able of critical thinking/literary analysis than in the US. Do you think AP English Lit/Language is hard? Think again. In some countries, you have a 6-hr essay for graduation to write. You have mandatory philosophy classes much more advanced than what is tested in a AP english class. And you have math proofs in your math class too.</p>

<p>In short: improved education in the science does not preclude improved education everywhere else.</p>

<p>However I have not really thought about improving the arts/humanities education in the US yet, because I am not really a humanities guy, so I'm not really experienced with teaching literature.</p>

<p>Anyone into the humanities is welcome to expound on their ideas.</p>

58

<p>"...grad schools have this idea for standardization when they give prelims.."</p>

<p>Prelim is an exam for your thesis proposal, usually proceeded as a public oral exam. It has nothing to do with standardization or whatsoever.</p>

59

<p>Here are the top ten high schools in the US, in my views. Take the top 3 students in any of them will do fine on the IIT's exams</p>

<p>Top ten High schools in the US ranked by the number of students who scored 6 and above on the AIME.</p>

<p>Rank ..... Name ................... # of Students
1. ....... Stuyvesant H.S., NY .......... 38
2. ....... Thomas Jefferson H.S., VA .. 33
3. ....... Phillps Exeter Acad., NH,..... 27
4. ....... Montgomery Blair H.S., MD... 19
4. ....... Bergen Academies, NJ ........ 19
6. ....... Palo Alto H.S., CA.............. 15
7. ....... Saratoga H.S., CA.............. 15
8. ....... Detroit Country Day, MI........ 13
9. ....... Harker School, CA.............. 12
9. ....... Phillips Acad., MA.............. 12</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me how many of those top 3 students in HYPS?</p>

60

<p>"6 at AIME may not be good enough to make you into Stanford." </p>

<p>Apparently, I was good enough for me :D. Anyway, here lies the problem. Nothing is really good enough for Stanford, because honestly, there is no national test except for the SAT, which unfortunately tests very little. Not everyone takes the AIME (as few as a few hundred thousands take the AMC12). This is the problem, there is no compulsary national test that is "good" enough for Stanford and other top schools.</p>

<p>"How many get into IIT, 2000 every year from 1 bln people?"</p>

<p>Well, about 200 to 300 thousand take the test, and I think about 1/30 get in one of the IIT's. About the same number in the US take the AMC, and about 1/20 get to AIME, and I guess about 1/2 of those 1/20 (1/40) score higher than what I did. But this is a falty analysis :D because the average US kids who take the AMC are probably weaker in math than the average Indian kids who take the IIT-JEE</p>