What *REALLY* does it take to get into Stanford?

Parents Forum
61

<p>

</p>

<p>QM, I do not doubt that Stanford is concerned about its yield. But again, so is every deam of admission or enrollment manager in the nation! However, I doubt that Stanford is more concerned about its yield than Yale or Harvard or might be. After all, Dean Shaw did not become worried about the yield when he left Yale for Stanford. Intererestingly enough, Yale and Stanford are still relying on REA (SCEA) to meet their objectives. I am sure that they have measured and modeled the possibilities offered by dropping early admissions altogether or using better yielding (pun intended) crutches of ED and extensive use of the wait lists. </p>

<p>This said, I believe that Stanford might be more annoyed to lose students in cross-admit battles as it might have a bigger impact on their athletic teams. After all, it is easier to find another valedictorian or 2400 SAT scorer in the RD (or the waitlist) than to find a superstar volleyball setter, waterpolo goalie, or the next Tiger Woods.</p>

62

<p>They are more than welcome to the next Tiger Woods.</p>

63

<p>I also think that as a newer university, Stanford prides itself on being a little more free (see their motto about the winds of freedom blowing), hip, and out-of-the box thinking than their East Coast counterparts. They feel they aren’t as constrained and stuffy as the Ivies. For one thing, they are willing to admit that sports matter to intelligent people too, whereas the Ivies relegate sports to the category of a necessary evil and one that undermines serious academics. The adcoms seem to enjoy students who are fun and don’t take themselves too seriously. The school must value some occasional irrevence, as evidenced by their marching band.</p>

<p>And then there’s the famous paddling duck analogy. Stanford students work very hard, but they don’t make a big show of doing so. The “Oh my God I have a huge exam tomorrow and I’m not prepared!” hand-wringing type of student is probably not the type they’ll choose. I think this constitutes one aspect of the quality of modesty they like–the fact that you’re not someone whose upbringing has taught you that succeeding is just what your kind does in life. My D at Stanford just recounted to me that she just met the son of an extremely successful person, but the student doesn’t seem to realize that people have figured out who he is. When talking about his family, he was the master of understatement and said his dad was somewhat successful. SOMEWHAT!!!</p>

64

<p>As someone from the West Coast, extremely well acquainted with Stanford, and with many of its recent admits, I find this last post to be about as unscientifically general as possible. Stanford students as a group are no “nicer” nor less dramatic, nor less show-offy, nor less name-dropping than students from any other region, or at any other school. It’s ironic that I find the west coast far more name-conscious and less nice, overall, than students I have met on the East Coast, at Ivies. </p>

<p>I have found east coast students kinder, far more gracious, and far more modest than west coast counterparts at Stanford or similar schools. For me, that has been particularly true when it comes to academic achievements. I’ve had to pry to find out students’ academic backgrounds & accomplishments, especially for the most achieving among them. There has seemed to be a direct proportion between modesty and achievement/talent.</p>

<p>My own daughter had a similar perception at her Ivy. This included when students were from ‘famous’ or high-profile families.</p>

<p>I do not share the perception that all Ivies view sports as a necessary evil. However, what I have seen is that extracurriculars other than sports are viewed with equal value, which, as a parent whose daughters chose and excelled in performing arts, has been refreshing.</p>

<p>I don’t think my family’s perceptions can be generalized, either; it’s just that to try to identify a particular unique quality about Stanford admits as a whole is a futile effort and will be lacking in support.</p>

<p>FWIW the two most recent Stanford admits that I am most intimately aware of (one that got off the waitlist, another that was an Early admit) succeeded in delineating who they were as people. They drew detailed portraits of themselves in their applications and essays, so that their identities truly stood out. Niether was a URM, by the way. In fact, I would say that they both had an uphill battle in being over-represented for their two ethnic groups, among applicants to Stanford. They were indeed unusual, but the challenge was to frame those distinctions within their application efforts. (It took a lot of work.) They also both had some atypical e.c.'s (often a big draw for Elites in general), and were able to articulate how those e.c.'s contributed to their identities and goals, and how those related to their future lives at Stanford & possibly beyond. </p>

<p>One of the two students, on a scale of 1 to 10, was about a 15 on the (genuine) leadership scale. She was completely off the charts in this, and could even be described as a rising international star. She also had and has a specific interest in an area unique to Stanford and has been involved in that interest in the past (and at Stanford).</p>

65

<p>Thanks for the link to the article. Telling was:

With experts like this mother, I’m happy to be an idiot novice.</p>

66

<p>TheGFG mentioned a word that we heard numerous times at a Stanford information session a few years ago: “irreverence.” They do like it, I think (if not directed at them). They did, however, reject (SCEA) a very smart friend of QMP’s who was a perfect fit to the tag “irreverent.”</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>You have obviously never attended a Harvard-Yale football game half-time show. This is probably where Stanford’s band found its inspiration.</p>

68

<p>As a public high school teacher (at a school that has students occasionally get admitted to Stanford and a few other selective Ivies), I have spent many years observing these top students everyone is talking about. The thing people seem to be overlooking is that students with high test scores and great EC’s are not all the same. These kids have very different life experiences that they also bring to the table. These kids all have very different personalities–and yes, some are more desirable than others. If you asked me to predict who all the “movers and shakers” of the future were going to be, most of those I would pick would be in the top 10% (not because they are so bright, but because they are the “doers” and they let nothing fall through the cracks, including academics) . That top 10% represents a range of talents and SAT scores. These kids are ALL academically gifted but certainly don’t all posses the same leadership or social skills. Even the valedictorians from year to year seem to have little in common when it comes to personality.</p>

<p>I think what people need to take into account is that the great stat’s ensure the student gets a “a good look” from the universities. The next step is for the university to try to learn about what else the student has to offer. It is definitely not a lottery. I can say that some excellent students (in all ways) have been turned down by Stanford, but when I read their application it was no surprise to me. If a student is not able to accurately convey who they are and what makes them special (besides all the stuff every other kid applying has), then they have no chance of being admitted. What about that kid with a 2400, 10 AP’s, the student body president and valedictorian–a sure thing right? There is a PERSON behind those stats and that is who Stanford wants to meet.</p>

<p>I have also noticed over the 20 years that I have been teaching, that universities do seem to get the right type of kids for their campus. Every campus has a definite personality, and year after year certain personalities seem to gravitate to the exact school I would have guessed they’d go to. They always come back to visit and tell me how much they LOVE their college and how happy they are with their choice. Even that kid that got rejected from Stanford soon realizes that they can be a leader just about anywhere and they too LOVE the school they eventually ended up attending. What about that Stanford reject that is miserable because they didn’t get in and just can’t see being happy anywhere else? That would be just the kind of kid I wouldn’t want to be around.</p>

69

<p>My post was designed to explain how Stanford tends to describe itself, which is not necessarily the same as what it truly is. Obviously, the school and its students could never be captured in any one description, and no serious CCer would ever suggest to have a “scientific” theory on college admissions at any elite school and I didn’t do that.</p>

<p>But there is something to the idea of a campus personality. Each of the schools we visited described a slightly different set of qualities they felt defined their school or their students. Some stressed creativity and entrepreneurship more than others, some stressed service to school and community, some talked about passion and drive, some talked about academic exploration, etc. So I drew my comments from what was said in Stanford’s info session, on the tour, by a coach, in their brochures, and from quotes by students in college guide materials.</p>

<p>Still, why is it epiphany that you criticize me for generalizing about Stanford students, yet you just did the same for East Coast students–an even larger group? I doubt they’re any nicer or more gracious.</p>

70

<p>We all know that the students at elite schools have a lot in common; almost all are very bright and highly accomplished. Also, I doubt that the Ivies would knowingly accept a hateful, unlikeable student either, even though they may not stress niceness as a quality they look for as much as Stanford may. ALL schools want nice students. But when a school tends to describe itself and its students in a certain way, I think it attracts a greater percentage of students who identify with that description. If you feel you’re laid back and being laid back is an important part of your identity, then if Stanford students say the school is more laid back than the Ivies, then maybe you’ll choose Stanford if you have a choice. The very fact that not everyone is cross-admitted assures a diversity from the described personality type–another reason you can’t generalize.</p>

71

<p>A very interesting read, especially since I am planning on visiting Stanford with my sophomore in about a month.
Irreverence you write about - isn’t it common to all the Ivies/top schools?
I have to agree with Xiggi here - there are top students and there are top students.
I am frequently surprised to read that such and such school gives valedictorian status to all the kids that have achieved 4.0, and there is usually quite a few of those. ??? To have a 4.0 after four years of an intense academic program is almost a miracle to me :wink:
Also, funny to read about the east coast students as nicer and more gracious. I would have bet my money on the opposite, but this is also stereotyping.
Anyway, nice discussion guys!</p>

72

<p>^ Well, I can’t speak for the graciousness of the students in particular. But having just returned from visiting CA, I would certainly assert that customer service is much friendlier and more accomodating in CA than where I live. I don’t know of anyone from my state who has visited CA who hasn’t commented on the same thing. (Off topic, but was most definitely nicer in CA was that all the public restrooms had seat cover dispensers!)</p>

73

<p>No toilet seat covers on the east coast?
You guys are barbarians ;)</p>

74

<p>The “niceness” factor is an interesting perspective I don’t remember ever thinking about before. My kids attend/ed a CA high school, the students of which I would generally characterize as being “mean.” (lol maybe this is true of all hs students??) Two of my kids attend Ivies, and one of the first things they noted was how nice and friendly everyone was - “they all say hi to me, mom!” - obviously very different from their hs experience (maybe this is true of all colleges??). Our hs sends several students to Stanford every year, and my nephew went there, and would agree that all of those students are very nice. On the other hand, the students I know that our hs sent to the Ivies, I would also characterize as nice. That makes me think that high-acheivement and niceness tend to go together. I note also, however, that none of the students I know that went to Stanford are outwardly competitive (the striver, driven, focussed types). I cannot say that about the ones who went to the Ivies.</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s comforting for Stanford rejects, though a few posters may be right too that Standford students are nice as well.</p>

<p>One thing I don’t understand is why many local HS students got accepted at the Ivies but rarely at Stanford. Being in the middle of the country may have something to do with it. Also, Stanford was established to educate “California sons” if I remember correctly.</p>

76

<p>From our vantage point the California thing is not an advantage, especially since the admission director changed a few years back. My kids went to an California urban academic magnet that used to consider itself a feeder for Stanford. There is even a specific scholarship for kids from our hs who go to Stanford. Guess what? No one got it this year, and in the past couple of years there has only been one. This defies the odds because it is a large school with many high achieving students and multiple kids get into HYP every year (a dozen Harvard admits a few years ago). Probably Stanford gets more applications from our school than just about any other. Stanford clearly does not care for us. Some people thought it was for geographic diversity because our school is too close, but a local private school which is about 1/6 the size (with heavy Stanford connections) got something like 10 kids in. </p>

<p>I don’t know what it takes, but I can say its quirky, and in some respects doesn’t seem completely balanced. My kids didn’t apply so I don’t have a horse in the race. But they’re a private school and they can do what they want.</p>

77

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll answer by quoting the part that you apparently did not read:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Therefore, I did no such thing as you claim I did. I’m giving examples of wildly different perceptions. And possibly the fact that 100% of the East Coast Ivy students I have met happen to be kind, considerate, and modest is a complete accident. In my view, it may relate (in both cases, and in many other similar comparisons) to being away from home and having certain expectations, and/or being open because one is away from home.</p>

<p>I am also aware of differences in campus cultures, both subtle and not-so-subtle. In my profession I make it my business to do so. If I have noticed one thing consistently, is that on both the east and west coasts, the people whom the various different Elites actually attract and who actually matriculate there do not necessarily conform to the public perception of who could be expected to be there (in terms of personal qualities, for example), nor does the way those campuses advertise themselves, including through admissions reps, necessarily correspond to the resulting student body.</p>

78

<p>You could do a similar thread for our high school except change “Stanford” to “Yale.” LOL In the 10 years that I’ve been at the high school, we’ve never had a Yale applicant that got in.</p>

<p>I wonder if Stanford has certain preconceptions of high schools. Judging from the kids from our California high school that have gotten in, Stanford looks to our high school for smart, high achieving URMs. Only one kid who doesn’t fit that bill has gotten into Stanford and she went to Harvard.</p>

79

<p>Diversity matters. There are years when there are plenty of applicants like the girl mentioned by OP, so her chance diminishes. There are years when the applicant pool is much different, so if the girl applies, she’ll more likely to get in. It’s Stanford’s desire to create a diverse class that creates uncertainty in admission.</p>

80

<p>I live in one of those large middle of the country state where the top colleges are always scrambling to matriculate 1 student from so they can claim “all 50 states,” and yet not infrequently end up with a big fat zero covering a large geographical area on their pretty colored map.</p>

<p>I know 2 Stanford admits over the past 5 years from my city (largest in state). One was an once-in-a-decade student who was bright and motivated without a hook, and one from this year was an athletic recruit. Both ended up attending elsewhere. </p>

<p>Also there is a URM athletic recruit from elsewhere in the state for this year who is at Stanford. So this year, they admitted 2 athletes. I doubt they took anyone else from the state.</p>

<p>The very few HYPMS admits we have from this state appear to skew largely to athletic recruits and the very well connected. The latter tend to attend fancy boarding schools elsewhere but still claim Podunk State as their State of Origin.</p>