<p>"Undergraduate applications to Stanford continue to rise</p>
<p>Applications surged 7 percent for the Class of 2015.</p>
<p>Applications for the fall freshman class set a record as approximately 34,200 high school students applied for admission to Stanford.</p>
<p>The number of applicants for the Class of 2015 represents a 7 percent increase over last year, when more than 32,000 students applied for admission.</p>
<p>Stanford will notify students who applied under the regular admission program of its decision by the end of March.</p>
<p>The number of applicants includes those who applied through Stanford's regular and restrictive early action programs.</p>
<p>In mid-December, Stanford sent acceptance letters to 754 early applicants to the Class of 2015. The number of students seeking admission under the restrictive early action program 5,929 applicants also was the highest in the university's history."</p>
<p>Good luck everyone! We all have somewhere to go, whether it’s Stanford or not. Try not to lose any sleep over it! - Sorry, I’m being hypocritical because I already have been losing sleep over it. Haha. But definitely best regards and good luck. :D</p>
<p>If they admit 2300 again (between REA and RD), the admit rate will drop to 6.7%. </p>
<p>Not so related:
While this sucks for people who are still applying to get in, it is actually quite beneficial to students who are accepted/already in Stanford/recent graduates. As Stanford gets harder and harder to get in, the perceived value of a Stanford degree increases. (random thought)</p>
<p>Including from the waitlist, Stanford accepted 2340 students last year, so if they accept similar number of students this year, the admit rate could be 2340/34200 = 6.84% for class of 2015.</p>
<p>Harvard accepted 2184/30489 last year. If they don’t have 31929 applications this year, or 4.7% increase, their admit rate will be higher than Stanford’s.</p>
<p>Stanford could be the most selective school in the nation this year, in this sense.</p>
<p>P.S. I bet that Harvard could have lower number of applications this year, the same for Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>Using the percent accepted is a crude measure of “selectivity”, if you are attempting to assess the caliber of admitted students. A popular and sunny institution (e.g. Stanford) will attract thousands of applications from students with a range of talent (from mediocre to stellar). MIT has a much higher percentage of acceptances and yet also has a more academically high power student body (class rank, SAT’s etc.), due to more self-selection of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>I don’t think that Stanford cares about MIT, the only school it lost cross-admits is Harvard. And this year could be the first year that Stanford beats Harvard in admit rates. I could not wait to see what Harvard is going to say.</p>
<p>Stanford has had an impressive trajectory in the last 2-3 decades: pulled away from its former eastern peers (Tufts, Duke) and now indisputably a top 10 school ;)</p>
<p>but i would still agree that while admit rate will increase, selectivity probably won’t be that of Harvard (by Harvardesqe standards of selectivity)</p>
True. Also, Harvard will be crushed before they know it, in a few years?</p>
<p>
Don’t believe that. I had some 60 harvard admits (from New Jersey) for Class of 2012, they accepted more “bad” ones than you think. I can see a lot of this year’s Yale early admits stats (from New Jersey). It is not what you think.</p>
<p>If you are accepted early by Yale or Stanford, very likely that you will be rejected by Harvard.</p>
<p>Yale Daily News published a article today indicating that they are going to have lower number of applications.</p>
<p>Remember, guys, it’s easy to figure out Stanford admissions. Here, in order, is what they admit:</p>
<ol>
<li> Athletes, of any color, with good stats</li>
<li> Athletes, of any color, with less than good stats</li>
<li> Athletes, of any color, with marginal stats</li>
<li> Really Smart Asians.</li>
</ol>
<p>Stanford is more selective than MIT and here’s the rationale: MIT, like Dad2 points out, is picking purely on numbers to select (with due respect) the quant jocks, science geeks, etc. It merely looks for the highest stats and accepts based on the best academic record and science ECs. It chooses a small number of admits from a not very diverse pool and that’s okay because MIT is trying to create academicians and researchers, that’s its charter.</p>
<p>Stanford on the other hand has to be selective across a wider range of talent that includes humanities, engineering, and yes, athletes. It’s picking the best to represent each discipline and skill set. Stanford is, like Harvard, looking to produce leaders and people that can contribute to a broader range of society.</p>
<p>When I posted this thread last night, I knew it would be only a matter of hours before Dad2 showed up to give his usual sour-grapes spin. ; ) Dad2, I hope this will be the year that you are able to come to terms with the fact that your kid wasn’t admitted to Stanford. (At least you’re not as distraught as some other parents who have posted in this forum about their kids’ rejections, who then pretend in other forums that their kids were admitted to Stanford but “chose” to attend elsewhere!) If I had been rejected from Stanford and my parents did these things, I would not only be seriously embarrassed, but I’d have a lot more trouble feeling completely satisfied with wherever I did attend.</p>
<p>You got that right, SunDiego. And even those of us who were also admitted to MIT and who are unabashed “brainiacs” (Represent!!) benefit from the breadth of talent and fully-engaged atmosphere here at Stanford. Here we discover many, many unexpected things about ourselves, and our potential, that we wouldn’t have at MIT, or at many other colleges.</p>
<p>Zenkoan: not to personalize things, but s. attended and graduated from Stanford, and d. wasn’t interested, matriculated ED at a top east coast school. I think Stanford is a great school, definitely top ten, even including SLAC’s. Best of luck in your studies!</p>
<p>Thanks for the good wishes, Dad2, and good luck tirelessly promoting Swarthmore! I think Swarthmore is a great school (for those who want a small, intense LAC), tied with Amherst for Best LAC. (LACs and top national research universities are apples and oranges, though colleges of both types try to equalize the discrepancies in some ways.) </p>
<p>Did your son have a less-than-satisfying experience or outcome at Stanford? I get that impression from the tenor of your posts in this forum.</p>
<p>Why do you think that is, ewho? Is it because by applying SCEA to either Stanford or Yale, the student is expressing his or her strong preference for that college, and thus less likely to choose another college? That’s all I can come up with off the top of my head, since those three schools tend to attract similar applicant pools overall.</p>
Simple – the high yield of the early pool means low yield for Harvard, if Harvard tries to get them. I can see everyone on the early pools, so can Harvard. Princeton, on the other hand, does not care. They are cross-admit blind. :)</p>
