<p>I just found out that Stanford's need-based admission against Internationals makes the acceptance rate of FinAid Int'ls at 3% (1,000+ internationals ask for finaid. 35 were accepted last year).</p>
<p>What is WRONG with Stanford? Aren't they much richer (or similar) than Dartmouth, Williams, Middlebury by endowment per capita? (and we must count out the grads, since they recieve almost no finaid)</p>
<p>Even here in CC, I've NEVER seen any international students asking finaid and got into Stanford.... I mean, 3% acceptance rate? I thought 11% was as bad as admissions could possibly get!</p>
MIT is need-blind for internationals and their admit rate is 4%.</p>
<p>Also, depending on field, grad students receive massive fin-aid, only its called something different. A research fellowship, or the like, is often fin aid by other names.</p>
<p>Stanford is not necessarily richer than Williams in terms of endowment per capita. Financial aid program is usually a certain percentage of the total endowment, and bear in mind that there’s a larger portion from the endowment that must go to expensive researches in the case of Stanford than for Dartmouth, Williams and Middlebury. And it’s not that they don’t like poor int’l students, but that they prefer richer guys. And anyway, admission is quite volatile and unpredictable there. For the year when 35 financial aid applicants got in Stanford, all the applicants to Stanford from my high school got in(4 of them), each with an almost full ride (family contribution ranging from $300-3000). I got a full ride in 2005, though I chose another college. Sometimes, their financial strategy is targeted for some special purposes, which only the admission officers know. (Personally I don’t think I have those spectacular achievements as can be shown from numerous chance threads on CC, and Stanford almost considered withdrawing my application because I refused to pay the application fee) So the seemingly unfairness to poor int’l students can be explained by the fact that their strategy hasn’t shifted to your region or school.</p>
<p>That’s true of (almost) all schools in the US, it’s pretty frustrating, I know. But you can’t really blame them, they would want to direct funds to applicants from the US. But I’d advise you to take that 35/1000 with a pinch of salt, not all 1000 of them would be top tier applicants. It would be a rich blend of a broad spectrum of applicants, and the outcome is pretty predictable if you’re on either end.</p>
<p>I don’t get where people get this idea that American universities are just sitting there with loads of money and waiting for us intels…they have to think of their own citizens first…I don’t think an American will appreciate paying $200k for 4 years of college wheras an intel might get away with just paying $20 K</p>
<p>^ Not if the International applicant is a notch better than the American one. It basically depends on wether the school really wants you. If it does, you’ll most probably have your full need met, if not, then no.</p>
<p>^what if a school really wants you, but the spots are already filled?</p>
<p>Plus, on an article, an adcom said that often more qualified int’ls do not get in, while less qualified domestics/int’ls with money get in.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure if you’re trying to be funny, but I really seem to be unable to notice the difference, since the result is the same: “poor” int’ls have a MUCH lower chance than richer" int’ls, unlike domestic “poor” people, who gain an edge in admission against “richer” domestic applicants</p>
<p>^ Yes, but it’s not that they’d take a student with a transcript full of curves and a 1200 SAT if he’s willing to pay instead of a straight A, great EC kid who is not willing to pay. Well obviously, this is a skewed opinion, in reality admissions officers face a more complex spectrum of applicants and so we cannot really predict much.</p>
<p>Also, could you provide the link to that article?</p>
<p>^Like you said, your example is way too skewed. I mean, a “rich” int’l with slightly sub-par ECs and SAT test scores (say.. 2100) will have better chances to get in than a better “poor” int’l who has better ECs and SATs (ie 2200 +), who even had to live with less priviledged conditions than the “rich” int’l.</p>
<p>Btw williamzhang, you make it sound as if a bunch of people get full rides into Stanford. Last year, only 35 int’ls requesting aid WORLDWIDE got admitted into Stanford. Either your school is insanely competitive and competent, or you are lying (which is much more probable, since I seriously doubt that Stanford would offer 4 of the 35 spots to kids from the same country and HS, when they are seeking for a greater range of diversity. Even more so when MOST countries cannot get even 1 student into Stanford)</p>
<p>If universities use financial stability as a barometer to such extent, I can only wonder how naive most universities are to be allowing sub-par candidates to get in as opposed to well qualified ones.</p>
<p>^yeah… that’s the main reason of my complaint :(. I’m sorry if I sounded offensive in any way, but (I’m sure many will share the same feeling) I am frustrated that Stanford thinks that it can afford to renounce talent over $$. Maybe Stanford isn’t realizing this, but the world today is much less divided by country boundaries than before(in other words, globalization is taking place at a very fast rate), and Stanford might notice in a few decades that a bunch of superior int’l alumni from HYP, Dartmouth and Williams are elevating the prestige of these univs.</p>
<p>Probably the Stanford financial committee is comprised of people MUCH smarter and more knowledgeable than me, but those are just my feelings/opinions.</p>