<p>Check out the other boards and look at EA results. It really sort of shocked me. I thought, as a whole, as much as it pains me to say it, their deferrals and rejections were more competitive than our deferrals and rejections. Do you think that's an incorrect perception on my part? My best friend got deferred from Yale EA (I got in Stanford) with slightly better stats and activities. My theory: Stanford puts a lot more weight in essays. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Don't waste your time trying to find patterns. They're not there.</p>
<p>based on percentages alone, it would seem as if Stanford EA were a bit easier. (they have a larger freshman class, so they can accept more people.) The stuff about the essays: maybe, since they do have FOUR of them.</p>
<p>Also, Stanford doesn't offer interviews, so essays would logically be given more weight.</p>
<p>Do you think this will hold true for RD? I feel like I have NO shot at Stanford whatsoever, but my essays were pretty darn good (in my opinion, of course!) and the EA stats were quite encouraging...</p>
<p>But firebird,
Stanford EA: 867 out of 4330: 20%
Harvard EA: 885 out of 4213: 21%
So percentagewise, it seems that Stanford would be harder to get into?</p>
<p>whoa man...yea i was utterly wrong...haha</p>
<p>sorry i was just going off of Yale's EA numbers...ignore me from now on.</p>
<p>I really think Stanford puts a lot of weight on essays and teacher recs. They're more interested in people who truly have passion and will add a lot to campus. Scores have a factor, but probably not as much as they would at Yale or Harvard.</p>
<p>i understand what you're saying... it seems according to the cc posts that more cc'ers got rejected/deferred on the harvard/yale boards than on the stanford board. But maybe Stanford cc'ers are just uber smart :p Go us! The overall percentages show Stanford is just as hard as HYP to get into...maybe even harder.</p>
<p>stanford seems to have deferred a lot of people.. while HYP rejected more.. eh.. as for "putting a lot of weight on essays and teacher recs".. that's what every college says they do.. i think it's more like 10% stats, 30% essays/recs, 60% pure luck.</p>
<p>Yeah, Stanford CCers are just tight. When you consider the make-up of the CC board, there are a whole lot of "score-nazis," who are arrogant in their test-taking abilities and think said abilities mean they are hella smart. Anyway, score-nazis are far too upper-crust for a backwater west-coast safety school like Stanford, so they all apply to Harvard. But they get their asses rejected. Because Harvard, like all of us, knows that score-nazis are bastards that should never go to college.</p>
<p>The REAL smart people on the CC board, however, know that Stanford > Harvard, so they apply to the former. And since they are hella tight and not score-nazis, quite a few get in. Harvard isn't harder to get into; it's all the high scoring but stupid-ass people getting rejected that makes the statistics look that way.</p>
<p>There. Pattern explained.</p>
<p>Apologies to any Yale SCEA applicants, but at least we didn't make a chart of who we thought was going to be accepted/rejected/deferred!</p>
<p>nemesis- I think the "pure luck" factor, especially HYPSM, is even higher than that, probably 70-80%.</p>
<p>Then again, with his stats Feuler could have gotten in anywhere...</p>