<p>Isn’t val status basically equal to grades as well?
Well anyway Rtgrove, I think you’re pretty wrong as to what Stanford values in the admissions process. For every top 10 school, your transcript comes first. Test scores usually clock in second or third. ECs, sports, legacy status etc are all considered pretty significantly at these top schools. I think for Stanford however, they place a lot more emphasis on the personal statements than do HYP, especially H. Remember Stanford’s supplement is the largest out of all of them by far. For Harvard, you only have an OPTIONAL essay. So obviously with different information to look at, you’ll come to different decisions about admission. I personally think Stanford’s way is best, you have a lot more information about the applicant and can make a more informed decision not only to how ready the student is for the rigors of a top college but also how the student will contribute to the community and fit in. For this reason (and others) Stanford students are often rated the happiest college students and very few kids transfer out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite, it is more importantly a ranking within the context of the student’s school. Say the rank were taken out of the picture, and simply grades + transcript were reported alone – I think there would certainly be a difference. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems to be correct. But Rtgrove’s general impressions on what HYP value seem to be very correct as well. Perhaps his assessment of the most important factors to S may not be spot on. I would, however, respond to Morsmordre and say that while transcripts are probably “number 1” on the priority list to almost any school, that actually depends somewhat on how one wants to look at it. Because one can define “number 1” to be “most fundamental requirement for admission”, and yet I think many schools do not make final decisions as much based on transcripts. So having a good transcript is the most fundamental requirement, but I don’t think it’s what in the end of the day gets you into HYPS in general, and very much certainly not into S. That is, especially since you distinguished “ECs” from “transcript.” The trend in admission to H, for instance, seemed to be proficiency in one EC and lots of involvement, plus emphasis given to very high class rank (often top 5 status) and GPA, as well as test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like the principle behind what they’re getting at, which is to say getting lots of information to carefully consider, but I’ve had one main problem, which is just a fundamental limitation one has to deal with when looking at an application from someone you really haven’t met. And that is that in aiming to admit a class full of supposed diverse interests and talents, a few essays (even if more sizeable than those of HYP) seem far too little to really get to know a person. I feel in the end, Stanford admits a class of interesting essays, not quite a class of the people it might expect. For this reason, I think it is logical for essays to be considerably more simple in their design – just to get the student to give a very in depth personal statement as to what (s)he wants to achieve in college, and how the given school is such a good place to realize these goals. Then have credentials in a huge way to lend weight to these aspirations – including teacher recs, grades, out of school involvement, etc back everything up.</p>
<p>Someone early mentioned that the sum of all our anecdotes suggests inconsistency. I believe this is the most reasonable conclusion. Either that, or we do not have enough information to make the sorts of hypotheses mathboy is making.</p>
<p>The focus on one passion is something that many universities (including ones outside the top 50) are looking for, but they are also looking for some all-around do-good student, musician, athletes. You have to look at it from the college’s perspective. What environment will be the most productive and fruitful for undergraduates and the university? It certainly will not be creating a definition of the ideal student.</p>
<p>The one distinction you can make is that Stanford is not bound by ivy league (I am referring to the sports league) regulations and has the number one division 1 athletics program in the country. So it may make it slightly more difficult for non-recruits to get in, but I am not even certain about that.</p>
<p>In the end the original poster is asking the wrong question, or perhaps should rephrase it. What are the distinguishing factors of Stanford University? What’s different about the environment? You are - to quote good ole George - the decider. And everyone will have a different answer to this question. I spent 4 years living in dreary Wisconsin weather. That heavily influenced my decision to choose Stanford.</p>
<p>But you may not like the suburban atmosphere, so then you ought to take a look at Yale, where the students have a great deal of freedom to party without nighttime or underage drinking restrictions because the police do not consider such activities to be a priority with New Haven being a much more urban environment.</p>
<p>Brendanww – one of the reasons I think the poster above me and I both might actually have something to our basically common hypothesis (though obviously nobody knows for sure but AOs themselves) is that we’re judging not solely based on personal experiences, which can differ, but also based on the mere structure of the S application, as opposed to the others. I think one can make quite a few decent guesses at what a school might want (in a general sense – obviously there’s no single perfect application) by looking at its application content and structure. </p>
<p>Now, whether one can really tell exactly how valuable class rank, GPA, etc are to a certain school is another story, but I think it’s reasonable to strongly suggest from looking at the S application that it values certain personal qualities, and wants to get to know applicants better, beyond just as individuals with credentials, aiming for a certain major or other college path. Even especially so, as compared to perhaps a school like H. </p>
<p>I don’t think the OP’s question is useless, unless of course we only give answers based on arbitrary personal experiences.</p>
<p>Hey everyone, I just thought of an amazingly simple, elegant answer to the question at hand!</p>
<p>[drum roll…]</p>
<p>Stanford is awesome and therefore uses the Awesome School Admission Process.</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are slightly less awesome than Stanford and therefore use the Slightly Less Awesome Than Stanford School Admission Process.</p>
<p>Now wasn’t that easy?</p>
<p>morsmordre-</p>
<p>Ok, well you are probably right in that Stanford does place more importance in the essays. However, I still believe that S is more “hook obsessed” than its ivy peers. The “info” that lead me to that conclusion is not perfect at all. However, if you do look at the SCEA Class of 2013 thread, you almost immediately notice a trend: Stanford admits a HUGE number of hooked applicants and rejects almost every single overly qualified normal person. Now, do all colleges give preference to hooked applicants? Sure they do, yet if you look at like the SCEA Yale threads you instantly realize that they admit many more brilliant kids who aren’t a legacy, sporty, or “diverse.”</p>
<p>I wonder, can anyone clarify what “hook” means exactly? I was under the impression that a “hook” is something that pushes you over the fence and into acceptance range, that isn’t exactly a credential/qualification geared towards demonstrating a talent. That means, it could include personal essay statements. </p>
<p>With this inclusive definition, I think just by its application, it is not at all wild to suggest S is into hooks, and in comparison to some other applications, H coming to mind, rather markedly so. It’s good to be aware of these things, for instance, if one wants to decide whether to apply SCEA or such.</p>
<p>Mathboy-</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly. I love Stanford and all, but because I am an upper middle class, white Nebraskan whose parents both when to state schools, I would- without a doubt in my mind- get denied by Stanford at least SCEA. So, I will be applying to Yale that round = D. </p>
<p>Now, with regards to your first paragraph, I have a different view of the benifits hooked applicants receive. First here is how I define it (I know you already know what a hook it…but just so we can clarify). A hook is a component of your application that is not really based on any academic merit…rather, with one exception, it is kind of something that is usually an accident of birth. To me, you are hooked if you are a URM, a legacy, or a recruited athlete…the latter example is something you are not ‘born’ with. Now, winning some big international competition is huge on the app, but I dont think most view that has a hook really. However, I am guessing you knew all that. </p>
<p>Having a hook though, does not just “push you over the fence.” Say I was a native american. Currently, I have a 2340 on the SAT in a singe sitting. Now, as a white male, that just makes me average for HYPS. Conversely, I am VERY confident that if I was a NA and applyed to HYPSM…I would get in to at least 3/5…but I wouldnt be surpised if I was accepted into all of them. Same kind of deal with being a recruited athlete and to a lesser extent with legacies. So, I think that those types of things can drastically lower admission standards. Now, I do think that the fact that I am from an under-represented state (Nebraska) could be a fence pusher kind of thing. However, it is definately not as big of a deal as being “diverse” racially.</p>
<p>Anyone know how competitive international admissions was at HYP? This year, 4000 students applied to Stanford internationally but they have yet to release the exact admitted number.</p>
<p>@Rtgrove123, </p>
<p>A lot of those CC self-reporting stats are not very reliable, many got in but did not show their stats here. My S and his friend, both Asians with at least your SAT score and no finaid, one applied to Yale and one to Stanford for SCEA for class of 2012, both got in, then they applied to the other school in RD, got in again. Both of them ended up at Stanford. SECA or not will make no differences.</p>
<p>Well, Rtgrove it’s definitely possible that S tends to favor hooks in the sense you define it. I honestly can’t comment on the racial aspect of it – my personal experience was actually with a bunch of white males and females from my old school getting in – though both legacy and athletic recruitment were factors there. All I know is that all of HYPS seem to at least take into account the hooks under your definition pretty significantly; I don’t know how to judge S against the rest. </p>
<p>But if I had to say yay or nay, I would somehow guess you are correct, just because the trend seems to be that there are lots and lots of things on the S application that go outside of looking for standard indications of talent, and this tells me that while all HYPS look for a diversely talented class to an extent, S has a wider definition of diversity, definitely including things other than talent and accomplishment significantly. </p>
<p>My personal experience agrees with this, though others’ may not, but I keep as my baseline that the applications of schools should indicate something just because they really are all the school will ever have to judge you on. </p>
<p>As for your case, I can’t help but agree that with your background you probably shouldn’t apply SCEA to Stanford, at least without some very shining EC – at that point, it would probably come down to your essays, and not whether they’re good, but whether they strike someone’s fancy. It is possible to make it in SCEA without hooks as you define them, but it will almost 100% come down to having a shining EC along with a very lucky essay winner. Without both of these, I’d say go ahead and apply elsewhere. And in particular, since it is impossible to ascertain you have the latter of the two “requirements” I pose, might as well try elsewhere. </p>
<p>My honest advice is for you to look into the future, figure out a decent array of things you may want to do after college, and apply to several schools other than HYPSM which are actually going to get you to your ultimate goal just as well. With the predictability rate these days, it wouldn’t surprise me if you got accepted to none of them. Some public schools are likely to take someone like you, and generally will have the resources for you to succeed just as well as at the other schools – so make sure you’re applying to UMichigan and Berkeley; I’m sure you probably have heard all this too, but I can’t emphasize it enough.</p>
<p>Blububbles - I overheard admission rate for international students at HYP is around 1%… The order of magnitude must be correct, ie, it’s clearly not 10%, and 1 in 1000 (0.1%) seems really low…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I seem to recall that S SCEA doesn’t allow you to apply early to other schools? So in that sense, it’s 100% certain that applying SCEA to S does make some difference, in that you forego the right to apply elsewhere early. And further, the application pool will certainly be more self-selected towards S in SCEA. AOs are humans – ultimately they have to accept some people and reject others, and though there may not be set numbers for admits and rejects, they really do have to look at your application in context of others, because they are admitting a class, not individuals. Given S rejects enough applicants in the early round, I think it’s also reasonable to suggest that it’s more risky to apply SCEA. Obviously there are no certainties here, but one must go with best instinct.</p>
<p>Well, those two were #1 and #2 kids in school. So they made a deal that one applied to Yale and the other applied to Stanford for SECA, and then applied the other school in RD. I am sure the reverse would end up with the same results.</p>
<p>My point is that if Stanford wants you, you will get in, regardless when you apply.</p>
<p>@Biud</p>
<p>1%? hmm nah, that can’t be it. MIT is supposed to be the hardest and I know for sure that they accepted 4% last year.</p>
<p>bluebubbles - 4% seems really high to me, but if you know it for a fact, I believe it… </p>
<p>So let’s assume that Stanford accept 5% - that would mean they accepted 200 international students last years (out of 4000 applicants)? That doesn’t seem to triangulate so well…</p>
<p>In any case, 1% is just something I overheard (as I mentioned), so I defer to your judgment.</p>
<p>Also there must be a Yalie or anyone from a HYPSM school that must be able to eyeball it for us… :)</p>
<p>I agree with takeme2cali. There seems to be some difference in those applicants accepted to Stanford when compared to those rejected by Stanford and accepted by ivy league schools (often times including HYP).</p>
<p>@mathboy98: You are right that they want to get to know applicants as real people, but I think that is true for HYP as well. Harvard is the only school without a supplement that reaches out to students’ personalities. But then again that is what many believe the personal statement/main commonapp essay is for.</p>
<p>What really bothers me is that many of you seem to be labouring under the false conclusion that the most qualified students are unfairly rejected. There is this sense of entitlement for the kids with 2400’s over the kids with 2200’s even though the difference is of no consequence. I believe that Stanford - and all of its private peer institutions - are looking for students that want to do more than just get into a prestigious college.</p>
<p>I’m forgetting to mention that CC is the worst place to analyze trends, because there is very much a “CC type” student.</p>
<p>Many of you need to watch Dean Shaw’s recent videos on Stanford’s Facebook page. You need to get rid of your CC lingo and dedicate some more time to introspection. Colleges want people with passions, hopes, ambition, and other assorted qualities. It’s hard to guarantee rejection from many of these schools. Although you can by coming across as a robostudent.</p>
<p>You should apply SCEA if you know that you’d go to Stanford over any other school (granted the FA estimate is what you want). If you get in, then you are done. And it is an immensely great feeling. Playing the odds game will only leave you with potential regrets and questions about how you could have attempted to game the system better. The only time you should think about odds is deciding how many schools you apply to. If you are applying to schools with acceptance rates under 10%, then you’ll want to to apply to at least five schools minimum.</p>
<p>Brendanww – sure, that was sort of my point, that there are some distinctions inherent in the applications. I also have heard almost uniformly from multiple places that if I were to be seen at one of the HYPS schools it’d be at H, and it doesn’t seem a coincidence to me. All my interest I guess is purely out of curiosity, having never applied there. </p>
<p>I do agree too many applicants consider SATs and such things to be entitling. Nevertheless, I do think many applicants have deeper things to say as well. But hopefully this doesn’t turn into a thread about entitlement. It does address a question that’ll help people decide where to apply; further, even if applying to all of HYPS, as is imaginable, many would be happy to attend any of them – they all may have something or the other they’re looking for as future students. So it makes sense in many cases to pick out which one to apply early to based on where one is likely to get in, and as you yourself say:</p>
<p>
</p>