<p>i might be getting a little too ahead of myself here but i'm on an emotional high...</p>
<p>here are my stats:</p>
<p>3.85 college, 3.63 hs
2270 sat
750, 760 sat II
good ecs
good recs, one from a professor who went to stanford
physics major
really good essays</p>
<p>is it pretty much impossible for me to get into stanford as a sophomore transfer? i haven't started the application yet, but i took a look at it, and i can get everything done quickly. is stanford biased towards california applicants, or can a midwestern state schooler like me get in? i just want to study physics at a great university, and i'd be happy at any of the schools i applied/am planning to apply to, including stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
think if you applied and got rejected previously its a slight negative.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's absurd.</p>
<p>I was rejected from Rice as a freshman, and admitted as a transfer. Countless others on this forum were rejected from their dream schools as freshman and were later admitted as transfers.</p>
<p>I was rejected from Rice as a freshman, and admitted as a transfer. Countless others on this forum were rejected from their dream schools as freshman and were later admitted as transfers.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>again with the anecdotes! Of course they're going to be people who still get in, the OP for example has a good shot.</p>
<p>THINK nspeds: Why would it be a positive? There are better ways to show interest such as nicely expressed reasons. They don't care how many times you tried to get in.</p>
<p>NOW, why would it be a negative? Most applications ask if you've previously applied and they look up the admissions decision and reasons.
THEN, near the top of the file that the admissions officer reads, it will indicate that you've previously applied and got rejected. He/She will have a couple minutes to review your file. Do you know what BIAS means?</p>
<p>Many colleges note this. For example, Brown says:
[QUOTE]
Although there is no limitation
on the number of times you may fi le a transfer application, previously
unsuccessful transfer candidates should be aware that competition
for transfer places is consistent and that chances for acceptance upon
re-application are small.
<p>
[quote]
hey don't care how many times you tried to get in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NOW, why would it be a negative? Most applications ask if you've previously applied and they look up the admissions decision and reasons.
THEN, near the top of the file that the admissions officer reads, it will indicate that you've previously applied and got rejected. He/She will have a couple minutes to review your file. Do you know what BIAS means
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, really? I never knew you worked in Stanford's admissions office. Why were you witholding this information?</p>
<p>
[quote]
again with the anecdotes!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like anecdotes better than completely fabricated stories, but perhaps that's just me being old fashioned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many colleges note this. For example, Brown says:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh... wait.. I thought Brown and Stanford were different schools. Perhaps I just have my elite brothers mixed up. You wouldn't know, it's an elite school thing, something that doesn't tend to show up around UM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although there is no limitation
on the number of times you may fi le a transfer application, previously
unsuccessful transfer candidates should be aware that competition
for transfer places is consistent and that chances for acceptance upon
re-application are small.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This doesn't logically imply that re-applying is a negative.</p>
<p>"Although there is no limitation
on the number of times you may fi le a transfer application, previously
unsuccessful transfer candidates should be aware that competition
for transfer places is consistent and that chances for acceptance upon
re-application are small"</p>
<p>All that is saying is that chances for transfer acceptance are small for all types of transfer applicants.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm happy with knowing that I'll at least be considered at Stanford. Even if I don't get in, I'll at least be happy that I gave it a shot...</p>
<p>...and hey '"if we didn't want him then, why would we want him now?"'</p>
<p>i'm sure there are plenty of applicants with less than stellar high school records who probably wouldn't have been accepted as freshmen and have been admitted into stanford out of a CC/state school.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Wow, really? I never knew you worked in Stanford's admissions office. Why were you witholding this information?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That information isn't unique to Stanford. The fact that you were rejected previously does show in the admissions file. This standardized process is similar in many schools.</p>
<p>An yes, of course there are anecdotes against this. I've already said that in my first post. Many transfer students (and successful transfer students) apply to the schools they were rejected/waitlisted as freshman. But there IS a bias against them from the onset.</p>
<p>Again, good luck to the OP. As I said in my last post, he has a good shot.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Oh... wait.. I thought Brown and Stanford were different schools. Perhaps I just have my elite brothers mixed up. You wouldn't know, it's an elite school thing, something that doesn't tend to show up around UM.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Since you're an a**hole, let me just say that Brown, Stanford or any Ivy league school is not YOUR elite brother. And Georgetown is a better school than mine (UM) but that doesn't make YOU better than me.</p>
<p>Lostincode, he doesn't know he's dealing with a guy who has memorized Strunk and White's Elements of Style, owns the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, and maintains an active collection of texts that rivals only the most meticulous of grammarians.</p>
<p>Hahahahahahahahahaha. I said this before and I will say it again: this is far too easy.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I'm sure it's "better than I (am)."
in the example given on that page, "me" is used as an object of preposition so the objective form is correct.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes, if you include the "am" it is correct with "I." However nspeds did not do that. Both "I am" and "me" are technically correct, however "me" is used much more common making it preferred.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Lostincode, he doesn't know he's dealing with a guy who has memorized Strunk and White's Elements of Style, owns the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, and maintains an active collection of texts that rivals only the most meticulous of grammarians.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. I said this before and I will say it again: this is far too easy.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm dealing with a pimply faced indian geek at Georgetown. We already know that.</p>