<p>Is it just me, or is it that a lot of the people accepted at Stanford weren't super point-grabbers or obsessed with getting in and were intead, intelligent, humble, and down-to-earth? It seems like the more the person wants to get in, the more they do activities that merely "look good".</p>
<p>Can u describe what stanford acceptees are like?</p>
<p>I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head, blueducky.</p>
<p>I'm still in high school, but I've taken a tour of Stanford before. My tour guide (a graduate student at Stanford, I think) told me that the academic atmosphere at Stanford is very friendly. He told me that students often choose to work in groups on assignments. Thus, I believe it's safe to assume that the applicants accepted at Stanford are intelligent, yet friendly people.</p>
<p>I hope this helps! :)</p>
<p>It just confirms what I observe daily. I currently work at Stanford.
Everyone seems so at peace with themselves and HAPPY. nobody really seems like the type to study 6 hours a day. </p>
<p>I guess my question is then, do they exclude those top SAT-scorers on purpose almost? That personality is more important, a passionate, humble person with a 2250 is better than a 2400 without any real focus?</p>
<p>Valuing a "passionate, humble person with a 2250" over a "2400 without any real focus" is very different than deliberately excluding "top SAT-scorers. </p>
<p>Once you're in the ballpark of very high SAT scores (say for example 2200 and above), other factors like passion and fit definitely start to take prominence over scores. I agree that a passionate and humble student with a 2250 seems far more likely to be admitted than a somewhat purposeless 2400 type with no real extracurriculars. That being said, Stanford most certainly does not deliberately weed out top scorers (no matter what bitter 2400 rejects may tell you).</p>
<p>yea my phrase "exclude top scorers" was wrong. of course its not simply because the score is "too high".</p>
<p>What i mean to say is that maybe (i'm hoping?) personality is more important once u hit a certain "threshold", because i have a 2260 and feel somewhat intimidated by 2300+ people :(</p>
<p>and i heard some stories of people who applied last minute, who didn't seem to want Stanford that badly, and got in. they sounded really humble, happy, and of course intelligent. so why does this happen? i almost feel bad for the 2300+ who worked hard all their lives and got rejected. what do they want from us?</p>
<p>I have no idea how they do it, but somehow, year after year, the Stanford admissions office admits a class composed of 99% all-around great people. I couldn't tell you what their methodology is (and anyone who says they can is probably just passing on conventional wisdom), but having seen the kind of people that get in, I have a lot of respect for them and the way they do their job.</p>
<p>Funnily enough, those who, to me, seemed very arrogant (considering schools like Rice, Berkeley, and Tufts safeties) were rejected in droves this past year, yet those who didn't expect an acceptance ended up getting in.</p>
<p>All that admissions officers have to go by is the information in an application. An applicant can spend lots of time presenting himself exactly as he wants in the essays. Applicants choose teachers for letters of recommendation that will present the applicant in a positive light. There are no interviews for admissions, and even if there were, any person can present himself however he wants for an interview.</p>
<p>I don't think there is any way for the admissions committee to be able to tell if a person is humble or down-to-earth.</p>
<p>That said, my S who will be going to Stanford in the fall, IS humble and down-to-earth, and didn't expect to get in. I think the reason there are so many great kids at Stanford is because the pool of kids that get into the top schools is comprised mostly of great kids. The students I have known that have gotten into top schools have all been very nice people. There is no arrogance or entitlement mentality evident in the kids from my S's high school.</p>
<p>Don't feel intimidated by 2400s. I was accepted to Stanford (as well as 8 other schools including Cornell A/S and Georgetown...I was rejected at Swarthmore and waitlisted at Brown) with "only" a 2190. I think that essays (and the WHOLE package) are way more important than a good score on one test. I think that the essays showed that I was more than just a girl who didn't do amazingly well on the math part of the SATs. I think that your personality shows through what you write...if you are arrogant and don't have any real reason for wanting to go to a school besides its name, it will be harder to come up with legitimate reasons and the adcom has heard all the reasons before, so they can tell what's genuine. They can tell if you passionately want to attend a school. They stress "fit" as extremely important.</p>
<p>Also, my regional rep (the guy who read my application) remembered me...and my essays. They really do try to get to know who you are as a person, not just a bunch of numbers.</p>
<p>I think you've hit on something profound here with this idea of "what do they want from us?" In my opinion, it is the very obsession with this idea of "what do they want me to do" that leads to the downfall of many applicants.</p>
<p>I'm overgeneralizing here, but imagine two different types of applicants:</p>
<p>One set of applicants, who really want to attend Stanford, are overly concerned with what Stanford is looking for and cater a lot of what they do (their activities or their essays, for example) to what they believe Stanford is looking for and neglect the fact that Stanford really just wants to see who you are and what you're into. </p>
<p>Now, imagine the set of applicants who haven't been doing things simply to get into Stanford. These kids have instead done interesting things that they've actually cared about (asking themselves "What will I get out of this experience/Is this something that I will like doing? instead of asking themselves, "How will colleges view my involvement in this activity/Is this something that colleges will like to see me doing?"). When this group crafts their essays, they show who they honestly are and don't really think about what specifically Stanford is looking for.</p>
<p>When you look at these two (again, admittedly very overgeneralized) types of applicants, which would you rather have as a classmate? I would say the second set. Why? Because these kids genuinely care about something. When these kids get into college, they're simply more likely to continue with these activities that they've become passionate about. These kids are more likely to add something to the Stanford community than the kids who did what they thought colleges wanted them to. Simply put, once the first group of kids gets into Stanford, what is there to keep them motivated? For the second group of kids, they have that passion motivating them, and this passion won't disappear simply because of a college acceptance.</p>
<p>And so this (did I mention that this is an exaggerated and overgeneralized? ...because it is...) example could help explain the situation you described: someone who is unconcerned with getting into Stanford gets in and thinks "wow, I wasn't expecting this, I only applied there so my parents would stop bothering me..." while someone who has been wanting it their entire life gets rejected and is left wondering "what more did I need to do?"</p>
<p>So is there hope for that first (yeah, yeah, you know by now: it's an unrealistic, overgeneralized example) group? Yes. Yes, there is hope. It's OK to want to go to Stanford. By no means am I saying that wanting to go to Stanford automatically makes you a reject -- I've talked to plenty of my classmates who claim they've wanted to go to Stanford for as long as they can remember. </p>
<p>So what does Stanford want? I think the take-home message is this: DON'T be overly concerned with what Stanford is looking for. Take this as much as life advice as college admissions advice: Do things that you like and do things that you find fulfilling. If you do these activities and truly, really care about them, you will be able to easily write about them passionately in your essays and easily come up with examples that show your passion. And as an excellent byproduct, you'll be satisfied with what you've accomplished, even if you don't get into Stanford.</p>
<p>I asked that question because i honestly feel intimidated by the all the Intel finalists out there. </p>
<p>I am just a girl who works hard, likes to help people, wants a good life in the future and her parents to be proud. I don't know, i kind of get that feeling sometimes that getting into stanford will make everything better. </p>
<p>I probably don't deserve it, really...</p>
<p>Wow, like you said, i'm one of the people who've wanted to go to Stanford since the first time i went there for my parent's friend's wedding, even when back then, i can hardly make it to UCberkeley with my grades. It was beautiful and it motivated me to work harder. Ever since, i've almost been ashamed to admit i want to go there, even as i climbed to #2 of my class, since it's ridiculously hard to get into. It's pathetic, i know.. I just don't want to be crushed</p>
<p>While I'm not so sure I'll buy into the fact that the admissions officers discern between the kids who do their activities to get in versus those who do it out of passion, I don't think people (blueducky included) should be intimidated by other applicants. I know it is very easy to get intimidated, especially when you see all these kids on CC who have accomplished things one can only dream about. But, one thing people should remember is that admissions are a holistic process, i.e., there is not a checklist of things to do to get admitted. The admissions officers are looking for the total picture and are looking to admit a diverse class. A very interesting quote I once heard was "Admissions officers do not admit a student, they admit a class." While I wasn't sure about this at first, when I looked at the Stanford class of 2012 Facebook group I could already see how diverse the students were in interests, goals, and personality, from their wall posts and their profiles. If I could give a future applicant advice, I'd tell them to avoid making their applications (and especially essays) seem as what "Stanford Wants". I'm not saying doing this will get you admitted but I think this will stop you from entering a potential trap.</p>
<p>Thanks everybody for your great input.</p>
<p>I've heard a lot of the same advice: do what you are passionate about, write it in your essay, don't do stuff to simply impress a college, be extraordinary in SOMETHING, anything; have clear goals, be likable in your essay, be unique</p>
<p>from about 6 successful stanford applicants.. since you guys pretty much said the same things, you're all probably right about this.</p>
<p>out of curiosity,
what did you all say as your reason for why you liked stanford? and any other schools too.</p>
<p>i mean, for those who've only been there a couple of times, it's hard to say anything more profound than that "it looks nice. the weather is nice". </p>
<p>and also, how the heck do you describe your intellectual vitality without sounding like you're just selling yourself?</p>
<p>(from another stanford 2012er)</p>
<p>i said i liked stanford because its not just good in sciences, or humanities, or athletics, etc etc but literally EVERYTHING, which means its student population is enormously diverse, so you get to interact with and learn from all these different types of people. this also fit right into my application - my personal essay was about how i don't stick to one type of activity precisely for the diversity i gain from interacting with different people. i also said it's perfect for me because i don't yet have any idea what i want to study (i'm the definition of undecided), but i know that at stanford, i will be able to explore whatever i want to until finally finding what i want to focus on.</p>
<p>as for intellectual vitality. you're right, it's tough. i think it's important to use a specific example, so that you don't end up sounding very cliche. i wrote about the time i heard garry kasparov speak, and it got me thinking about all these things i had never thought about before, comparing russia's attempts at democracy to our supposedly successful democracy here in the US, etc. i guess i interpreted "intellectual vitality" as getting excited about thinking, learning, and exploring something new. they don't want to just hear about, for example, how your science fair project won some award, they want to hear about what got you excited about the topic, what made you want to learn more about it and why, etc. hope this helps!</p>
<p>Really, saying that Stanford is great because everyone is successful, er i mean "good at EVERYTHING" is something good? i mean, it almost sounds like you want it for the prestige, don't know. </p>
<p>I like how you connected all aspects of your application together, though! Shows how genuine you are in saying these things. </p>
<p>That is a very creative way to deal with the "intellectual vitality" question. I have not even really thought about how to attack this one, without sounding like i'm superficial. Does it have to be very academic, or can this question be more like "my father who skipped 2 grades and went to college at the age of 15 inspires me everyday" kind of thing?</p>
<p>what i meant was that stanford's programs are all excellent, in terms of the education you'd be getting, not that everyone there is good at everything. what that translates to is me being able to know for sure that no matter what major i choose (because i'm very undecided as of now), i can be sure that i'll have excellent resources, whereas at a more specialized school (like MIT for example), if i decided to go the english route, i would be sort of in the dark. it also means that the student population is going to be diverse in terms of interest - kids who are pre-med, pre-law, english, history, chem, engineering, computer science, etc etc majors will all be in class with me, whereas, again, at a more specialized school you might not get all that diversity. and that is something that's important to me, because you get to hear different perspectives on things (i.e., someone with a sciences background is going to approach a humanities question differently than an english major).</p>
<p>as for the intellectual vitality question - no, i don't think it necessarily has to be academic, but you do want to show something about your "passion" (i put that in quotes just because i hate the word after all those college essays, lol) for learning/thinking/being intellectual/whatever. i know that's ridiculously vague, but try to think of a time when you were honestly excited about learning something new. i'm not sure you could pull the inspiration thing here (especially because i think they have a 300-char question on that?) because, while you may <i>say</i> that you've got it, it doesn't particularly show anything about your intellectual energy. (this follows the whole "show, don't tell" mantra about personal essays in general). i hope this clarifies things, let me know if you have more questions!</p>
<p>While i'm sure your reasoning works out, it just seems to run counter to the idea that colleges want you to be motivated, focused, and know what you want to do in life and show your ability to accomplish these goals. In your case, i guess you showcased your abilities and achievements well enough that it worked for you. (Unless you're super special, like URM, major awards, athletics, etc) What were you like? Because if you are an "average joe" in terns of EC like me, then there is hope for me after all...</p>
<p>Hmm, "honestly excited about learning something new"... For me, this seems like a hard topic to discuss on an essay level - there have been numerous, but fleeting moments where this has happened, i'm not too sure any one of them truly stands out enough for me write an essay on.</p>