<p>
</p>
<p>Getting financial aid at Stanford does not mean that one is middle class or poor.</p>
<p>[The</a> Parent Contribution : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/undergrad/how/parent.html]The”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/undergrad/how/parent.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you say that the UCs admit the “best and the brightest?” The UCs guarantee admission to the top 9% of ELC high school students (who probably would not have much of a chance for consideration by Stanford), as well as huge numbers of community college transfers. The UCs also accept a lot of AP credit. You can graduate with a diploma from a UC, having attended only two years, or maybe even less (?). Can you do the same at Stanford?</p>
<p>In any event, I highly doubt that any employer values “a diploma”, whether from Stanford or from any of the UCs. And I know for certain that graduate programs do not value diplomas a whit. What employers and graduate programs value is specific people, with specific skills, achievements, personal qualities. They may learn through experience that one institution or another is a good place to look for the kind of people they value, but in all cases they are looking for people with certain attributes, not merely any old graduate of a name-brand college. (And, by the way, one of the attributes they may be looking for is being plugged-in socially with people who are wealthy and/or famous.)</p>
<p>Even with the various preferences, I suspect Stanford students cover a much more narrow range of capabilities than Cal students. I think most employers, and certainly all graduate programs, view both Stanford and Cal as target-rich environments with lots of students who can meet the employers’/programs’ needs. But that’s a long way from saying that ALL of the students at either institution would meet any employer’s or program’s needs. In evaluating candidates at either university, employers and graduate programs will use whatever means they think are appropriate to screen out candidates they don’t like and identify the ones they do, and “diploma” isn’t likely to be important either way.</p>
<p>If it makes people feel better to think that their highly qualified student was rejected in favor of some rich slacker or stupid jock, go right ahead and think that. But you’d be wrong. Those who have attended Stanford recently or have children who attend, are aware of the high degree of merit of all kinds present in the current student body. </p>
<p>Read this article about recruiting to Stanford’s football team, since helmet sports are often the most accused of admitting the underqualified: [Y</a>! SPORTS](<a href=“David Shaw building Stanford into a perennial power with unconventional recruiting mandate”>David Shaw building Stanford into a perennial power with unconventional recruiting mandate)
My D’s team at Stanford currently has a boy and a girl with 3.8/3.9 GPA’s in math and computational science who both earned the Elite 88 award for having the highest GPA of any athlete from ANY school competing at the NCAA championships in their sport. The team has had a Rhodes scholar and Rhodes scholar finalist during the last two years too. I don’t know what kind of stats other athletes have, but D was in the range for HYPS with a 800 verbal SAT score, and math, writing, and SATsubject tests all well over 700. She isn’t a slacker and hasn’t met one on campus yet–including two sons of celebrities of sports and business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ELC basically means UC Merced will send you an admission offer if none of the other UCs you applied to admits you.</p>
<p>Stanford also accepts AP credit, according to <a href=“http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/registrar/students/ap-charts[/url]”>http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/registrar/students/ap-charts</a> .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford does accept a few transfer students, with many from community colleges.</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> welcomes Class of 2016 and incoming transfer students](<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both the UCs and Stanford apparently agree that it is the upper division work that is the important feature of a four year college education.</p>
<p>It’s a huge preference. But Stanford gives so much back. All in all, a fair enough balance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know for a fact that faculty brats aren’t "bright’? Do you know for a fact that legacies are not “bright”?</p>
<p>The legacies from our 500+ HS that are accepted into S have a 2250+ scores and are generally in the top 10 (unless a recruited athlete, which is rare).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the UCs do have a “heavy thumb” in their instate admissions process. It is designed to attract the kids that they want, particularly those with lower numbers. While it may not be money or power, it definitely is “heavy”.</p>
<p>And they now have a heavy thumb for wealthy OOS’ers.</p>
<p>This year’s admission stats for Princeton</p>
<p>“Of the students offered admission, 50.2 percent are men and 49.8 percent are women; 48.8 percent have self-identified as people of color, including biracial and multiracial students. Sixty-one percent of the admitted students come from public schools, and 13.9 percent will be the first in their families to attend college. Sons or daughters of Princeton alumni account for 9.7 percent of the admitted students.”
[Princeton</a> University - Princeton University offers admission to 7.29 percent of applicants](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S36/44/74C02/index.xml]Princeton”>Princeton University offers admission to 7.29 percent of applicants)</p>
<p>Don’t have similar data for Stanford, but my son from a good public school who has no hooks (white, not 1st gen/athlete/legacy) nor expensive consultants or tutors was admitted to both Stanford and Princeton with some very generous financial aid just on his merit. Didn’t make it to Harvard though…</p>
<p>I don’t think Stanford’s admission criteria is very different from HPY/Ivies/ and other highly selective schools in this country, except that the ivies do not give athletic scholarships and are not as competive in athletics overall as S is. They have some heavy duty sports teams that would require giving athletes of that caliber some leeway as getting that kind of athletic AND academic prowess is not possible on such a large scale. </p>
<p>Legacies are usually assessed in a pool unto themselves, and yes there is some give in the stats for them. Otherwise, why even have to bother separating them out? There always is that “other” category which includes those who are children of those who work for the university and those that are personally recommended. I don’t mean a general rec but a true request for consideration. The Directors of admissions have friends and family too, you know. Not to mention the whole development and celebrity categories.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not completely, but if we’re talking academic PhD or even some highly selective masters programs, academic pedigree will factor in depending on the field and the influence of the professor at the undergrad institution in placing his/her students into those programs. </p>
<p>In short, while a diploma isn’t a complete lock…having a strong academic pedigree…which is field dependent and not always the usual suspects does factor in the selection process to varying degrees. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t necessarily mean as much because the selection is highly political and if a member of the selection board has some bias in favor/against a given college/student for whatever reason…it tends to tip the selection in an arbitrary fashion. A couple of older alums at my LAC separately recounted how one classmate of theirs was nominated for Rhodes and fulfilled the scholar/athlete ideal. </p>
<p>However, he had the misfortune to encounter a Rhodes board member…a retired general who made a homophobic remark* when the name of our LAC came up. While the interviewee saw the interview to the end, it was clear the writing on the wall and he ended up not getting the Rhodes Scholarship. </p>
<ul>
<li>“So you go to the f&g school?”</li>
</ul>
<p>Stanford’s graduating class of 2013, if I recall correctly: 25% 2400 SATs; 20% first in their family to go to college. It’s also considered a highly diverse school in terms of localities represented, race, ethnicity, etc. , supposedly with about 50% students of color. </p>
<p>They also rank highly (#3 this year) in the Washington Monthly College Guide ([National</a> University Rankings 2012 | Washington Monthly](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank.php]National”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank.php)) which is a ranking that " asks not what colleges can do for you, but what colleges are doing for the country. Are they educating low-income students, or just catering to the affluent? Are they improving the quality of their teaching, or ducking accountability for it?" Most of the schools on this list are public institutions, and the UCs continue to do very well by their book, despite all the economic woes. </p>
<p>Do they accept too many legacies or kids of faculty? Who knows? I think the greater issue in our country has to do with how to provide an affordable, quality education to the average/above average students (our majority) and provide them with guidance in their career decisions along the way-- not to mention have them graduate high school prepared for college, skills training, or employment, not whether elite institutions maintain spots for people who contribute to them. I am always heartened by the schools with large endowments that maintain need blind policies and provide aid that is all or mostly grants and work study. I wish more places had the capacity to do this.</p>
<p>[/q]So why would an employer or a graduate program value a diploma from Stanford over a diploma from one of the UCs where the criteria are fair, open and without the heavy thumb of money, power or celebrity and which do seek out the best and brightest by GPA, SAT and ECs?[q]</p>
<p>Let me add to a previous reply to the above and say that the SAT 500 kid of the millionaire donor and/or the foreign princeling kid will not be applying for a job at your standard F500 company upon graduation. However, as an employer, would you like to hire the smart willing-to-work kid from Stanford who is not only smart, but also networks with millionaire kids and princelings? You “betcha”!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think 20% first-in-the-family-to-go is a WONDERFUL statistic to see. It brightens my day. It makes me thank god I’m not one of those people on CC who begrudges poor or underserved people their place in their sun, even if my kid (or a few kids in Short Hills or Grosse Pointe) “suffer” as a result. I’d be interested in knowing what that is school-by-school, but good for Stanford.</p>
<p>UChicago president Robert Zimmer has stated increasing enrollment of first generation and students who would not normally apply to schools like Chicago or Stanford was a top priority. I think he quoted a current 20% for the University as well. I believe most top schools has this as a goal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s of note that 14% of the Princeton incoming class being legacy could be consistent with
a) a higher admit rate among legacies (compared to everyone else),
b) an equal admit rate among legacies, or
c) a lower admit rate among legacies.</p>
<p>In other words, if Princeton legacies only account for 5% of the applicant pool, they have to have a higher than average admit rate to account for 14% of the incoming class. But, if Princeton legacies crowd the applicant pool because every Princeton parent whispers dreams of orange over their children from crib onward and the Princeton applicant pool is (say) 30% legacies, then they could actually have a lower than average acceptance rate. My point is – this 14% statistic is absolutely and utterly meaningless without any context as to what % of the applicant pool are legacies. </p>
<p>Put another way: If 14% of Princeton’s incoming class are legacies, and 25% of College Y’s incoming class are legacies, this is insufficient information to draw any conclusion as to whether Princeton or College Y are “kinder” to legacies. Either one could be kinder; you simply don’t know.</p>
<p>Rant over, but I see continued confusion between verticals (what is the acceptance rate among …) and horizontals (what % of the incoming class is …) on CC all the time.</p>
<p>That’s actually an important point, and one that escaped me until it was pointed out to me, maybe by you, in fact, last year. For example, the midwest is not well represented percentage wise at the “ivies,” but how do we know how many applicants come from the midwest, where bigstateU reigns supreme? We don’t.</p>
<p>We do know there is a strong midwestern preference for bigstateU. (anecdotal, but well supported, imho.)</p>
<p>So, without those numbers, we really don’t know what the “admit rate” is per “special interest” group, only those who are admitted.</p>
<p>We are, to some extent, in the dark on this.</p>
<p>Such conditional probabilities are left out of most reports. The same is true for most college (and other) statistics. For example, assaults at parties. Big U may have more parties with more attendees, and small U far fewer. Even though more assaults occur at big U, the assaults per opportunity could be much lower. As noted, comparison is tough. What is of interest is that the report does suggest a different set of criteria may be used regardless how many legacies are admitted.</p>
<p>Having said that, I found the transparency offered by Stanford refreshing. As was the assertion they would do admissions their way.</p>
<p>Every single school indicates what they consider and don’t on the common app data set (region, first-gen, legacy, demonstrated interest, etc.). There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about what Stanford said, IMO.</p>
<p>And it’s not a conditional probability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me correct that for you!</p>
<p>*Wow. They are not only admitting the best and the brightest, but also are admitting children of celebrities, children of big donors, children of faculty members and children of legacies who happen to be the best and brightest in their individual groups. And they also happen to admit the best and brightest students from pools of athletes, URM, and for that matter plenty --yes plenty-- of ORM. * </p>
<p>And, for the record, should we not recognize how Stanford has not only changed its admissions policies over time and tried to be transparent about it to a fault? Are there many schools that publish the Senate minutes where the leaders discuss the school, including admissions? Or publish discussions such as the above quoted? </p>
<p>And should we not recognize the --humm-- success of the admissions policies at Stanford, which seems to balance all the ingredients to create an incredibly potent mix of students? And find a way to become the most selective school in the nation AND win the Directors’ Cup year after year! And find a way to remain one of the richest schools in the world while offering incredibly generous financial aid packages. </p>
<p>Put it all together, the conclusion is that one needs an incredible amount of bad faith to find faults in the admission policies of the school. Or, perhaps, the typical envy and Aesop’s foxy reaction to the golden grapes!</p>
<p>The mere fact that one is a legacy does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is less qualified. A kid from a family with a strong Stanford presence has probably been raised in a home where education is prized, achievement rewarded with praise, and knowledge of what it takes to make it at such an institution is ingrained. Smart people tend to have smart kids. The Stanford legacies at my daughter’s school who were accepted were at the top of her very highly performing college prep school. All of them were qualified by any measure. I don’t know if they are the typical legacy candidate, but one should not assume that a legacy does not deserve to be at Stanford.</p>