<p>Well I got 800 on SAT I math and on Math IIc. However, I have been hearing that it is harder to get into Stanford if you don't live in California. Is this true?</p>
<p>I don't think that's true since Stanford DOES consider geographic diversity and they don't want a class full of californians. But I think you should just apply to whichever one you feel fits better. I know that MIT is easier for girls around 25% acceptance for women.</p>
<p>It really matters on your academic strengths a lot.</p>
<p>Our school's sal got accepted into MIT, but rejected by Stanford.</p>
<p>He excelled at math competitions, especially the AMC and AIME, which I believe MIT actually has an explicit place on the application for scores.</p>
<p>Stanford makes room for a lot of URMs and students from lower social economic background and that maybe why some posters think it's easier to get into Stanford.</p>
<p>It really depends on who you are. Are you a character who excels in different EC's and leadership? Or are you more science and mathematics based? I think, for Stanford, the typical applicant is not as much of an academic powerhouse as the applicant from MIT. Depending on your answer, it may be wise to apply to one or the other. </p>
<p>Also, it is naive to trust the Common Data Set too much. Numbers can be trusted, but the difference between Important and Very Important is relative. MIT seems to believe many parts of the application are "important", whereas Stanford deems them "Very Important". In the long run, they may both consider those qualities, such as character or standardized scores, the same amount.</p>
<p>For those that think Stanford is easier for Californians, go check out my thread, "Stanford. Yes Please". Actually, many of us agree that though the percentage of Californians is high at Stanford, it does not necessarily make it harder for East Coast kids. Stanford looks for diversity, which is what my guidance counselor told me, and might even weight an East Coast student's application (especially if the applicant shows signs of possible matriculation, such as applying SCEA). Statistically speaking, the large percentage of Californians is partially due to the vast number of competitive students from CA who apply there, since it is right at home.</p>
<p>yeah that's what I meant about SCEA i just didn't phrase it very well</p>
<p>MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford MIT Stanford</p>
<p>Not true, stanford values SAT scores a lot less. </p>
<p>I've seen the people with the great ECs get into stanford and rejected by MIT and the people with high SATs get into MIT and rejectd by stanford</p>
<p>My friend with 2210 + Siemens Regional Finalist got into MIT but rejected by Stanford.</p>
<p>FredFredBurger, as you can tell from all the posts, any evidence of one school being more selective than the other is essentially anectdotal. They both look at grades, test scores and extracurricular activities and both try to achieve a diverse student body. It's best to apply early to the one you like the most. If you are a high achieving URM, you have an excellent shot at both schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not true, stanford values SAT scores a lot less.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>home boy, you can't just say this and make it true, the evidence i linked to clearly indicates otherwise.</p>
<p>please people, post responsibly.</p>
<p>Okay, so if you are more EC oriented, Stanford will be easier, however if you are more GRADEs, classes, SAT scores oriented....MIT is for you.</p>
<p>^^ according to the common data sets, here are the differences, i highlighted the big discrepancies:</p>
<p>Rigor of secondary school record:
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Class rank:
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Academic GPA
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Standardized test scores:
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Application essay
MIT: considered
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Recommendation:
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Interview:
MIT: important
Stan: not considered</p>
<p>EC activities:
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Talent/ability:
MIT: important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Character/personal qualities:
MIT: very important
Stan: very important</p>
<p>Level of applicant's interest:
MIT: considered
Stan: not considered</p>
<p>as you can read, MIT's #1 considered criteria is character/personal qualities including interview and level of interest. Stanford, rather, focuses on all aspects of a candidate from SAT scores and class rank to EC activities.</p>
<p>so looks like MIT is looking more for a "match" than just the best students. however the data, such as SAT scores, etc. would imply that MIT also has more rigorous acceptance requirements.</p>
<p>Just to reiterate what others have said, I think it really depends on what type of applicant you are (whether you're highly interested and strong in math/science, etc.). I got into Stanford, but I know I wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell at MIT (I didn't apply).</p>
<p>elsifdlw/e: Those considered not considered things aren't standard enough for comparison. So you can't really use them to say that one school values this more than another. According to Harvard everything is just "considered".</p>
<p>I would say that they are both so similar as far as acceptances go that you should just apply early to whichever one you like better.</p>
<p>My experience is that the acceptances to MIT and Stanford weren't similar at all.</p>
<p>Actually, I'm having the same problems, b/c these two are my favorite schools. I'm a science person, but not a math/tech person. I'm also a big EC person (I have my own base of ECs and leadership positions), though I'm not quite the person who would be president in everything. So I'm rather split b/w Stanford and MIT. Any ideas?</p>
<p>I don't have any scientific evidence, but I'll share what I know.</p>
<p>I applied to both this year and got into both. At the end, it came down to this exact choice: MIT v. Stanford.</p>
<p>My SAT/AP scores are pretty good and I have quite a few decent ECs with significant leadership positions. I didn't have any significant awards or special abilities though. </p>
<p>When I was doing the application, I've noticed that Stanford has some very creative essays and short answers. I actually really enjoyed their Long Essay this year and the Short Essay about writing your roommate a note. So if you are applying to Stanford, spend a lot of time on your essays. Owing to Stanford's creative essay, I didn't use a "canned" essay that I've already prepared, but I wrote up a new essay for Stanford - I was pleased with the essay and I actually did use it later for other colleges.</p>
<p>MIT's application is more straightforward, but allows you quite a bit of flexibility in conveying yourself. I like the way that MIT allows you to self-report your scores in high school (you get to show them special stuff - like self-studying, that might not be present on transcripts). The long essay was fun (but not as fun as the Long Essay for Stanford). I think MIT is really looking for a "match" in their students. They want someone that they know will be happy at MIT - rather than just some guy with outstanding grades and extracurricular activities. If you really like MIT, I don't see why you shouldn't apply - you probably will get in if your stats are all pretty good. Oh - MIT doesn't care if you have taken more than 2 SAT 2 scores. They only want a math and a science - other test scores are basically void.</p>
<p>I looked up the Stanford SCEA thread last year and it seemed like the very "interesting" people got in (people with unique abilities, talents, personalities...) while MIT EA seemed weird, because USAMO people were getting rejected (which really strengthened the "match" idea after I read on their blog that they were looking for "match" and compatability - i.e. you may be good at math, but you might not be for MIT). I ended up applying to neither but going for Princeton ED instead because I was feeling apprehensive about both.</p>
<p>Again, I don't have a basis for this claim, but from my gut instinct of doing apps, I think Stanford looks at EC activities and essays very closely while MIT looks at personality and interest (conveyed through app and interview) + some ECs + some grades + some essays (not as strong of an emphasis as Stanford).</p>
<p>Thank you guys all for the information. It seems that while MIT looks for a "match" Stanford looks at leadership qualites. I also think both emphasize academics pretty equally.</p>