I'll also explain which admissions strategies are false and could seriously impact your chances of getting accepted if you follow them. There are lots of writers out there giving admissions advice without any personal experience. Most journalists writing articles on Stanford admissions just spend a few hours doing research on the school or a few days at most in order to meet their article quota.
However, I've personally spent weeks, if not months , thinking about Stanford admissions. I must have spent more than hours explicitly on Stanford admissions—and I ultimately got in :. A letter from my admissions officer to me after I was accepted to Stanford discussing the admitted-student weekend details. This letter has been modified to summarize meaning and protect privacy.
More than just getting accepted, I actually spent a substantial amount of time thinking about what Stanford was looking for and crafting an application specifically for Stanford.
To me, Stanford was one of the top two schools I was interested in, so I took the application very seriously. I visited the campus twice before even applying, attended admissions sessions where I asked dozens of questions about what they were looking for, searched online and in bookstores, wrote an entirely separate essay for the Stanford application , and used a separate admissions strategy for Stanford alone.
I'm not saying this to brag; I'm just letting you know that I have some unique qualifications that allow me to help you the most. That I was accepted, and that I spent tremendous energy thinking about Stanford, means my advice can hopefully! In this section, I'm going to tell you the critical three truths and two myths you absolutely need to know in order to get into Stanford.
The first ones are relatively well known, but the final ones are less common knowledge and will help you get that extra boost in your application! Note: If you've read our article on Harvard admissions , note that I will be covering similar material here. You might want to skim this section, but do pay attention to the differences between the application processes at Harvard and Stanford.
Also, make sure to keep reading after this section as I'll be talking about Stanford-specific aspects. The first truth is that Stanford is, first and foremost, an academic institution, so you need to have spectacular academics to get in. If you're above these, you can assume your test scores are sufficient. The first and most naive myth is that Stanford only cares about grades.
Like most myths, this one results from taking the truth too far. Many people think that since Stanford is an academic institution, it must care only about academics. After all, if you were trying out for the football team, the coaches wouldn't measure your skills in baseball, right?
The truth, however, is that while Stanford of course cares deeply about academics, it also cares about qualities beyond academics. The first reason is basic numbers: there are simply too many students with stellar academics.
The average ACT score for a Stanford student is 33; thus, Stanford considers this score or higher stellar. With 3. Consequently, top colleges such as Stanford need to look beyond academic scores to distinguish between these equally high-achieving students. The second reason is the understanding that many top colleges, including Stanford, are looking for students who can have a significant and positive impact on the world. Stanford believes that non-academic factors, in addition to top academics, help predict who will have a positive impact in the future.
These non-academic factors often known under the umbrella term "extracurriculars" include participation in clubs or sports and a dedication to helping others. As a result, we can replace the first myth with our second truth: top colleges care about far more than just academics and want to see strengths in many areas , including GPA, test scores, extracurriculars, and community service.
In reality, the above truth of multi-area admissions is actually well known to people who have done even a minimal amount of college admissions research. The myth of pure academics is more of a non-myth: it's a myth that lots of people love to bash, but not many people actually believe. In fact, over-bashing this first myth leads to the second myth below, which is even more insidious than the first.
This second myth—and by far the biggest and most harmful myth—is that Stanford cares about students being well rounded in the sense that they should be equally excellent in all areas. This myth is the most pernicious because so many people blindly believe it. From many personal surveys, I have found that even well-researched students and parents fall prey to this myth. In fact, I myself during my early years of high school believed in this horrible assumption, even though I'd already done hundreds of hours of research at that point.
Because so many educated people believe it, and because it has the potential to steer you wrong, I personally think that this myth is the most damaging of any. The "well-rounded" myth goes like this: Stanford wants you to be well rounded, so it's best to perform excellently in all areas. In other words, aim for that high seat in your school orchestra. Be number one or number two on your school debate team.
Run for student council and become the treasurer. Earn at least an A- in all your classes. The mythical implication here is that the "Stanford scorecard" grades you based on your weakest area, so you want to eliminate all weaknesses. Under this myth, you should focus all your time on your weakest area to eliminate it and become as well rounded as possible. Then, at the end of the day, you end up with a mythical optimal application that proves you're nearly equally great at everything.
Unfortunately, college admissions are much more like an unstable boat: being too well rounded will ultimately sink you. The truth is that Stanford sees being very well rounded as too boring. Everyone who is well rounded looks the same: they're very good but not earth-shattering at everything. There's nothing to set you apart. Not to mention that dilly-dallying in a big number of areas will make you look like a dilettante.
The third and final truth is that Stanford would much rather see a candidate who is OK at most things but really great in one specific area. That area is your "spike," and it can be in almost anything: conducting microbiology research, publishing short stories, starting a small business, etc. Your spike makes you a strong candidate because it's unlikely that many other students will have the exact same spike as you.
In short, it helps set you apart and makes you unique. Admitting lots of students with different spikes allows Stanford to create the diverse student body it desires. Furthermore, Stanford is looking for students who will succeed in the future. In our modern world, specialization is the key to success.
Think about it: if you break a bone, you want to see a doctor who's great at resetting bones, right? Not a doctor who's pretty good at setting bones and also pretty good at diagnosing the type of flu you have and pretty good at recommending a diet to keep you healthy. It's OK to be lopsided—in fact, it's even desirable! The point is that you should aim to develop one area in which you're super strong.
In this area, or spike, you should try your best to be nationally or state-ranked, or accomplish a goal that's rare for a high school student. Think top football player in California, or top-1, math competition student in the United States.
Think getting a pilot's license at age In all other areas, it suffices to be in the 99th or even 90th percentile. A moderately good score in your English class will do. A few dozen hours of volunteering is fine. But in your spike, you want to be the best of the best. The most naive and prevalent myth is that getting into Stanford is all about academics.
In reality, admitting applicants based only on academics leads to an uninteresting community. Undergraduate Admission. Menu Search form Search term. Gateways for Admission Volunteers Counselors Parents. Overview Stanford offers two decision plans for first-year applicants: Regular Decision; and Restrictive Early Action While we evaluate applications in the same way whether you apply early or regular, there are considerations that may make one option more applicable to you than the other.
Regular Decision Regular Decision is Stanford's traditional decision plan. You may want to consider Regular Decision if any of the following applies: Your grades are on an upward trend; You are taking classes in your senior year that are significantly more rigorous than in grades 10 and 11; You are taking or retaking standardized exams; You are working on a significant project or activity in the fall of your final year in high school.
Our free chancing engine takes into account your history, background, test scores, and extracurricular activities to show you your real chances of admission—and how to improve them. If you are wondering how to approach these prompts, we encourage you to check out our Guide to the Stanford Supplemental Essays. Once you have written your essay, you can also receive free feedback from other students with our Peer Essay Review tool!
Even if you live in one of these areas, you may not receive an offer, however, as Stanford only has so many interviewers—if you are not contacted, do not interpret it as negative commentary on your application. If you are offered an interview, however, we strongly recommend that you accept, as interviews are a valuable opportunity to elaborate on and add to the content of your application. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, all Stanford interviews will be conducted virtually during this applications cycle, over platforms such as Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime.
If you have further questions about Stanford interviews, an overview of the process can be found on the admissions website.
Note that if you apply REA, three things can happen: you can be accepted or denied outright, or deferred, which means your application is still under consideration, and will be reevaluated during the RD cycle. While it is difficult to get in after being deferred, it does happen.
If you apply RD, there are also three possible outcomes: outright acceptance or denial, or being waitlisted. Development candidates whose family have or are in the process of donating figure monetary gifts to the school for purposes of funding research or building facilities.
Deans' list candidates or those who have been earmarked by the Dean of Admissions or Academics. Children of Stanford staff which include professors, admin, or people who work on the campus. Given all these types of people who are encouraged to apply REA or ED to Stanford, you can see why the acceptance rates are higher during this application period.
They have to accommodate a lot of pre-favored candidates. Therefore unless you are are a super strong candidate it will not benefit you much to apply early. I'm not sure a 1 in 4 chance stacks the odds that much in your favor. At ivy caliber schools it is a bit overestimating your chances in my opinion. Yes UC does not have early admissions, they do give early notifications if you get a regents scholarship, but the process for that is pretty random.
0コメント