<p>on the yale boards they were talking about how the past two or three years have been the most random with yale, admissions-wise. so maybe thats an indicator of whats coming for stanford</p>
<p>As far as randomness goes, Stanford admissions were already pretty far up there.</p>
<p>I met Shaw as he came to visit our school for the information session.. I recall him as a pretty funny/flippant guy haha. I came in late so I didn't know who he was; he seemed nonchalant and kind of uninformed so I assumed he was some alumni dude. Big suprise at the end when he repeated his name as Shaw, good times.
I remember him actually commenting during the speech (and this was before I knew it was him, so I wasn't suprised or anything) that the whole thing was pretty random, and that ultimately he didn't know exactly how it worked (?!). He also made fun of Yale for a couple of minutes, it was pretty funny.
Anecdotes aside.. (and alliteration as well.. ok I'll stop).
I don't know how Stanf. admissions could get more random than they are. But based on people I know who have/have not gotten into Yale the past couple years and my meeting with him, if there is some way to do such, he probably will.</p>
<p>I dont' think the new dean will greatly impact the randomness of acceptance to Stanford, especially for SCEA because for now he is trying to learn how Stanford approaches admissions. The most important thing is that the regional adcoms haven't changed. Those are the most important since they have known the region they read extremely well and will argue your case to the dean.</p>
<p>One thing that will be new to Stanford admission this year, according to the adcom that came to my information session, is that they will have verbal/court like adimssions where adcoms literally present an applicant and everyone talks about the applicant until a decision is made. In the past, the admissions process has been silent - your application was read and passed down the table to other adcoms as they wrote comments about you and the dean made the final decision.</p>
<p>Overall, Stanford admission is already so random that I cannot imagine how the new dean can make it more random...</p>
<p>Well my post was a bit tongue in cheek, I obviously have no idea whether or not he actually can make it more random (would that even be possible?).
But I do think my meeting with him was pretty interesting, I was surprised at least.
As for your point on Regional reps being the same, I heard differently. Shaw actually said he would be reading our region (Arizona) and of course, Shaw wasn't here last year. Again, he may simply be uninformed, or he may have meant he will be 'overseeing' our region not reading it. But then again, I haven't heard of any other person who reads it or bothered to visit our schools (wouldn't that be their job)?
I haven't heard that the verbal/advocacy thing would be done , but it is good to hear. I know they do that thing at Yale (it's kind of a trademark at least from what I've heard). I think it would be a big positive in the process.</p>
<p>i didnt want to start another thread on this but lets discuss some random acceptances we've heard. its reassuring to hear of these cases ...gives hope to people like me</p>
<p>I would say good scores don't help, but bad scores do hurt. There's always a top level with good scores, but you'll have to be even better than that top level in terms of your academic interest/intangibles to have a good shot.</p>
<p>.......so would a 2040 hurt?</p>
<p>what do you mean there's always a top level with good scores?</p>
<p>I think that it is a rationalization, in fact a delusion to say that the process at Stanford, and elsewhere, is random. As Marlgirl said, spend time at Stanford, get to know your fellow students, and you will realize that they don't pick names out of a hat. Remember that the adcom sees a lot more than you do, don't conclude that a 1600 you know who got denied proves randomness, at least until you've actually read his application.</p>
<p>True. How important are teacher recs?</p>
<p>According to Collegeboard these are the scores for the 25 and 75%percentiles of admited students</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Verbal: 680 - 770
SAT Reasoning Math: 690 - 780
Total 1370 - 1550</p>
<p>If we scale for the new SAT 2050-2320</p>
<p>So that 2040 is not that bad.</p>
<p>Anyone know of anyone who transferred to Stanford as a sophomore? Any tips?</p>
<p>idler, by random i dont think we mean literally completely random. i guess surprising would be a better word</p>
<p>I mean that once you get to a certain point, people are so talented that the SAT score doesn't really say anything about a person. Pretty much, in the top group, ALL SAT scores will be above 1550. It's like an IQ test. The difference between a genius and an average person is 30-40 points. But the difference between an uncommon genius (160+ IQ) and a regular genius is just that great. Same thing with grades. Because getting an A- is the same thing as getting an A+ for your GPA, a person who was always at the top of his class and the person on the good side of the A-B edge will be the same.</p>
<p>My point is you can have a decent chance of making it into a ultra-selective college if your grades are excellent, SAT scores pretty much perfect, and EC's above average. But it will still have a large luck factor. Princeton takes you, Harvard doesn't, Stanford does, Yale doesn't, etc. You have no guarantees and you must work to please the adcoms. But if you stand out, the admissions officers will look for YOU.</p>
<p>There's simply too much talent out there. Much better to show dedication, character, integrity, and a genuine love for something than to get straight A's and perfect SAT scores. You can make up bad test scores for something uncommon. But you can't make up a lackluster personality with good test scores.</p>
<p>But what I have said is rarely applicable. The uncommon students typically HAVE the good grades/test scores. However, the high-achieving but typical people often try to load their apps with a lot of EC's, which unfortunately are not the result of true dedication.</p>
<p>Recently read something on the web. You may have already read it, maybe not, but take a look!</p>
<p>"However, an initial approval is not a guarantee of admission. The new system is more likely than not to produce a higher number of approved candidates after the initial rounds of committee reviews are conducted, Shaw said. But another committee process will be employed to whittle down the "approved" candidates to a manageable class size by re-evaluating those applicants who received split votes or were on the margin."</p>
<p>Haha...great..</p>
<p>i like the committee review as opposed to the dean reading them all</p>
<p>Thanks for the article, MadeInChina!</p>
<p>from my practice sat tests, im getting a 2040. my ec's are great, and my grades are pretty good. from what ive read here, i have a good shot. im still a junior though.</p>
<p>Well be sure to get a 2400 on your SAT next year, Shark Bite. :p</p>