<p>Okay, so we've seen lots of decisions of our fellow CC students.
What seems like the common thread among the students who were Accepted?</p>
<p>What I think about what Stanford wants to see the most:</p>
<p>Passion>Character>(Affirmative Action)>Extracurriculars>Volunteering>Test Scores>School Grades>Job Experience</p>
<p>Test Scores are placed way below because they're not as important, as it seems.</p>
<p>I hope I am wrong and please give me your opinions.</p>
<p>It’s tough to strictly list. Your guess is as good as mine, but I think the essays are the most important factors, which tie in to passion and character. Entrepreneurship is big too.</p>
<p>I had below average test scores, but I came from a very small school and set out to accomplish more than everyone around me. I started my own photography business. I believe my essays were strong. Yes, I am hispanic, but I hate hearing that got me in. It was factor, but I feel Stanford choose me because I added something that no one else did.</p>
<p>Yes, Congratulations, and don’t listen to people saying that. You deserve it!!!
and CRAP I can’t believe i left out the ESSAY!!!</p>
<p>So the list goes: </p>
<p>Essays>Passion>Character>(Affirmative Action)>Extracurriculars>Volunteering>Test Scores>School Grades>Job Experience</p>
<p>With all due respect to Affe, who appears very deserving of his acceptance, I think affirmative action should be higher up on that list. I am a qualified candidate (Editor-in-Chief of award-winning newspaper, ranked 8th in a competitive class, pres. of a club for 3 years and all A’s and all 5’s on all of my AP’s) yet I got rejected early action (I am an asian and white girl). Instead, a hispanic boy who was much less qualified from my school was accepted. The only logical explanation to this would have to be his race. I hope I’m not coming across as bitter–because I am totally fine with their decision, Stanford is a reach for anybody–but if you want to know what Stanford is looking for, race and diversity is pretty big.</p>
<p>hmmm… I’d disagree, with my asian friend accepted with 2060 SAT (!!). What shall be your explanation to that?</p>
<p>the point i’m trying to get across is, it’s not easy to show your passion and character.</p>
<p>Most college counselors and books on college admissions agree that your high school grades/GPA/rank and your test scores are the MOST important part of your application. If you don’t have your scores and grades above a certain level, even if you are truly passionate and an outstanding character, there’s a good chance you won’t get in – Stanford rarely admits someone who fails to graduate due to a workload he can’t handle.</p>
<p>CC is definitely not representative of the entire student body admitted and the unhooked students who were admitted did have strong test scores/high school grade. It’s just that, when almost EVERYONE has good test scores/grades, top schools like Stanford turn to essays/extracurricular activities. So, to be completely fair, grades and test scores should be at the top of the list.</p>
<p>Yeah I have to agree with paulshoon7. I don’t think affirmative action plays such a big part. I’m an International Asian male who got in with a 2010 SAT.</p>
<p>“So, to be completely fair, grades and test scores should be at the top of the list.”</p>
<p>But it depends on what you define as a good test score. For instance, many people suspect that getting into an Ivy with a sub-2250 SAT is pretty miraculous. However, people getting into Stanford with a sub-2250 is quite common and not a miracle at all. I would say a 2000 is perhaps the minimum for Stanford? Maybe even lower. Not 2250 by any means. (And I know that there are people who get into Ivies with sub-2250 but, like I said, it’s much more rare and would truly require the applicant to be a clear stand-out in some other regard.) So, I’d say Stanford is the most prestigious school that cares least about test scores and cares the most about essays/passion/et cetera. Even schools like UCLA/Berkeley care more about test scores; even though they let in many people in the 1800/1900-range, the higher one scores, the much better chance he has of getting into those schools. It just happens that the top UC’s get fewer applicants with high test scores overall than Stanford. Passion/essays matter to the UC’s, but numbers matter way more. I’d say the exact opposite is true at Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. The only logical explanation is that your idea of qualified and Stanford’s idea of qualified are very different, and that has very little to do with race. Looking at race or Affirmative Action as a scape goat is very, very easy. Don’t do it.</p>
<p>I would say that the application is a package that you present. Top schools, especially Stanford, tend to produce some of the world’s most productive people. They win championships, cure diseases, fight poverty, win prizes, become household names, start businesses, etc. Why does Stanford, and even other top schools, have such a high volume of those people? None of the aforementioned tasks are easy. Even with sheer natural ability, it takes a lot of work and a lot of the right circumstances for any of those things to happen. I would say those kinds of accomplishments occur to three types of people: those who easily overcome difficult circumstances, those with a great combination of sheer natural ability and work ethic, and those with an immense passion for something (or the potential to). Therefore, I would say those are the students who get accepted to Stanford or any top school. I was chosen because of my ability to overcome my circumstances. Many top scorers are chosen because they combine natural ability with something else - not just other top scores. And those with an immense passion could be high scorers or “low” scorers, it doesn’t matter - they have something inside of them more important than their GPA or SAT score.</p>
<p>I would never say that race is the defining factor of whether or not an applicant gets in, it is by no means the number one reason to make or break you. But it is ridiculous to ignore race//AA/URM as a factor in admissions, especially to Stanford. How could anyone possibly ignore the fact that Stanford has 60% minority admissions rating when America is two thirds White? And I’m saying all this from an ASIAN’S perspective- possibly the most unfairly represented minority within Stanford (a quarter of Stanford’s students are Asian, in comparison to America’s 5% consensus).</p>
<p>I posted this on another thread, but do you think it’s possible to be too passionate? Does it show that you aren’t willing to go beyond your own passions?</p>
<p>I think I might come off like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s a misinterpretation of the facts. Of the three qualities I would presume Stanford finds most important in its students (those who easily overcome difficult circumstances, those with a great combination of sheer natural ability and work ethic, and those with an immense passion for something (or the potential to)), it’s quite possible that minorities are more likely to fulfill those gaps. That is, perhaps in the applicant pool Stanford finds that Asians fulfill sheer natural ability and work ethic, minorities - who are more likely to come from low-income backgrounds - are more likely to fill the overcoming obstacles niche, and so on and so forth. Those aren’t race-related factors, but they are linked. </p>
<p>That is, I wouldn’t say Asians are for some reason smarter because they hail from a certain homeland, but I doubt anyone would argue that Asians don’t do extremely well academically. And African Americans aren’t all poor by any means, but the rates of poverty for African Americans are much higher on a whole. Many Hispanics have been in this country for generations upon generations, but it would be difficult to dispute that a high percentage of Hispanic (and Asian!) applicants don’t speak English at home or even as their first language, and so on and so forth. White applicants can certainly fulfill any of the three indicators for achievement, but maybe Stanford doesn’t find them as likely to do so.</p>
<p>You’ve noted that Stanford is almost two-thirds minority when the United States is almost two-thirds white. Yep, it’s true. You’ve also noted that Asians make up one-fourth of the Stanford student body but only five percent of the U.S. population. You’re saying that race is a factor, and you are (and if you aren’t, others are) assuming that black and Hispanic students get a boost because of their race. Since Asians are represented at such a rate, then, using that argument it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that Asians also receive a boost because of their race. But, we think we know that this is not true - some conclude that Affirmative Action and race in general work against Asians.</p>
<p>What about recommendations? My son just got accepted to Stanford for next fall, and I know that his teacher recommendations were a big part of his acceptance because they reflected his passion and his character. I think recommendations are right up there with the essays as very, very important. :)</p>
<p>“You’ve noted that Stanford is almost two-thirds minority when the United States is almost two-thirds white. Yep, it’s true. You’ve also noted that Asians make up one-fourth of the Stanford student body but only five percent of the U.S. population. You’re saying that race is a factor, and you are (and if you aren’t, others are) assuming that black and Hispanic students get a boost because of their race. Since Asians are represented at such a rate, then, using that argument it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that Asians also receive a boost because of their race. But, we think we know that this is not true - some conclude that Affirmative Action and race in general work against Asians.”</p>
<p>Whether or not demographic group A or demographic group B gets a boost in admissions shouldn’t be relative to the general US population. Just because Asians make up a large % of Stanford’s student body and a small % of the US population means very little. Really, one must look at credentials to truly determine who gets a boost and who doesn’t, and, in the end, it’s difficult to dispute the fact that many URM’s have been offered admissions at the expense of their Asian counterparts with higher test scores or better extracurricular options. I believe there was a Princeton study a while back that concluded that being a URM was the same as adding a couple hundred points to your SAT score while being Asian was the same as subtracting that same couple hundred points.</p>
<p>Really, it’s difficult to argue that URM’s do NOT get a boost when it really is commonly accepted as fact now. What’s in dispute is how MUCH of a boost they get.</p>
<p>Is it possible that many asians do very similar ECs?</p>
<p>A general rule of statistics: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. </p>
<p>Just because URMs have lower SAT scores does not mean AA was the reason they got in. Let me try to paint a scenario. Stanford likes people who overcome adversity, so lets say they admit 50% of their admits strongly based on that trait. URMs historically have lower standards of living from income to test scores, so it’s easy to see how the majority of that 50% would be URMs.</p>
<p>If you examine the bigger picture, yes the whole student body is “not proportional” to US population. However, looking by their metrics, it is proportional. This is just a very simple demonstration of how because A and B are correlated doesn’t mean A caused B. There are multiple factors that Stanford uses in it’s admission process.</p>
<p>But at the same time, the fact that URM’s have lower standards of living does not explain the numerous URM’s accepted who are actually quite well off and have never really faced adversity – the acceptances here are likely attributed to the fact that Stanford strives for diversity, which forces it to be partial towards certain races. Moreover, Stanford doesn’t hide the fact that it practices affirmative action, which by definition, takes race into consideration, so to discount the fact that URM’s get a boost is difficult.</p>
<p>Honestly, this is turning into every other affirmative action thread on CC – the point is that race DOES matter, but as for how much it matters, that’s still up for debate.</p>
<p>Stanford looks for awesomeness, ergo they made a mistake when they let me in.</p>
<p>On the topic of URMs, I have not noticed a difference in intelligence between the URMs and non-URMs. Just an observation, I know that my anecdotes prove nothing. It is just something that should be considered, and if it matters for you guys I am white.</p>
<p>okay okay, i think people understand that affirmative action does take place.
Now the list is:</p>
<p>Essays>Passion>Character>(Affirmative Action)>Extracurriculars>Volunteering>Recommendations>Test Scores>School Grades>Job Experience</p>
<p>Anything to add?
Agree/Disagree?</p>
<p>Clearly a student’s standardized test scores and transcript are the most important factors with regard to admission decisions at any of the top schools. But, since so many applicants to top-tier schools are able to demonstrate by virtue of their scores and grades that they are capable of doing the work at said school, other factors then come into play. It would be a mistake to assume that URM status or other non-academic factors play a larger role in admissions than grades/test scores.</p>