<p>I agree with the "passion" thing. I was kind of worried because I didn't have any leadership positions. No class president, no club president/vice president etc. And my ECs were really scattered. Some internships at biomedical research institutes, a traditional mask dance club, mock trial, web design, teaching children...</p>
<p>But I think I really showed through my essays and recs that I had a passion for each. The intellectual vitality essay for my experience as an intern, an outside rec from my dance coach, a teacher rec from my mock trial coach, web addresses for my web design activities, and such.</p>
<p>Going back to amciw's post... I know it was said before that decisions can't all be pinned on hooks/URMs or race/legacy, but in the last week, only 3 of my friends got in to top schools - 1 was a minority and the other 2 had MAJOR legacy going for them. I'm a little annoyed, especially because a lot of my other friends (who, in my opinion, were more qualified) didn't make the cut, but I guess that's life. Even if it's not complete luck or chance, or not ENTIRELY hooks, they definitely play a huge role.</p>
<p>Although, I do agree with the passion aspect of the application - when I visited Stanford, the admissions officer flat out said, "I don't care if you ONLY do math, as long as that's what you're passionate about. Conversely, I don't care if you do everything in the world, as long as you're passionate about each and every one of those things."</p>
<p>I got in and will attempt to explain what I might have done right. </p>
<p>First </p>
<p>It's probably dependent on a lot of luck. For instance, was your app read with others that would seem to complement yours, and contrast, or did you just blur? In other words, it's a crapshoot.</p>
<p>Second</p>
<p>Stats obviously don't matter. I got a 640 on math the first time. Since I got 700 the second, it seems obvious that SAT scores don't distinguish you, they just provide the basic assurance that you test well enough to even be considered. </p>
<p>Screw the order</p>
<p>They probably look for quirkiness, a few really unique extracurricular activities that you love and talk about a lot, and the sense that you have a real passion for the future.</p>
<p>I tried to talk a lot about future plans, and tied in my past experiences with their application to the present. I also wrote all my essays like I was a shoe in for admission, even though I was a world away. My confidence was completely fake, but maybe it worked. </p>
<p>Anyway, I offer this not to justify why I got in (which I don't really deserve), but as possible advice for the regular decision crowd.</p>
<p>I think a lot of it has to do with luck.
I remember a lot of my friends and classmates had really random results.
One was waitlisted at Duke but accepted at Princeton along with rejections at Harvard & Yale.
Another was rejected at Duke and Dartmouth but accepted at Columbia.
I got into Duke and Dartmouth but was rejected at Princeton and Columbia, along with a waitlist at Harvard.</p>
<p>My year, I was one of two Duke accepted. I don't know what I did differently from those who were rejected.
My friend who is at Columbia now had way better grades than me. He wouldn't have had the same crappy freshman year I ended up having.
The cynic in me says that Duke just looked at the test scores of everyone in my class and decided to just take the kid with the highest scores but I did a lot of research on Duke before my interview and showed a lot of knowledge on the FOCUS system and the whole Greek scene (thank you DukeObsrvr). </p>
<p>As I type this, I think that Duke looks for well-rounded students and not necessarily specialists.
Stanford seems to look for intellectual passion. It is probably why Stanford students are portrayed as happier than HYP students. Stanford students love what they are doing- while Harvard students don't necessarily have the same passion. </p>
<p>You never know.. and you just have to live with what they give you. I always felt that if you didn't get into a college, there are some good reasons WHY you don't want to go there in the first place.
For those who were rejected EA at Stanford, you'll find somewhere better for you. I know that sounds kind of corny. I had trouble believing that myself when I was obsessed with Brown and then didn't get in.</p>
<p>I don't know if any of you looked at US News but Stanford's academic profile (in terms of SAT scores and class rank) is way lower than Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, and Caltech.
Harvard & Yale have a 1495 SAT average. Princeton has a 1485. Stanford only has a 1445.
HYP have 95+% in the Top 10%. Stanford only has 91%... not a big difference but surprising for one of the most selective schools in the nation.</p>
<p>I think people misinterpret rejections at elite schools but acceptances at the others in the same categories (R at HP, A at YS, for example) as random. But it is a fallacy to assume that they are all looking for the same thing, as Mondo points out. But it's definitely not just luck!</p>
<p>i didn't apply to stanford but got in Columbia ED..but I have been researching stanford a lot too because I was going to apply there SCEA..</p>
<p>It should be common sense to understand that all the legacies, athletes, and URMS will indeed go first on the list. They need to fill these spots first. Keep in mind how awesome Stanford is at athletics...they need these athletes to maintain their reputation also.</p>
<p>Next, what everyone says is right. Your 2400 is not different from the 2200. Being valedictorian is not better than the other valedictorian nor the kid that is number 5 in the class. Leadership positions that are empty and only nominal are useless.</p>
<p>They will love the people that have been pursuing one thing and running with it for a long time and with success (this is called "passion"). but they also will love the people that make "Impacts" on whatever the dice has rolled for them. If you are indeed the class president, show that you've done something with that nominal position...and if you haven't, tough luck.</p>
<p>Also, you have to understand that there are so many science based kids applying who have heavy research awards etc and are math geniuses, but Stanford doesn't really need THAT many of them at one time. So they choose to defer them after they fill a certain number. with 5500-6000 kids applying at one time, it makes no sense to admit similar kids at one time when there could be more in RD that might be better or completely different. And this I think...is just about how lucky you are..whether you were first or last to be considered as this type of student.</p>
<p>I can't seem to figure out why they outright reject some seemingly qualified individuals. Maybe they just don't see that vitality in them. But it is indeed surprising to me that they would reject somebody so quickly, not even giving them the deferral.</p>
<p>But now that I think about it, luck isn't that much of a factor. There are still some things that others did better than you. It really does suck when your passions lie in the same plane as somebody elses it just happens that you are all applying to the same school at one time.</p>
<p>But an acceptance at one school and not the other isn't about luck. It's definitely about how the school's culture perceives. I had a friend rejected at Michigan, accepted at Princeton. Luck? don't think so.</p>
<p>they want normal people. they have too many computer geniuses, violin prodigies, and stellar athletes already. </p>
<p>halfway through my supplement i gave up and messed around with the last two essays. </p>
<p>my roommate one consisted for sentences like: </p>
<p>I like food. I like carbohydrates. I like potatoes. I dislike soggy French fries.<br>
I like to run and jog with a friend. I dislike jogging with my tennis team, whose members are all faster than I am.<br>
I have taken four years of Spanish, and immensely enjoyed everything about it, except for this year. Something about the prefix "AP" just destroys the fun in everything. </p>
<p>and the why stanford i talked about how i went to this really good panini place on university avenue. an entire paragraph (1/3 of the essay) was devoted to describing the panini. </p>
<p>for some strange (funny) reason, they still took me. my vitality answer was pretty serious though, so i guess it balanced it out. </p>
<p>anyways, be yourself. let your personality shine through.</p>
<p>@ johno12345 and others: I will definitely agree with the point that SATs aren't everything but to say that a 2200 is no different from a 2400 is stretching it...</p>
<p>There is a reason some people get higher scores... we do work towards them like everyone else but not everyone is a score freak... many of us simply read alot and alot and have high scores as a result of the work we put in OVER MANY YEARS. For me, I've been an avid reader for most of my life (went through 3-4 300-400 page books a week in grade 4 since I had the time).</p>
<p>The other thing is, you can present this argument to any achievement. I could say that people have high grades because they just know the marking system well. I could also say that some people have leadership positions because they drag their friends to vote for them... its really all pointless... in the end, some do better, some not as well. For passion, I could say that someone does well in one field because they spend no effort on other field, which is mostly not true.</p>
<p>That being said, I very much still agree that admissions is holistic. I just don't like everyone ranting about how high SATs don't show anything. Well, if anything they show that you're intelligent enough to work out a system that others couldn't, you had the time management to commit to studying for the system, or you actually have some kind of talent in something that let you score high. 2100s, 2200,s w/e are all very qualified, yes we know that but lets not pretend that there is no difference. If there wasn't a difference, everyone would have 2400s above a certain point.</p>
<p>If someone dedicated their whole life to studying for tests, APs, SATs, etc then yes I would see everyone's point but to qualify someone with high SATs being rejected by saying that SATs aren't everything is just utter bs. Most people do other things besides SATs. I have a strong passion in business and I've tried to show that. In fact, I would consider my accomplishments in this field much more significant than my perfect SAT. The majority of people with high SATs have high SATs often because they have the time management, attention, or talent to manage the test along with whatever else they do.</p>
<p>There's a difference between a 2200 and a 2400, let me tell you.</p>
<p>Valedictorian...isn't significant? I daresay being valedictorian at one of the top private schools in the nation is a pretty decent accomplishment. I didn't have a lack of passion, I didn't have a lack of intellectual vitality...and my leadership positions sure as hell weren't empty.</p>
<p>It wasn't 5 APs either, it was 10...I'm in 5 this year, I've consistently taken the most rigorous schedule possible at my school. </p>
<p>I took advantage of every opportunity my school offered me, excelled in my classes and on tests, and I wasn't an empty academic, as evidenced by my extracurriculars...yet I was rejected. That's what's puzzling me. I can't nail down what they were looking for.</p>
<p>They were looking for a non-white skin color, it appears. Its not complicated to see that. Enjoy going to Harvard.</p>
<p>And yeah, to anyone who thinks a 2200 requires the same intelligence as a 2400, please, get that high of a score before saying that. Its easy to want them the same when you have the weaker of the two.</p>
<p>Really, I'm more disenchanted with Stanford's apparent eschewal of merit when making the decisions than anything else. So to all the people that were accepted, its great for you, but please do not actively celebrate it because it is incredibly inconsiderate to the many people with great statistics, ECs, and essays that were denied by the university.</p>
<p>That's touching. Try being in my shoes before you make that statement, or at least make an attempt to understand what I was trying to say and why I was saying it before you dismiss it out of hand.</p>
<p>And yes mike, that is very true.</p>
<p>Yeah, CI180, although I would say a look at the data set shows Stanford prefers AA way over any other hyperselective college. They are only 49% white (making whites technically underrepresented in terms of population representation), as opposed to the low to mid 60 percentages of HYP. The latter numbers are more representative of the white portion of the population.</p>
<p>Hi everybody. I was wondering if anyone could give me an outline for the admission process for Stanford. I was also hoping that several people might be kind enough to tell me how they think got accepted or rejected. I live in an extremely rural town so i'm wondering if that would work against me. Thanks for any input i receive! It seems to me that Stanford is almost looking for students with a kind of "aura" rather than students who have accumulated many academic accomplishments.</p>
<p>i have put myself in your shoes. if i were you, i would be very disappointed, bitter, and resentful - all of which are reflected in your posts. i very much understand that under-represented minorities (i hate using acronyms) have a - sometimes significant - advantage over whites and over-represented minorities such as asians. it's not fair; i am a firm opponent of affirmative action. </p>
<p>but i sincerely hope that in a few days, you will realize that not everything works in your favor (life isn't fair, who knew?) and you'll come to terms with that sad realization. to me, it just seems like you've been pushing this issue too much. you need to give it a rest. </p>
<p>we all know that it's unfair. maybe in a few decades we'll be able to do away with affirmative action.</p>
<p>You need leadership positions that are clearly not chosen to impress colleges. One usually becomes a club/honour society president to impress colleges. My leadership positions, being an Eagle Scout, and helping run my Church's Religious Education program of ~300 kids, were clearly self driven. You must also show that your passionate about learning. I think a very passionate essay about one's desire to learn is better than a brilliantly written one that lacks the same passion.</p>
<p>What I've also heard is that Stanford creates a vision for the future class and then admits kids who fulfill a certain element of that vision.</p>