<p>I got in and submitted mine the day-of or VERY late on the 31st.</p>
<p>^LOL. one of my friends submitted two minutes before the deadline and was rejected.</p>
<p>i submitted my app in the afternoon on the 31st and got in</p>
<p>After seeing these results I've concluded that Stanford really doesn't care about stats. As soon as they see that you're qualified and are capable of doing the work, some other foreign criteria comes into play.</p>
<p>Haha ok, guess that idea was scratched. Well congrats to you both.</p>
<p>How you get in: Luck, URM status, Legacy</p>
<p>Stanford is looking for people special and different to make the campus special</p>
<p>Ummm... No idea whatsoever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
CrystalProphecy
[/quote]
i agree that a lot of CCers have passion, but maybe they just didn't do the best job of portraying it? we can see the stats of people that got rejected, but we don't know what their essays/recs etc actually looked like, and how Stanford may have perceived them.</p>
<p>i think Stanford really tries to pride itself in not looking like Caltech, MIT, or Berkeley, and i guess they really tried to ensure that this year with their admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe they target how successful they think you will be in the future
[/quote]
exactly. </p>
<p>they see each student as an investment. instead of putting all their money in the same industry (possibly the large, identical demographic of "2300+, 15 APs, 16 years of lab research at the local university" kids), they want to "diversify" their investments so they can get the most out of them. they do this by choosing kids who they really think have a different background/mindset from the typical overachieving college applicant. </p>
<p>what i mean by "investment" is, the education Stanford has to offer. you don't have to be some genius to get a Stanford education. that's what a lot of people don't realize. with the learning environment and the limitless resources they have to offer, the majority of the intelligent, hardworking people in your classes at school could probably last 4 years at Stanford if given the opportunity. and ANYONE who goes through Stanford will come out the better for it, unless you're just a slacker or remedial. </p>
<p>so if you can put 1000 Stanford grads out into the world, why choose kids who are the same. a class of 1000 research scientists isn't as beneficial to the world as a class of 1000 research scientists, doctors, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, athletes, coaches, politicians, community organizers, teachers etc, you get the point.</p>
<p>they want kids who come across as really passionate for learning and who really show that they could have the greatest impact on the world with a Stanford education. not kids who seem like they're just showing off their slew of pre-college accomplishments.</p>
<p>^ totally agree with you</p>
<p>totally agree with blu_g8orade
I submitted my application one minute before the deadline and was accepted.</p>
<p>I remember Larry Summers, when he was President of Harvard, saying that Harvard students were bright, passionate and lucky. By lucky, he meant that there was something about you that fit the need of the university in their quest to craft the perfect class. And you can't predict what those needs that the university will need filled (unless it is something obvious such as a quarterback) from year to year.</p>
<p>On the plus side, you may find that you fill the needs at another university come RD decision time. Good luck, give your essays another look with a jaundiced eye, and move on if you weren't accepted. Trying to figure out why X got accepted and Y didn't is a fool's errand since we aren't given all the facts/needs that Stanford used in picking through the SCEA round applicants.</p>
<p>"How you get in: Luck, URM status, Legacy"</p>
<p>STOP saying this because it's not true. Does it have an effect in some cases? Of course. But to belittle all admits for the hooks of a fraction of that group is unfair.</p>
<p>ellemenope- you are wise. Although I hate to admit to agreeing with Larry Summers on anything, it is difficult to argue with the luck aspect of admissions at schools like Stanford and Harvard.</p>
<p>I just typed up a super long response but it got deleted, so here is the abbreviated version.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I have to respectfully disagree with everyone who says the process is a crapshoot or just luck. Just because you can't figure out what Stanford is looking for, doesn't mean there isn't something they are looking for. You just can't figure it out. Otherwise the process would be easy (relatively).</p></li>
<li><p>Just to get this out of the way, a 2400 is no better than a 2200. Once you reach a certain threshold it shows that you can take the SAT well, and the admissions committee can move on to the rest of your application. </p></li>
<li><p>Stanford evaluates its applicants it context. This means that you have to do a whole lot more to warrant admission as a rich white private school male, than a poor minority girl from an inner city school. This IS NOT unfair. It makes sense. Think about admissions decisions as balancing your accomplishments with the opportunities you have received and how baseline successful you should be based on your background (family and other).</p></li>
<li><p>I understand why everyone freaks out when the class president, valedictorian, 2400 SAT, five 5's on APs is rejected. It's scary, but it isn't really that surprising. Let's break it down: </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Class President ("Wow Oh my god that's a great leadership position right? Right?): Not really. All class president shows is that enough people at your school liked you enough to elect you to a meaningless position. If you did something as class president and can write about it convincingly, that's a different story. However, just being class president doesn't really mean ****.
2400 SAT: See number two, but basically, everyone else had great SATs too so who really cares.
Valedictorian: Everyone else was valedictorian too. Sorry.
5 5's: So you did well on AP exams. You and everyone else.</p>
<p>Moral of the story is that you have to somehow differentiate yourself and make Stanford feel like they simply have to have you. A few people can do this on pure academics and class president type stuff alone, but I wouldn't bet on it. You have to go above and beyond what is expected of you based on the opportunities you have been given. Seriously, being the 3432423th class president, valedictorian, 2400 SAT, five 5's on APs in the pile is not that great. You did well in school but so did everybody else.
It was written in a slightly more logical format the first time I wrote it up, but the basic ideas are there.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>ellemenope- you are wise. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Not wise...just experienced. D was caught up in the "Yale Massacre" of 2003. She went on to live a happy and fulfilled life at another college. We realized how useless all the Monday morning quarterbacking after the SCEA rejection was when the same application went on to be successful in getting her in at other super-selective colleges in the RD round.</p>
<p>Don't over-analyze. </p>
<p>Remember, there are 9 people fighting for 1 spot. I think many of you who were rejected/deferred are what Stanford look for. I am sure they had a hard time to justify many deferrals and rejections but they have to give them anyway simply because there's not enough room.</p>
<p>"they see each student as an investment. instead of putting all their money in the same industry (possibly the large, identical demographic of "2300+, 15 APs, 16 years of lab research at the local university" kids), they want to "diversify" their investments so they can get the most out of them. they do this by choosing kids who they really think have a different background/mindset from the typical overachieving college applicant."</p>
<p>Even that argument breaks down with my acceptance. I can tell you that I fit exactly that mold: high SAT's, perfect sat subject tests (math/chem/bio/physics), typical asian nerds with math/science/research involvment, and very very nerdy essays. I got in, although many other asian nerds who were obviously as qualified or even more qualified got rejected.</p>
<p>Taking almost a wild guess, I think that my problem was that I focused too much on what I had accomplished instead of what I could accomplish. I was riding on ECs to get in (DECA State President, All-State musician, State Finalist in swimming) and I believe that my main flaw was simply trying to impress with what I had done instead of what I could do. But I have absolutely no idea if this really was the case...maybe it was a host of completely different factors. </p>
<p>Something else that I think is important (my friend told me this analogy) is that admin officers are like people playing the SIMs. Even if a candidate is better, it may not be who they're looking for. Being brutally honest, so many of the Accepted/Rejected looked the same to me. Simply put, many of us simply weren't lucky enough to fit the demographic they seeked. People who got in this year may very well be rejected next year, and vice-versa. </p>
<p>I had lunch with a brilliant Stanford alum a few months ago, and he told me about how much luck plays a factor in decisions. I highly doubt the credibility of this, but he told me that sometimes so many applicants are qualified that they simply search for whoever has a "5" as the last digit on their Social Security number, or a birthday in June, or something else ridiculous like that. </p>
<p>In conclusion though, I'm pretty sure that there's no single thing we can put our minds around as to why people were accepted/rejected. My honest opinion is also that those accepted will know just as much as those rejected as to what the factors are, factors that we may never discover.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>Regular Decision Stanford Applicants, I encourage you to pay little attention to this thread. Instead of trying to have Stanford define it's community for you, go ahead and define the community for them. Talk about/suggest how incredible a contribution you will make to their community, and I think that will do a hell of a lot more than trying to figure out why certain people got in and mimic them. Good luck!</p>
<p>(I'm definitely biased since I was rejected, but I just wanted to finish with a congrats to those accepted. You worked hard and you earned the privilege. Go enjoy some incredible years ahead =)</p>
<p>Looking back over the acceptances, it again appears race played a major status in acceptances. Just throwing it out there. At least a third, based on what I could tell, were URMs.</p>