whats harder: early or regular?
Not much difference in odds between early action and regular decision. Early decision improves an applicant's chances but not early action.
Accepted REA! And with only a 22% chance!
Can anyone look at my profile and tell me how good of a chance there is for me to get into Stanford? Thanks!
I think your chances are pretty good. but if you don't get accepted go to nyu! such a great school and also where i want to go lol
Rejected yesterday for the 2013 school year. Good luck to anyone that applies RD.
I was wondering if someone could estimate my chances. I have a 3.90 GPA and 4.5 (weighted) GPA. I got a 720 on critical reading, 750 on math, and 790 on writing. 2260 total. I am a Indonesian-Hawaiian. I scored 770, 770, and 800 on the Chemistry, Math 1, and Math 2 SAT Subject tests respectively. I genuinely speak 4 languages fluently, and I do not speak English at home. My family is in the center of the middle class range. I am an Eagle Scout and the Senior Patrol of my troop. I teach the 5th grade Sunday School class at my church for the past few years. I have been an active member of Relay for Life for the past three years and a leader in my school's Environmental Club for the past two. I have been on the Varsity swim team for the past three years. I regularly spend my evenings tutoring and aiding my hemiplegic sister with her schoolwork and physical therapy. Stanford is my dream school. I would like to be able to help my sister. Does anyone have any idea of my chances? I have an eye-catching life to tell of in my essays.
I got my letter :)
You're going to get into anywhere you apply. honestly
From my understanding, when it comes down to deciding whether they accept one student or another, the admissions board looks at not only your grades but also your letters of recommendation. In other words, the intangible factors have a great impact on admissions...But you should of course try to stick to a few extracurricular activities and prepare for the SAT and/or ACT. :)
it says I have a 54% chance...I feel like this website isn't very accurate haha...any opinions?
Parchment over compensates for Hispanic status. Stanford does not give as much preference to Hispanics as Parchment predicts. Unfortunately, your chances are closer to 30%. That is still quite good... chances for Asians and Caucasians having your stats would be 20% at best.
In the end, it will likely come down to your "hook" and whether or not it fulfills an identified need.
How can I schedule an interview as an early decision applicant?
Does submitting an art supplement help your chances of acceptance? Also, could doing this hurt you if the supplement isn't up to par?
Also I got a 700 on my u.s. history subject test and was wondering if that was good enough to send in. I feel like Stanford wants close to perfect scores and was wondering if sending this in will hurt me or help me?
How much do you think it helps to be a Stanford legacy?
Not much. Given the demand for admission to Stanford, Legacy is playing a very small role if any.
4% chance.. how sad
People have gotten in with that prediction before, don't lose hope: www.parchment.com/c/college... (I zoomed in on students who had a prediction of 10% or less.)
Don't feel bad... I'm questioning how realistic this website is. I swear you get a 10% boost for being African American =.=
In all likelihood, that is probably true, however. Affirmative action is a lot stronger in the college arena than you would initially think.
If you look at others with stellar grades and outstanding community service, they don't get in the the Ivys or Standford. Those schools are looking for something else which isn't defined in any literature. Those schools are absolute toss ups and I wouldn't worry about it. There are great schools right under Stanford. I got into Johns Hopkins and my chances were slim to none. JHU is a great school. So try lots of schools with varied locations and backgrounds.
Chance me for Stanford? It says I have an 18% chance which is pretty disappointing, and I admit I don't have as stellar extracurriculars as the people in my school that have been accepted to Stanford. Any tips on how to get more in shape for applying next year?
Average chances would be around 9%, so an 18% chance is really really good! Best of luck!
I chanced you on all your schools. The best thing to do is to not worry about a specific school. Keep your grades up and re-take the SAT. See if you can get to 2300 - most schools superscore SAT. For ECs, try to delve deeper into a specific one that you can then discuss in an application essay to highlught yourself.
Stanford is a great private University - but so are Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Rice, Emory and Washington University in St. Louis. Your chances at these colleges are quite good and worth considering.
Thanks for replying :) I'm definitely retaking my SATs in October. Stanford is my dream school, however, so even though I'm aiming high I'd like to consider it before the others.
Do I have a chance at all? my scores and gpa arent great at all but i have a job, an internship, I raised money for an aids orphanage in tanzania, I am also on the production staff for my schools drama club, and I am a legacy
Unfortunately, I think your scores will take you out of the running. Legacy only helps once your scores qualify you.
It's too late now, but how'd it go? I'm thinking of applying next year, but my chances are pretty low as well :/
someone chance me
chance me, i'll chance back!
I'll just take a moment here and congratulate anyone who got in this year. :D
LOL, thank you! (Tho I won't be attending) Biggest surprise of the application season for me
I got rejected for Stanford earl action. What do you guys think? Chance me and I will chance back
Hello Stanford Class of 2015! ARTS SUPPLEMENT FOR THE WIN
As much as I love Stanford, I hate their supplement with a burning passion. That is all.
I cannot agree more. I've been trying to finish it for so long now :(
Agreed. My friend and I are dumbfounded by the intellectual vitality question.
Gah! I wrote about my research and how the obstacles along the way were intellectually engaging because they forced me to be a problem solver.
I'm stumped by the letter to your roommate one. I don't want to sound too cliche. Blech.
Yes! I am so screwed.
Me too. Maybe I'll write about music. Idk.
Good luck, man.
You too. We got this!
Woo! I just cranked out my letter to my roommate... All about playing guitar.
tell your future roommate to stop studying for a moment and go fountain hopping with you. you only get to do stanford once.
I'll go fountain hopping with my guitar.
Thanks all, all of my friends have now heard. I appreciate the help.
Has anyone heard regular EA decisions? I thought they were announcing today. (I know some "super candidates" have already heard.)
I thought decisions were already released? Like 5 of my friends have already heard back.
Thanks. I have heard of a couple of acceptances, but the bulk of my friends haven't heard. I should have said "I thought Dec 15 was the final day." Have you heard of rejections or just acceptances?
Out of my immediate friends, 2 acceptances and 3 rejections... great people, all of them, but no "super candidates." That's super weird.
Maybe the 15th was the day the decisions were supposed to be released, and instead Stanford released them early? Wouldn't be unheard of - if I remember correctly, they did just that for EA & RD last year
Looks like yoi1941 ( college.mychances.net/view/... ) and itsfuekoo22 ( college.mychances.net/view/... ) heard today.
by early decision I MEANT GETTING RECRUITED if you misunderstood me
There is a checkbox for "recruited", if that helps.
+1 because it's kinda hard to miss lol
Also, there are only 52 weeks in a year. At least it was the last time I checked.
Fail troll is fail.
I didnt get banned
Your profile is disabled (notice that your predictions have been replaced with the schools' acceptance rates). This is because it was reported that your acceptances were not possible (e.g., these schools have no admitted the Class of 2011 yet).
maybe hmmm i have hmm cousins hmmm uncles hmmm aunts hmmmm my mom and dad hmmm grandparents hmmmmm great grandparents hmmmmm who hmmm went to hmmm these hmmmm schools hmmmm and MAYBE hmmm I didnt sign hmmmmm with all those hmmmm schools hmmm ZOCK
How do you explain getting in Early Decision to 5 different binding schools?
+1. Despite being banned.
+1 if he makes a legit tracker and then gives us the link.
I got in with an athletic scholarship :) as well as all the other 17 schools I applied to. But I've decided on going to Princeton instead of Upenn and Harvard.
How did you get recruited for baseball at Cal? They got rid of their baseball team this year..?
He was so good, they made a new one so that he could play for them.
In addition, the academies (Military, Navy, and Airforce) started charging tuition just so that they could give him a full ride lol
Grats... But how did you find out already? And half the schools you supposedly applied Early to are binding early decision...
Apparently, he has legacy to all 21 schools. Hmm. . .
could be a polygamist and it just so happens all of his dad's wives went to very prestigious universities haha
Well, grats, now you'll have to attend Penn, Hopkins, Brown, Cornell, Duke, NYU, the Academies, all at the same time by contract. Have fun :)!
Alas, some jerk admin disabled that profile. How will we ever get a representative sample of people with full-ride scholarships to the Ivies when admins do things like this?
Lol, good call. Also, do you happen to have any advice for deferred applicants?
From what I can tell at Penn, deferral leads to a very small reduction in your chances of getting in. This is based on a small amount of data, however.
I think each school has their own preferences about how people respond to deferrals, and I'm not sure what Penn wants (e.g., just send us your updated transcript vs tell us you love us). I'd bet that a school like Penn just wants your updated transcript; not sure, though.
Thanks James. I hope if I get a B+ or two this semester it won't kill me.
They always like to see upwards trends; if that's upwards for you, it shouldn't hurt. Good luck!
Thanks, but that would be downward. Hopefully I can save them.
Okay, so when are they releasing decisions, because I see that some people are posting decisions. Is it a rolling thing from now until Dec. 15th?
I got my decision in an email today...REJECTED! BOOOO!
Sorry to hear that mathmaniac, you've still got some great schools on your list though!
i am sorry to hear that, especially when it is impossible to have better academic stats than you have. I bet you are wishing that your parents were alumni or that you were a URM right about now.
Yeah, in hindsight I probably should have been a URM, it would have really helped my chances lol. Either way, life goes on. Good luck with Notre Dame!!
And Blitz, good luck with Johns Hopkins!!
Thanks mathmaniac, and I second what 1mdgolf said.
Thank you. I really hope you get into brown now. This is the downfall of such high level schools though, they turn down kids that would obviously thrive at their school.
4.0, 34 ACT, student body president, and founder of a service organization at my school. Can someone tell me why that gets me a 13% chance of acceptance?
Particularly because student body president and founder isn't factored into the model. And it's based on your UW GPA which is a 3.9, not a 4.0. Also, a 34 ACT, while stupendous, is common for successful applicants at schools like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. You have a great application by the looks of it, and you stand a fighting chance for admission. These numbers are simply references to give you an idea of how you stack against past applicants. Notice the percent errors provided to give you an idea how strong the percentage is. Take into account what the community predicts of your chances as they can factor in your EC's into your prediction. Honestly, this is the closest we have to quantifying the unquantifiable, and the site improves everyday to make predictions more accurate. I urge you take each chance only as a reference and actively participate in the Mychances community to assess your own strength as an applicant.
Best of luck!
Thanks I appreciate it!
The best way I can explain it is by a statement I have heard several times and it applies to several other schools as well as Stanford. If Stanford wanted to fill the school with valedictorians and perfect ACTs they would have no problem. The competition at these schools is ridiculous and rarely will you find a white non legacy with better than 30% chance.
It's true. I had only an 18.2% chance of getting in, yet I managed to make it.
That makes sense. Thanks!
while visiting is good, id recommend everybody visit the school theyre planning on EDing, binding contract im talking about, im actually generally against that advice however, im hesitant to tell people to visit too many of these hyper selective schools because
1) most of time i can tell you, when you visit such a top ranked school, frankly your not going to decide its not for you after hrs of them hyping it up and trying to envision yourself there, it can happen but it really isnt the norm.In fact, more times than not you'll fall in love w/ the school, which is great, except that you have to remember these type of uber selective schools have sub 10% acceptance rates, meaning, no matter how good you are, the more you fall for a school, the harder it will be face what is still the most inevitable situation come decision day: dissapointment
2) We're talking about applying, we're talking about $75 and some hrs writing some supplement essays, really, whenever your in any kind of doubt whether to apply to school X, unless money is a significant issue for you and you cant get a fee waiver, just apply, outside of ED, nobody's telling you you have to go there if you get in, visit after you get in to most schools.
3) People change their minds alot about schools, i know i did and i knew many others who did this yr also, its easy to make determinations right after you visit a school and while you could argue these might be hte most accurate ones that most reflect your gut, people change your mind, my top 8 fluxuated alot, i wish i had applied to some schools i didnt, come april 1st i realized i had applied to J-Hop because of their name in medicine, not because i liked much about the school, and that Brown wasnt the right kind of school for me, even though i did a summer program there for 2 WEEKS LAST YR(school covered most of the cost) and was on campus for 2 weeks and got to find out sooooo much about the school
But bottom line, i dont mean to be a douche and just disagree to disagree, give the kid who posted before me credit for opening up his mind and not just falling for stanfords allure like 90% of kids would, but be careful about how much your willing to visit schools, especially these top ones, and how much stock you put in a visit, particualarly right after you visit it.
+1 for both of you. It's great to hear opinions from both sides of the aisle on this topic.
Just a little anecdote:
From my freshman year of high school until several weeks ago, I had my heart set on Stanford. I was enamored with the school and I was planning to apply SCEA.
Then I visited.
What I garnered from my visit is that Stanford is a wonderful place, filled with bright and ambitious people, but it is not the right place for me, for a number of reasons (I'm not going to list them all, because this isn't rag-on-Stanford hour).
Moral of the story: Visit the colleges at which you'll be applying - especially when you're thinking of applying early! One visit can completely change your perspective regarding a school (as visits to Stanford & UCLA did for me). /rantover
washu just sticks out cuz its the only top 20 school that isnt need blind, thats why it creates such backlash.
We'd like to believe every college doesnt lie about its need blindness, and in almost all cases they are, but for borderline candidates.... Johns Hopkins claims its need blind, but i remember reading a blog they had on their website where some adcom said they werent absolutely 100% need blind, and he said most need blind claiming schools arent entirely perfectly need blind, sorry i couldnt find the link,though. And also, i have a friend who hired a really experienced and expensive college counselor and he laughed at the idea of colleges being need blind for borderline candidates, dont know how much to make of it, but he knows waaaay more than most of us do about admission. Colleges mislead and even straight up lie about things admission related, its not def not uncommon, so i dont know if id necessarily autmoatically take their word.
Brief off-topic question for you: to the reply buttons not work, or do you prefer to post at the top of the page? (I just wrote this script two days ago so am not sure it works perfectly across all browsers, hence my question.)
Also, please pardon the typos. I haven't written an 'edit this post' function yet.
If you add an edit function, make sure you can't edit after someone else has replied; it can get really messy if you can.
Good call. An edit function isn't high on my list of priorities, but if/when I add it, I'll follow that suggestion (or provide you with a reason for not doing so).
but washu does so much other bs in their admission that theyre no better than any other place, worse actually.
It would be nice if they didn't waitlis quite so many people. Or if they accepted a majority of people on their waitlist.
need blind doesnt have to do with it, need blind only refers to your financial aid package, colleges dont see that when they make their decision, they still do factor your income status to some extent, some more than others, they should just factor it a lot more, so income isnt the issue w/ need blind. The poorest kids arent the ones who always get the most financial aid, need blind just means they dont know how much aid you applied for when looking at your app, or so they say, i dont believe all schools that say they are need blind are always absolutely 100% need blind, i think its a bit naieve to think that.
When a top college claims it does not penalize you for inability to pay, I take it at its word. I have never once seen evidence to the contrary.
If a college explicitly states they do take ability to pay into account, that's fine, too. Not everyone has a multibillion dollar endowment.
I for one appreciate Washington University at St Louis for being honest in this regard
New discussion's test.
Test of that.
I'm trying to start a new node discussion here (test).
I'm testing that hypothesis.
why u just posting this question on every single wall like ten times? Is it really that big a deal what colleges consider your heritage is right now when your not even applying till next yr? Chill out dude.
Don't post 3 times on walls..
Yes, they officially exclude Spain from most college applications under the category of Hispanic.
Would being hispanic of spanish (European) heritage, as opposed to South or Central American, alter my chances at all?
No, I doubt it. Spanish Europeans do relatively well academically in places like Florida and New York
Really? It only helps rich URMs? I personally know many URMs who are at the very bottom of society, and were pretty qualified to get into the ivies. Affirmative action definitely helped them. I'm sure there are a lot of rich URMs who get in a lot easier than others, but there is a lot of wealth around the ivies, and rich white kids can get in with a 1700 and 3.4 if their parents donate enough money.
Why would affirmative action not help a URM who grows up in a gang? If he works hard enough and is somewhat qualified, he'll have more of a chance of being accepted.
I don't like a lot of aspect of affirmative action, but there are some aspects of it that work. And like I said before, it should be more about income than race. But there are a lot of other unfair aspects of admission into the ivies, or any top university. It's insane.
If it were about income rather than race, then those colleges couldn't say they have "need-blind" admissions, right?
but they are still given a hell of a lot of special treatment r urms, and fact is while many urms might be qualified, the overwhelming majority of them probably wouldnt get in if they were white/azn. Just how it is, and being qualified doesnt mean much, 80% of kids who apply to ivies are qualified so in that sense, urms are really getting a relatively free pass. And being an athlete takes so much training and effort that i can at least accept that athletes get free passes to top colleges, you know how gifted and hard working you have to be to make it to D1?
But the problem w/ aff action is it isnt helping the kids who really could use it, like those urm kids who grow up in gangs and stuff, most kids who could really use a action arent even thinking about college. Aff action ends up helping the wrong ppl, the rich urms who have every bit the same opps as everybody else and then some greatly get into college. Thats the problem, and to answer freezingbeasts question, aff action exists to make colleges look good, the color of skin sells alot easier than the idea of growing up in hard circumstances, and it is more conspicious. And it helps college sell the idea of diversity everybody is obsessed with, and it avoids backlashes from urms saying theres racism which were rather frequent not to long ago. At least when colleges use reverse discrimination as they do in aff action, its about impossible to prove them of that. Its a lot easier and less controversial also to advertise a breakdown of your school by race rather than by income, race sells alot easier than family income. And thats why aff action exists, not for justice, because it sells easy and makes colleges look good, and if you dont think colleges will go out of there way to be shed in the best possible light possible, just look at how many do yield protection games and how all top privates superscore sats. On avg, its about like a 60 pt increase in sats when you superscore, but the diff in 60 pts is about the diff between penn/duke/brown and cmu/emory, which section do you think has the better name?
and btw, a action def doesnt help women, i forget the website but its universal for all colleges, if you go on northwesterns website and search admisison data you can find it, but anyway for almost every single college, the acceptance rate is lower for women than it is for men.
Affirmative action doesn't only help URMs, but also women. There are many arguments used for affirmative action, and I'm sure you know them all so there is no need for me to state them. But I personally agree with you, that economic status should be more of a factor.
A lot of URMs that are accepted have worked for it, as I have stated before, they are not given as much leeway as star athletes.
Don't use "minority" then only put blacks and Hispanics under that category. Aside from how you're leaving out Native Americans, all these "overachieving minorities" may was well be Asian with the way you're putting it.
Also, business and the presidency are based on meritocratic systems. Affirmative action in college won't help when the criteria is purely merit.
What I meant when i said black/hispanic was all minorities, I was trying to make a point.
The college you attend often has a major impact on your future career, and how far you will advance in your career.
Colleges should focus far more on helping to represent to lower class in society rather than minorities. Yes, I am a white male, but I am also from a fairly well-to-do family and neither system would help me. In my high school--that is diverse by most standards--racial lines are not very visible, but economic divides are obvious to anybody and everybody who attends.
Well that is very interesting. What is even more interesting is that this is a test!
I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
Then, why not base the judgement purely on class/income? The correlation between race and income becomes irrelevant factor in predicting an admit's economic status if the colleges already know the admit's economic status...
At least top athletes have merit in their own abilities (meaning they've worked for it), while URMs are only valued for their race (born with it).
I agree with lukeharry. Unfortunately, in the society we live in, the lower class and minorities often correlate.
From what I've seen, URMs still have to somewhat meet the academic criteria to be accepted. They aren't given as much leeway as star athletes.
Is it so wrong to try and help minorities be less underrepresented? I understand how you'd feel if you've worked extraordinarily hard throughout high school and were rejected from your dream schools, though. But it happens to a lot of people, overachieving minorities as well! And please cool it on the personal attacks, srandhawa1. I stated nothing but facts, that minorities are very underrepresented in many fields, and why shouldn't they be less underrepresented? How many black/hispanic CEO's do you see? How many black/hispanic presidents have we had? Not nearly as many compared to whites, correct? I am in no way racist, and I'm very sorry if I had originally come off as so.
im over affirmative action, or at least as much as i can be, it just always pisses me off when i see some urm say something like that, your right i dont want to turn this into some huge debate again on AA, i personally said what i said, im done, if your reading this, just remember what freezinbeast said, when you go to harvard or wherever just remember your walking on the floors of thousands of crashed dreams, not saying you shouldnt go cuz you got in easy, but just remember that, 85% of kids w/ 4.0s dont get to go to princeton.
You guys need to take a chill pill & cut the personal attacks.
Endless -and frankly, repetitive...- arguments about affirmative action on a random internet chat board aren't going to change a thing. Race will not cease to play a role in admissions until all the ethnic groups are generally socioeconomically equal.
But again, Jesus, chill out. I'm sure you have better things to do (i.e. study for AP's) than type out long-winded rants regarding Stanford's admissions policy.
sorry JTM, there are barely any unhooked white or asian person in america who would get to choose from stanford, harvard or penn w/ a 2160 and 3.7. Just doesnt happen, just be thankful your race and your race only was the thing that got you in, sure there are qualified urms that dont get in, if you were white w/ a 2160 SAT and 3.7 gpa, guess where youd be going? Sure as hell wouldnt be harvard, think, i dont know maybe, STATE SCHOOL. Doubt youd have the nerve to say something as arrogant as that if you were the one going to state school when you saw all these "minorities" who dont do jack squat in comparison to some overachieving whites and asians get in over those whites and asians. Quite easy to talk about how great the system is when it works for you.
and yeah, be pretty careful what you say, freezing beast comes from a poor, single parent family, one of his parents died when he was in china, give me one good reason why he shouldnt get in over some less qualified urm? Tell me he hasnt overcome harsh circumstnaces, if he were a urm, hed be a great feel good story, now instead hes gonna have to overcome the odds because of the color of his skin. The whole system is RACIST, your racist, you sound incredibly stupid when you talk like that, why should you get a boost? You know why your represented? Cuz you dont work as hard as asians, asians as a pop are underrepresented, yet, if it werent for this affirmative action, guess how much the asian pop at top colleges would be? Probably around 35% even 40%, why, cuz asians work hard, alot fewer asians make excuses like urms for their circumstances, alot of asians arent given shit and still make it, your not underrepresented cuz this country isnt out to get you anymore than it is asians, your underrrepresented cuz your almost never as hardworking as asians and whites, what should schools now recruit more asians cuz there underrepresented in this countrys pop? schools do everything in their power to recruit you, and still can only boost like 7% minority pop rates, schools do everything in their power to turn away asians and still often have 20+% rates for azns, dont you feel any guilt when you get everything handed to you when you didnt earn it, dont you feel anything wrong when you get in w/ avg ecs and stats over some kid who worked ten times harder and accomplished ten times more than you? Like freezingbeast said, guess lifes real hard when you get to go to some nice little private school where things are even more handed to you on a silver platter. Isnt there something in your head that stops you from sounding so obnoxious? You had every bit the same opps i did or even more going to some private school when i went to an urban public, yet, w/ similar stats, guess whos going to either stanford, princeton or penn and whos going to state school? The one w/ enough money to go to a private school.
Racism: "Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race."
First of all, i'd like to point out the absurdity in your comment. You're basically saying "Its ok for schools to decide admissions based on race, it is not racism." I don't know if its just me, but i find that to be quite ironic.
These kinds of discriminatory policies ARE THE DEFINITION OF RACISM. Whether or not they are justified is another issue, but these policies are UNDENIABLY RACIST.
Since you're the president of the debate team, i'm sure that you're quite aware of the red herring in your comment. BUT DO ASK YOUR SELF THIS, do you really deserve being treated as such? I guess growing up in a private school and a generous economic background really limited your academic opportunities...
I've known quite a few people with more then 3 800 sat II subjects, 2300+ Sats 4.6+ gap, varsity sports, that have been denied to the schools you've applied to. What other factor other than race could justify this?
I commend you for having the audacity of speaking out so candidly like this. But just a friendly little advice:
Be-careful who you say this to. There are people who've worked their entire lives only to have their dreams crushed due to their race. Understandably they would be quite contentious, perhaps even infuriated.
Be thankful that the system worked to your advantage, but know that when you walk the marbled floors of these exalted schools, when you tread these upper echelons of academic elites, you're walking on the shattered dreams of countless others.
I think one of the main things that enabled me to be accepted to Harvard was my hispanic heritage. I have decent ec's, good SAT scores, and a good GPA, but this was a record low year for Harvard's undergraduate acceptance rate, and I'm pretty sure my ethnicity pulled me through in the end. Minorities are quite underrepresented in many fields, and I think it's OK for schools to accept minorities sometimes over whites. Schools can do this without being "racist".
Hit92, you must have gotten a tough break, i personally know a black girl from my school who got into princeton, stanford and columbia w/ a 1920 SAT, nothing special either, 3.6 gpa, average in all other categories. Another three got into columbia, all sub 2100 SATS and sub 3.7 gpas and nothing special. Its hard to quantify urm admission, but its def. alot bigger than you make it out to be, the standards are MUCH LOWER, its not just 2100 vs. 2300, it can be 1800 vs. 2400,
Heres a link by dukes dean that says that for admission, urms are in 25-50% while unhooked kids are 75%, and there even admitting that much, they do alot worse that they wouldnt publicly share.
unfortunately, it looks like something was wrong w/ your app, hit92, maybe your ecs werent anything special and you had a declining gpa trend which must have made schools very wary. But your race greatly helped you as well, got a likely from cornell and got into uchicago, so really you dont have beef either w/ admission, if you go and look around on various websites w/ urm admission decisions, you'll see tons of unqualified kids getting into top schools. but ask yourself this, do you really deserve a boost in admission? do you come from a disadvantaged background, after all you have a legacy at columbia im guessing your family is decently off, have you had to overcome any huge life changing events like freezingbeast did? Why do you deserve to get in over those asian valedictorians who have tons of national awards and etc? Thats what it comes down to, you still had success in admission, almost all white kids w/ 3.7 gpa and 2200 SAT and avg ecs wouldnt get in to uchicago nonetheless a likely from cornell, unless you had some dire circumstances, you had the same chances everybody else did, why should you get it easy over those or white or asian kids w/ brutal circumstances and top scores/gpa?
While top tier schools like Stanford will tend to accept less qualified URM students than white or asian students, it is only to a certain extent. The applicant still has to fall within an acceptable performance range in order to be accepted. In short, they don't have to be the best, they simply have to be good enough because there probably won't be a discernible difference in the academic performance of an applicant who got a 2100 on the SATs and an applicant who got a 2300 once they get to college. They won't accept a URM who has a 3.0 GPA and a 1700 on the SAT's.
Just taking a look at those from my high school who got into the schools I was rejected from makes me wonder if being a URM even helped at all. 4 kids got into Brown over me (all white, 2 Jewish), some of whom had lower test scores but slightly higher GPAs. The only RD acceptance to Columbia was an asian girl with a slightly better GPA and the same test scores (also note: I'm a legacy and she isn't). The same held true for Northwestern and UPenn. The only unqualified students to get into Ivy league schools from my high school were athletes.
I totally agree with Srandhawa
The system of racial and ethnic diversity implemented at these universities are completely broken. It seems completely absurd that a person of URM status with mediocre academic merit, who grew up in a family earning over 300k, would be given priority over an outstanding non-URM student who grew up under much less generous conditions.
This kinda crap is Utter bs, it makes me so mad every time i hear people abusing the system like this. The worst part of this system is that it encourages racism. It basically is saying "o hey you're ______ race, therefore we have ______ expectations of you." Not only that, the URMs who are under-qualified ends up failing (becoming ego boosters) at the most competitive colleges. The difference in academic abilities at these top privates will inevitably lead to racial stereotyping of intelligence.
Then finally there are people who are URM that justifiably gotten in, yet they'll have to live with the accusation that the only reason they got in was due to their URM status.
of course stanford, like any top college is racist, they take urms over waaay more qualified and waaay more hard working asians and whites, they know it, they'll either try hiding it or straight lie to your face like they do about alot of things. Its all so they can create "fake" diversity and sell it to the public and avoid public backlash. Real diversity is in how ppl think and what they do, not their ethnicity, classifying an asian from sri lanka and one from japan as the same is total bs, they are just as diff as a black and a white, but since most arent willing to open up their minds, it'll never get acknowledged. Its a bs system, its not about justice and evening the playing field like they call it, its all to improve how theyre viewed and so people dont call them racist amongst other things. Its total bs every yr when i see urms who dont do jack for 4 yrs getting in over our much better qualified valedictorians. If you want to be fair, use family income, that decides who has opps and who doesnt, not race, by using race, your just playing into racism and making it worse. Asians are discriminated a ton also, they still make it cuz most work hard and dont make excuses like others, there are tons and tons of asians who are immigrants who come from families who dont make jack and still get top grades, win national awards etc.
I like Stanford and I completely understand -and support- their policy regarding URM applicants, but sometimes it does lead to unfair results.
All I can say is... don't get attached to any school. Especially Stanford. Apply if you really like it, but don't hold your breath.
Lol yeah, this Mexican girl got in from my school and she's not incredible. She's good. But not incredible. Just Mexican.
I changed my race from caucasian to native american and my chances went from 7% to 42%.
Yes, stanford is racist.
They don't even try to deny it, on their webpage it says "we consider race and ethnicity as a factor"
though they only put it as "consider" it should be under "very important"
Asians get screwed over everywhere except UCs where they can't consider race due to california law.
my friend said that stanford hates asains so i changed my race from hispanic to asian and my percent went down 23%! hahaha
Lowest percent chance for me to get in out of all of the ones I applied to...even less than MIT/Princeton! And naturally I was rejected.
yeah, those kind of legacies definitely help. i was responding to a comment about a 1 generation legacy.. which could help but i personally wouldn't count too much on having it be the defining factor of your application.
Well one of the people i know this year got into stanford early action. She is a 5th generation Legacy, and while her application was impressive... i wouldn't say it was the most impressive record i've seen. Of the 3 that got in (early) this year from my school, one had a godly application, the other was 5th gen legacy, and the last one was a minority.
Everyone has the right to dream big. Even me.
i highly doubt that's true. while being a legacy does increase your chances it's not the thing that will get you in (like a sport or a building in your name).. it's more like an extra "pro"/check on your application.
think about the kinds of applicants stanford has in their pool. yeah. -- why would they restrict themselves to accepting most legacy applicants simply because they have that legacy?
I have a friend who worked with some admissions officers for his essays and he told me that Stanford is accepting mostly if not all legacy. To what extent is that true? I'm sure they consider legacy over new families, but what about this year with the tight economy and budget cuts, even the big names are suffering.
it's a couple of family members who've worked both private and public
Are the admissions people that you know from public or private colleges? (I ask only because I'm always on the lookout for good insider info on college admissions trends! :-) )
of course there are
i wasn't meaning in absolute. my point is that my main focus is not on gpa/tests nor on my race. if being a URM is an advantage (even though it really isn't anymore according to admissions people i know) then I won't complain, disregard it, or feel overly handicapped
there are URMs with more academically-impressive applications; in terms of GPA/grades and test scores.
yeah I assumed, but if I get in I don't really care why
if i get in it will mainly be because of my essays, EC's, and stuff i did during HS. Plus test score when compared to other URM's maybe, plus level of classes and ind. study
but like i said, i don't care what their reason is if i get in.
To be blunt, chorapanese, it is because of your race.
it could be almost anything, we are human after all, and have you ever been able to describe someone simply with facts are figures? its not that simple.
i still can't believe I have a 24.4% chance (even though the accuracy/reliability is in question) I thought I would have like a 5% chance considering my lower GPA and just-under-25th-percentile test scores.
haha well at least you didn't drop from a 6.8% chance to 3.9% like i did
Placey's stats appear to be a little better than cbeau11's, yet placey is denied and cbeau11 is accepted. Congrats to cbeau11, btw....but what made the difference?
before applying early action to stanford, i had a 65% chance. since updating my status to rejected, i've dropped to 45%, haha. I was under the impression that rejection implied a 0% chance.
it says a 27.7% chance with my 3.4 UW GPA - but it doesn't know that a D is thrown in that transcript someplace
never thought this would happen
deferred :/ what to do
Ugh. Changed my ethnicity to hispanic, chances went from 21% to around 75%.
It's so difficult to get my head out of the clouds. Stanford is my dream school but I don't have a chance! I applied early admission and now, only days away from the admissions decision, I realize that everything is so real. This is make or break time and I've put my hopes on something that's impossible. I just wish Stanford would see me as more than a subpar asian nerd. Too bad.
Thanks a lot guys for the input...the waiting continues...are my chances really dismal? :( lol
"Stanford want(s) unique, talented individuals, who happen to be quite smart as well."
ihavnofloor may fit that description perfectly for all we know. Ihavnofloor, your sat scores aren't up to what Stanford generally accepts (students ought to have a
700 in each subsection, heard directly from the mouth of an admissions officer at Stanford). However, if you want to go to Stanford you should apply. And things aren't necessarily due to
race as sodapopp and brunhizzle describe here. You should apply and do so guilt free. If you get in it is because they saw you have the merits to be a Stanford student, and that's it. They accept Stanford students. If you get in you earned it. All this race talk doesn't necessarily pay the admissions office the respect it deserves for constructing amazing freshman classes year after year. As a recent Stanford grad, I can assure you that they don't admit unintelligent students, period. It doesn't matter what your race is. (And please know, if you don't get accepted it doesn't mean you aren't intelligent or worthy of admission! They reject thousands of perfect students every year. It's just the nature of the beast.)
(I'm awful too) As a white guy, despite perfect test results, the statistics say you only have maybe a 50% to get in here. If you look at the "Rejected Members' Score Range" outlook is bleak. People well over 2k on the SAT with 4.0s have been denied. The lesson to be learned here is to never rely on test scores alone. Insofar as I can tell, schools like Stanford want unique, talented individuals, who happen to be quite smart as well.
My advice to you: Go to a lower level university and distinguish yourself.
This probably makes me sound like an awful person, but if you were white, your chances would be pretty dismal, even with your impressive debating skills and good ECs.
And I don't know how much affirmative action will cover you... I personally think your chances are still going to be pretty low, but it's probably worth applying anyway :)
If I have a 3.5 gpa with a 1770 SAT how do you think my chances are? I am a black male, I am first in state in Speech, good extra curriculars, took the ACT but no score yet.
esa.aly You live in CA and have lower everything than me and I live in TX. You have four times as much of a chance getting here. Does in-state to a private school mean that much?
i hope not..
What makes you think that it's not going to happen with a 47% chance? That's like saying that a coin is not going to land on heads because it only has a 50% chance of doing so.
well, looks like this ain't gonna happen...
47% chance? i thought it'd be lower
Is it harder to get into Stanford as an Asian or a Caucasian? :|
HOLY shnikeys. I went up to 85% for HYP and 80% to Stanford (was 55% and 20 % before).
I have a 50% at Harvard and only 20% at Stanford??
65 to 54 :[
new chances plummeted from 46.4 to 17.8
OK so I changed my ethnic background to African American annnnd my chances went up 23%. VERY uncool
That does sound right. Even though Stanford had good financial aid in the past, many people didn't know about it. I remember talking to low-income high school students who thought they couldn't afford a place like Stanford because "the tuition is $40,000 a year" - but even back then, such a statement was incorrect. Now with such a clear policy, there is more transparency and I think the word has gotten out that they have great aid available for students.
So, excellent insight, it completely slipped my mind! This also gives Stanford even more of an ability to shape a class however they see fit. I'm curious how it will affect admissions decisions.
I think this is right on. Poor students bring a completely different perspective to many aspects of campus life from wealthy students. Having a need-blind admissions policy and a financial aid policy that can robustly back that up allows Stanford to select for talent, regardless of ethnicity or ability to pay.
In my opinion, I think the financial packages that are being offered to students of disadvanatged backgrounds financially are such a good deal. This might attract those that cannot afford a Stanford education under normal circumstances. Poorer students might apply to schools such as Stanford because they can get their application fee waived as well as their tuition if accepted. Stanford is all about promoting diversity, which I think is one of the vaguest terms out there. Poor students just like ethnically diverse students represent diversity in my eyes. Stanford is looking for students of diverse backgrounds, not necessarily all diverse ethnicities to apply to their school. Any comments on my theory?
Stanford had over 30,000 students apply this year. That is insane. The economy might be influincing students to cast a wider net - I thought 2008 was supposed to be the peak of applicants. Thoughts on what has caused this surge in Stanford applicants? (hint: it's not our football team!)
On your application tracker, it says your weighted GPA is 3.5 - is that the weighting when converted to the 4.0 scale, or is your profile information not up to date (you said you had 4.87)?
I think the SAT scores may have been a hard point on your application, from what I've heard from people who work in the admissions office, as a rule of thumb, students should have a 700 in each sub-category. It's not an explicit rule, and exceptions happen, clearly, but it can make a difference.
Also, with all the right info, what did mychances predict/could you add it to your application tracker so others could see as well?
I'm sorry you weren't accepted - do you know where you are going to go? I hope you the best
i applied for early decision and i am the BENCHMARK for high school students, and i had a weighted GPA of 4.87 and 4 years of varsity b ball, and my dad was in the army, and died in Mosual, and my dream was to be accepted to stanford, a dream that was CRUSHED
double legacy, 2300 SATs, 4.0 weighted GPA and rejected.
I can just hope I'm a part of the other lucky 20%
Shit, im not getting in.
Welcome to the club.
u mad bro?
Went to Stanford as an undergrad, and I absolutely loved it. Good balance of a social scene and academics. (You gotta take some initiative to find the scene/friends that are right for you, but you'll generally have a kick ass time if you live in an all-frosh dorm your freshman year.)
Many people want to know what the minimum SAT to get into Stanford is. There is no hard and fast rule, but generally you want at least a 700 in each sub-category. Then beyond that they focus heavily on your personal statement, extracurrics, and, of course, your academics.
It's worth visiting this campus if you're at all considering applying to Stanford. If you're a person who likes to be outdoors, this is a great place to be. Nice biking and running trails are available all over campus. The Bay, the ocean, and real mountains with great snow are all within a few hours' drive.