Stanford and Private School Admissions - A Mystery

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
61

<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 the top 3 in HYPS"</p>

<p>Uh... What are you trying to say? You have to remember that those top 3 kids probably are in the .01 percentile level in math/science in the US. Why not take the US IMO team to take the IIT test? They'll do fine too, and that's why we should all be complacent with our educational system? Because the smartest of the smartest are able to take a trivial foreign test?? I'm sure no one is really concerned about the education of students in US international olympiad teams. We are currently talking about a educational system that could cater to the wide range of students, even the top ones (not necessarily olympians), so that colleges like Stanford could rely more on things like GPA and SAT for academic achievement.</p>

62

<p>Whoever said prelims in grad school have nothing to do with standardization is quite presumptuous. MAYBE different schools call "prelim" different things? I go to UC Berkeley, and the math department certainly gives a prelim which is standardized for all grad students, a written test.</p>

<p>There is also an oral thesis defense, which different schools call different things as well. Berkeley calls that "quals." </p>

<p>"We are currently talking about a educational system that could cater to the wide range of students, even the top ones (not necessarily olympians), so that colleges like Stanford could rely more on things like GPA and SAT for academic achievement."</p>

<p>Faraday says it exactly as I could. This is the point - a standardized measure that appeals to a larger selection of students. That is, neither so general and frivolous as the SAT I, and not some sort of optional math competition that some brilliant minds can do well at. I think it's a good idea to have standardization that relates to STANDARD math curriculum.</p>

63

<p>I mean, come on guys! How can you bash on a hope for some legitimate, rigorous standardized material by saying that some Putnam competition winner could take foreign entrance tests and do well? It really misses the point!</p>

64

<p>Whoops my bad I said "math" -- subconscious slip ;) I mean this point to be in general.</p>

65

<p>A final point is that I find studying for exams like IIT JEE is much more rewarding than studying for sth like SAT.</p>

<p>Honestly, if a math major hopeful tells me he prepares in HS for his honors level calculus class that he will take in college by using Barron's SAT Math prep book, I'll laugh at his face. If he uses past IIT math exams, he is making a much smarter move. Heck, as a prospective physics major, I'm currently studying IIT-JEE physics problems for fun because they are so cool! :D</p>

<p>Once again, imitating IIT-JEE for math/science part does not mean the humanities HAS to become neglected!! Just make a dissertation mandatory for another humanities standardized test!</p>

<p>If kids are going to stress over and study and prep for college, why not make them stress over sth that is at least worthwhile?</p>

66

<p>This conversation is stupid.</p>

<p>People do not study for the SAT like they do for the JEE. And many European countries suffer far worse educational systems than the US.</p>

<p>Plus, it's irrelevant. Get into HYPS, go into IBing/hedge fund management/consulting of some sort, and boom. Yay! </p>

<p>No standardized test will determine your future in an unjust way.</p>

67

<p>Faraday, I don't know what your experience with american schooling is, but you shouldn't rush to throw it to the dogs. Questions on the IIT-JEE physics paper relating to mechanics and E&M are of similar difficulty to in-class exams in my AP Physics C class in PUBLIC school, but then again I did have exams that were more difficult than actual AP. Honestly if you are looking for a physics challenge, IPhO, USAPhO, and the preliminary exams are all more difficult than the IIT-JEE Physics! Similarly IIT-JEE math is shameful compared to the USAMO. However, a 6 on the AIME is a very good score! The median score is a 2 and the mean is below 3 on most occasions. </p>

<p>However now i'm going to be hypocritical. Stop going wildly off topic. If you want to discuss the relative merits of the IIT-JEE or standardized testing in college admissions not particularly relating to Stanford, please start a new topic in the college admissions section. Maybe a moderator can look at this?</p>

68

<p>I responded to the thread because I address this for both Stanford and private Universities. And so, I try to be general to cater to top schools and Stanford simultaneously.</p>

<p>I don't say the IIT-JEE is perfect. It's just an example of test I'd rather take than the SAT. And saying it's too easy is just relative. Some people find it harder. At least, I find it harder than the USAphO (and MUCH easier than USAMO, but I suck at math proofs anyways... :))</p>

<p>"People do not study for the SAT like they do for the JEE. And many European countries suffer far worse educational systems than the US."</p>

<p>Maybe... because the SAT sucks crazy :D and the IIT-JEE rocks??</p>

<p>OK let's get back to topic? </p>

<p>PS: What the topic again? :D</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
And many European countries suffer far worse educational systems than the US.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a detrimental attitude many "Ugly Americans" (cocky Americans) have. They are extremely complacent about their education system just because "someone else has far worse education system."</p>

<p>I agree fully with faraday and his perspectives. I recommend everyone to read "The World is Flat" and look at how behind the American education system is. </p>

<p>Just to balance my opinion, the United States education system has some excellent aspects. For example, I like how it focuses on well-roundedness, not just in the sciences but sort of everything. I think that the educational system lacks is a common standard and the resources necessary.</p>

70

<p>HAha, OK I don't think we've technically gotten off topic if we realize that I posted initially trying to get an understanding of how Stanford and other private universities, which try to make their own subjective assessments, may be better provided with info about students. </p>

<p>I think some good ideas have come up for sure, despite the fact that some of our more impatient posters jumped to conclusions that the U.S. admissions system was being trashed, and foreign systems being glorified.</p>

<p>Nay, let's try to look at the best in both. And I hope we'll be open-minded that our system can be improved.</p>

71

<p>I completely agree with Faraday, I'm a sophomore who scores in the 9-11 range on AIME and scores in the 140s on the AMC, and frankly, the JEE is the hardest test I have attempted outside of national and international Olympiad finals...It's a much better assessment of one's abilities than the SAT(albeit in math and science). Nonetheless, it's not without it's flaws and would not work for US students even if it were instituted in America.</p>

72

<p>I guess I'd never presume to just slap some foreign test upon American schools indiscriminately, but I think there is something valuable to be gained from considering the very principle of a good standardized assessment. I definitely think SOMETHING can be done to better the state of affairs for US students, it just has to be carefully designed.</p>

73

<p>There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the JEE and the SAT. The IIT JEE is a test for selection purposes, to select math/science kids for engineering. The SAT 2s test for subject mastery, that is, for curriculum mastery (along with the APs). They are achievement tests, not selection tests. The SAT measures ability and achievement, a mix of aptitude and mastery, the purpose is to screen for higher level work in general.</p>

<p>American universities recognize that kids change focus, that college is for exploration, hence the measures used are not selection for special aptitudes but screening for general aptitudes. If the tests are too easy compared to the JEE that is because the purposes are different. If you want something rigorous, then what is needed is to strengthen the curriculum. The curriculums of Indian schools are not all that rigorous, even in math and science, it is the coaching institutes and the JEE that call for rigor.</p>

<p>The present American system of using multiple measures is nearly the best we can get; to improve it, let us ramp up the curriculum, what is taught in schools, so that the APs and SAT2s will get closer to the JEE but in all subjects, from Latin to math.</p>

74

<p>If you accept the premise that elite U.S. universities are going to continue to select students based on a mix of factors, both subjective and objective, and that the weight they give preparation and achievement in a particular field is far less than in many systems, including India and Europe, so that no assessment test will be definitive for most students . . . do you really think that U.S. universities can't tell from the information they have who the really good math and science students are? And if they can tell, why do we need another test?</p>

75

<p>JHS, it is not that they cannot tell, they indeed can but they also can tell who the great historians and journalists are, etc and make it possible for all of them to be in one place and more importantly make it possible for all of them to change their minds.</p>

<p>Since American colleges use a number of measures they increase both reliability and validity. Put another way, the IIT exam might miss bright students who had a bad day and won't let in too many mediocre ones, the US system will almost never miss bright students and will let in more mediocre ones, so more of the late bloomers will get a shot. Yes, the athletes and legacies might be a waste but there is also increased potential for other so-so ones to get motivated once they get in.</p>

76

<p>ramaswami, I think you and I are in agreement. I was arguing that the IIT exam would not improve the information already available to admissions officers, and that it would not be appropriate as the main admissions criterion given the philosophy and design of American universities.</p>

<p>As for athletes and legacies being a waste: Americans love sports. If recruiting athletes were not rational, colleges would stop doing it. (Well, some have, but that's definitely a niche marketing strategy.) The persistence of athletic recruiting demonstrates its effectiveness as a means to market a university, both externally and internally to its own population (i.e., creating "school spirit"). And nothing generates revenue like multi-generation family connections to a university. (By the way, my experience, both in my family and observing others, is that legacy preferences at tippy-top universities, including Stanford, are a bunch of hooey. Apart from the very small category of "developmental" candidates, I haven't seen a legacy student admitted to HYPS who wasn't a very strong candidate in every respect, and I have seen lots of legacy students who were very strong candidates rejected. Including my own children. One of them applied to two colleges where he was considered a double legacy. He had a single-digit class rank at a large academic magnet school, ultra high test scores, a number of leadership roles, I-put-off-retirement-to-teach-him recommendations, arts ECs, and a lot of paid employment. He was waitlist-rejected at both colleges, each of which accepted a nonlegacy classmate with nearly identical stats. No one thought the colleges had made a mistake, by the way -- the classmates who were accepted were fabulous, and more mature and focused than my kid. But don't talk to me about unqualified legacies. Yale, by the way, claims that its legacies are meaningfully stronger academically than the admitted class as a whole, and I believe it based on the kids I've seen admitted.)</p>

77

<p>Hey all! OK I assume the above post isn't addressed to me, because I of course haven't bashed on legacies or sports. </p>

<p>Anyway, to make it clear, I do not propose making a fundamental change to our system, only an improvement. The thing is, I have seen specific instances of certain students being left out of top schools due to what I can only call miscalculation. Here, I am not addressing Olympiad winners - as faraday states, we're looking at your more standard student.</p>

<p>Now, it is a good point by ramaswami, I think, that the AP's and subject tests are measures of knowledge, not ultimate weed-out exams. What I am claiming is not that we need a replica of the JEE, but a STRONGER measure of knowledge and aptitude for subject areas of choice. That is, a stronger SAT II and/or AP, which plays some decisive role in the admissions process.</p>

<p>Why? Among your more STANDARD student body, I see a fundamental miscalculation made, which is that a student with EC's in several areas, an overload of AP's, and some good essays is more likely to make it into (for example) a top engineering program than a student who's really heavily qualified to do well in engineering, but never took interest in several AP's and only cared about math and science. This student aces the SAT II's and AP's with perfect scores, aces math and physics courses, but is still left behind both at Cal and other good engineering programs. And, the other variety student is accepted, at least to Cal, and in fact to other great engineering programs. I have actually seen several instances of this. </p>

<p>Remember, we're talking of STANDARD student bodies. Not Olympiad winners. </p>

<p>See, so Student 1 who could've succeeded in tough engineering programs doesn't make it, and STudent 2 makes it and struggles like crazy, because STudent 2 is just a pretty good high school student, and not really with any special aptitude or even interest in engineering.</p>

<p>The fact that I've seen several instances of such miscalculation happen makes me rather unhappy for the Student 1 types. You could go about and say "Hey he should've won a math competition or two, not my problem," but I personally think IDEALLY, why not make it a standard to check for the students who can really be successful in college?</p>

<p>See, I know SO many people getting perfects in AP Calculus and SAT II's in math, as a math major myself, but get steamrolled by actual college mathematics. Wouldn't it be fairer to both the students and the universities if we didn't deceive ourselves that these perfect scores reflect too little?</p>

<p>Oh and I implore posters to lighten it up on commenting on the JEE a little - it was only the principle of a rigorous math-physics-chem test that interested me, not the specific process IIT's follow. Please give your constructive comments on how to improve our own system, independent of what others do if you please, because the point isn't to say other systems are better than ours - it's to make ours better. </p>

<p>Also, I am not sure whom the above poster is responding to, but I hope nobody's been saying legacies are always worthless, or anything narrow-minded!</p>

78

<p>By "perfects" in AP Calculus, I just mean 5's. Anyway, to make a long post simpler, I'm saying that I detect a problem just because high scorers not just sometimes, but OFTEN cannot handle the college material they're thrust into. And this in and of itself tells me our system is lacking. Someone taking AP CAlculus may never even want to study math, and could still ace the test and find the math in college economics very hard! Forget pure mathematics even! </p>

<p>This is just an example of one subject area, but I think similar issues exist across the board.</p>

79

<p>Oh one constructive comment I have -- you know how a lot of schools have lower division HONORS courses? E.g. in physics? And some of them are really challenging and quite well designed?</p>

<p>Maybe if it were just standard that people could opt to either take this level material in high school, or take standardized tests at that level, some key students could distinguish themselves. </p>

<p>I just think on average, AP PHysics and AP Calculus are silly. Exceptions at only a few schools.</p>

80

<p>Mathboy, I couldn't say it better. His previous posts just resumed the point of my argument, that some rigorous standardized testing (at least more rigorous than the SAT and AP system here) needs to be instituted, so that schools like Stanford can accurately screen the talentuous students from the "grade-grubbers" (or whatever you call them). I'm not talking about IMO qualifiers, who would be brilliant regardless of the system.</p>

<p>"The SAT 2s test for subject mastery, that is, for curriculum mastery (along with the APs). They are achievement tests, not selection tests."-Ramaswani.</p>

<p>Being complacent with SATII's and AP's is a very dangerous thought. Just think about it, how much is actually required to score an 800 on a math/physics/chem SATII? Or a 5 on the equivalent AP subjects? Not much. When a college like Stanford sees an 800 in Math SATII or a 5 on Calc BC/Physics B/Chem AP, it's almost a no-brainer. In fact, it demonstrates little about the applicant because the grade-grubbing guy could just have easily aced that test than a guy truly passionate/interested in science, with a much stronger scientific aptitude.</p>

<p>To help admissions to discern those top students, why don't we make the AP and SAT subject test harder, more like what is found on foreign graduation exams or IIT-JEE?</p>

<p>The main reason is that the US education system is lagging. Well-roundedness does not preclude rigorosity, a belief endorsed by many on this forum.</p>

<p>We should 1st improve secondary level education, create a higher national standard and use higher level tests than what is found here. Some say that top students don't need to take SAT's to demonstrate ability, but rather should take things like AP/AMC/AIME/USAPhO. The problem is that:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If your school doesn't pay for those test, you are going to pay A LOT to register yourself. (something that prevented me from taking the Chemistry olympiad test, even though I knew I was able to at least make it to national round)</p></li>
<li><p>Some schools flatly refuse to let you participate in those.</p></li>
<li><p>They test non-standard high-school knowledge (I'm addressing specifically the AMC/AIME, which has an undue quantity of combinatorics on it, sth that is rarely taught in high school)</p></li>
<li><p>Most people don't know about them (Olympiads)</p></li>
<li><p>AP's are arguably not very difficult, because of the scoring curve. A 5 on an AP is very achievable with just a review book, without even taking an AP-level course!!</p></li>
<li><p>AP's are REALLY expensive (Yohoo, I'm reading to pay $500 in march for those tests :D)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>PS: I'll repeat it again, for those who didn't read my previous post. A better standardized system does not mean the humanities have to suffer. The argument that some Europeans countries are worse off than we are does not mean we should be complacent. Many european countries are in fact, arguably doing better, both in the math and humanities (I don't have sufficient evidence in the science to make a comparison, since the US/European focus is drastically different). In many european countries, equivalents of SAT/SATII's/AP's are free of charge, and of a more rigorous level.</p>