<p>yournamehere...sorry you're right i forgot dartmouth which is on level 2 and would make for a consensus top 10</p>
<p>
[quote]
you're also incorrect to assume that work and skill alone (save something extreme) can get you a 4.0 at Stanford. Maybe at some other schools (which I even doubt) but not Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unless students at Stanford are judged to some extraordinarily unique, grueling standard that sets it apart from Harvard, Yale, or Princeton... and other top universities...</p>
<p>
[quote]
This isn't high school buds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What high school did you go to? One that hasn't prepared you to excel at Stanford?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Unless students at Stanford are judged to some extraordinarily unique, grueling standard that sets it apart from Harvard, Yale, or Princeton... and other top universities...
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Never said this wasn't the case at HYP or other top universities. In fact, all the Harvard kids whom I've talked to laugh at the whole "grade inflation thing" saying that they don't know anyone who has a 4.0 GPA. This is at Harvard which is universally accepted for attracting students with dedication and immense innate talent. Why, look at Princeton,the top decile is what, a 3.75 GPA? I'm pretty sure there are lots of kids at Princeton who work hard and are wickedly intelligent. Unless, of course, you have a drastically different definition of hard work and skill, it's pretty safe to assume you don't go into Princeton expecting to get a 4.0 by being diligent and highly intelligent-almost everyone else there is.</p>
<p>Princeton</a> University - Dean of the College - FAQ</p>
<p>
[Quote]
What high school did you go to? One that hasn't prepared you to excel at Stanford?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>My high school prepared me plenty well, kwu. I'm just saying most people can't expect to make the same grades at a top university that they made at a high school. Almost everyone comes in as one of the smartest from their high school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm just saying most people can't expect to make the same grades at a top university that they made at a high school. Almost everyone comes in as one of the smartest from their high school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you. That gives me hope, as one who comes from the middle of his class. =P</p>
<p>Level 1: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Princeton</p>
<p>Level 2: Columbia, Brown, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth</p>
<p>I think universally this is a very accepted listing of the top 10 universities. For engineers you could throw in Cal Tech, but overall this looks like most peoples opinions. The next 5 are a little more debated but are probably Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, Wash U and Hopkins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Stanford's student body is weaker than the rest of the Level 1 schools and is more on line with the Level 2 schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, of course, because its SAT scores are slightly lower.</p>
<p>There are plenty of people who get rejected from or waitlisted at Stanford, but who get into Yale or Harvard. There are people who get into Yale but rejected at Harvard; people who get into Princeton but rejected from Yale; people who get into Harvard but waitlisted or rejected at Yale and Princeton; and so on. It's not uncommon to see people getting into HYP but not S. And there are those who get rejected for Yale or Princeton or Harvard but who get into S. This sort of interchange happens all the time. That's why HYPS(+M) are pretty much on par in selectivity.</p>
<p>And anyone who says that Duke, Penn, Dartmouth, etc. are as selective as Stanford probably doesn't know what they're talking about.</p>
<p>Stanford's student body is weaker based on what exactly...</p>
<p>Your own delusional fabrications?</p>
<p>Stanford is a tiny bit more forgiving when it comes to standardized testing -- which seems rather forward, especially now that more and more schools are making it optional to submit scores altogether because they don't really determine intellect/ability to succeed. The SAT does what it needs to do to an extent -- after that...</p>
<p>Athletic recruitment.</p>
<p>Yeah, its kinda insulting to hear you guys quibble over the negligible differences between HYPM and Stanford... :( Jeez. Does it matter that much? Come on</p>
<p>Anybody who thinks it is easier to get into Stanford than it is to get into HYPM is ignorant. IGNORANT! SAT's be damned. Grow up people. Those are the types of comments that enfuriate me. Unless you are Tiger Woods, John McEnroe, John Elway, or an Olympics-bound athlete, Stanford is as selective as HYPM. I guess some of you are too young to understand that admissions standards cannot be captured statistically. Don't blame those universities when they hand you a thin envelope!</p>
<p>^ God has just tremble the Earth with his monstrous roar. :) All hail God.</p>
<p>It's ok Phead128, I have calmed down...and lo, Phelps has won another Gold Medal! Where are we at now? 6 races, 6 golds, 6 world records? Phelps is another guy that would probably get into Stanford with slightly lower stats! hehe!</p>
<p>lol, I rarely, if ever, see Alexandre express his thoughts so vehemently as in post #1235.</p>
<p>dingleberry: I think it'd be easier to assert that Stanford is slightly less selective than it is to assert that the student body is "weaker" because of slightly lower SAT medians. (Neither is true.) Anyone who thinks Stanford's student body is "weaker" than HYPM's... has a lot to learn. (Why you'd try to dissociate "selectivity" and "strength of student body," I don't know.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
a lot of people I know consider strength of the student body to be of utmost importance when comparing prestige of schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A lot of people are naive, too. ;)</p>
<p>None of these statements above about Stanford selectivity hits the mark, in my experience.</p>
<p>Based on observation, Stanford is the one HYPSM that greatly values athletic accomplishment. Every year of its existence (I believe 9 yrs), Stanford has been the run-away winner of the Directors Cup, a measure of athletic accomplishment across (I think) about 15 sports, male and female. I'm going to hazard a guess that over 15% of Stanford's student body is comprised of athletic recruits, about half on scholarship, the other half not. The ravenous machine that is the 35 or so Division I Sports teams at Stanford needs stocking -- and not just with placeholders, but with students who will vie for NCAA DI championships each year. The testing numbers of these recruits will be higher than the average college bound graduate, but not top 1-2% as it would be with non-athletic recruits.</p>
<p>Back in the day, and I have no reason to assume any change, Stanford was known as the "Student Body Presidents' school". What does that mean? It means that leadership and entrepreneurial qualities are highly valued in Stanford admissions, moreso than the other HYPSM schools.</p>
<p>So, you've got an ave. 25/75 SAT of 1440 at Stanford, vs. 1480 or so at Yale. I would expect this distribution given the qualities the Stanford admissions office selects for. At the opposite end of this SAT focus is Caltech, whose 1520 (about 40 pts higher than MIT) SAT 25/75 ave is the highest in the country, and I'll dare guess there are not more than one handful of Student Body Presidents on that campus.</p>
<p>So, the question of selectivity begs the question -- selecting for what? Clearly unathletic, socially clumsy, non-entrepreunurial 1600 scorers don't stand a chance at Stanford.</p>
<p>So again, to assume that selectivity means SAT average scores is silly when a school has demostrated there are 2-3 other qualities that admissions considerations valuable selection criteria for its student body.</p>
<p>As the poster above mentioned, given the growing trend of making SATs optional, perhaps we can conclude that Stanford has learned earlier than others that success in the classroom, research, and life, is less correlated to SAT performance than to other selection criteria?</p>
<p>^^ I agree with most of what you've said, but I'll clarify that I don't think that Stanford really "values" athletic ability in all candidates necessarily--probably only those who will play for them, and perhaps those who show certain qualities they're looking for. In other words, not having some athletic EC or achievement won't hurt one's chances at all; Stanford couldn't care either way.</p>
<p>From dingleberry's logic, HYPM have weaker student bodies than Caltech... right. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>on AVERAGE, yes, HYPM have academically weaker student bodies than Caltech, even if they may have more Caltech-caliber students than we do in raw numbers.</p>
<p>(I also know quite a few student body presidents...well, more than a handful, at least)</p>
<p>redirect -- while that may be true, the 25/75 ave SAT score would be a poor way of demonstrating it. It would only be accurate to say that the Caltech students are the highest SAT scores in the country, and any inference from that about academic ability would require a lot of discussion. It would also probably be accurate to say that the top 225 test scorers matriculating to HYPSM each year have a an ave. SAT of about 1580 vs. 1520 at Caltech. Another way to view that is that the top about 500 matriculatants to these schools have SAT 1520 or higher, vs. maybe 150 at Caltech.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that Caltech has a stronger student body then HYPS. Yet I think you do need to take into account its a very small school, with a very narrow focus. So its students are focused/strong in one major area, unlike HYPS, which have excellence across the spectrum. Also there is no question that Stanford is just as prestigous/selective/strong in regards to its student body as HYP. Yet, I would also say that they probably do have more athletic recruits, since its quit a feat to be as strong as they are in sports.</p>
<p>Just checked in...I have no connection to Stanford at all, but anybody who says its student population is weaker in any way than HYP has some serious bias/mental health problems....</p>
<p>Dingleberry, your logic is fine until you assume that pure academic strength=SAT scores. It probably will if you're talking about a school with an average SAT of 1400 vs that of 1200, but not necessarily if you're talking 1440 (Stanford) vs 1480 (HYPM). That is the point of contention. I wrote another post on this same thread discussing this issue-I'll bring it up for you:</p>
<p>
[Quote]
To add onto what kyle said, Stanford's application is considerably different from that of HYP's. I think H had an optional essay, Y had one essay, and P had one essay (two for engineering). Stanford had a lot of writing if I remember, three essays plus short answers. This leads me to believe Stanford really cares about those essays, writing style+personality, probably more than HYP do and thus the SAT scores at Stanford might be lower due to these factors. This isn't to say Stanford doesn't value high test scores or that you can be admitted at HYP only because of high test scores, its more that Stanford cares about the essay sections more. The same applies to the top 10% figure. And just for some context: the median SAT score at Yale is 2240 that at Harvard is 2235, that at Princeton is 2220, while that at Stanford is 2155. (as calculated by Collegeboard, not perfectly accurate but good enough for comparison) It isn't much of a difference given the difference in admission policy.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>And Stanford's median SAT is actually 2180 now as per this years admissions process making the difference very small considering that Stanford also looks for academic strength in the form of writing skill more than HYPM.</p>