[82 Card]

below is a link to his essay.
....
http://nypost.com/2014/04/02/this-is-the...l-8-ivies/

I tried reading the essay. He lost me right away with "opting to select". He repeatedly uses three words when 1 would  be better. I don't think I could have gotten into Penn in 1975 with that essay.

[82 Card]

below is a link to his essay.
....
http://nypost.com/2014/04/02/this-is-the...l-8-ivies/

I tried reading the essay. He lost me right away with "opting to select". He repeatedly uses three words when 1 would  be better. I don't think I could have gotten into Penn in 1975 with that essay.

[Leftcoast]

I remember half my dorm feeling that way, Mike.  As one kindred soul put it, "Maybe we're here because THOSE guys need an audience?"  Turned out alright for him too.  Freshman year doubt is what drives people to later year success.

[Leftcoast]

I remember half my dorm feeling that way, Mike.  As one kindred soul put it, "Maybe we're here because THOSE guys need an audience?"  Turned out alright for him too.  Freshman year doubt is what drives people to later year success.

[82 Card]

I have to enter this discussion.  Hope it's not too long/boring but I sense some kindred souls here.  Did you ever feel, secretly, in your Fr year they had somehow made a mistake?

The first in my family for generations to go to college, I was naive in the extreme.  Public, middle of the road HS in So. Low APR U, zero knowledge of college except my parents began telling me I WOULD go to college while I was still nursing.  #25 out of a graduating class of 250, 3.5 GPA, SAT of 1260.  ....

Somehow, it worked out, I graduated and accepted a fellowship to the Business School. 

Probably no one here can relate to my story but I feel good telling it, so thanks for reading.  If you know some poor soul struggling, feel free to share it with them

Go Card!

I can relate to that story. Although my parents went to college, I started out similarly. 26th in a class of 365 at the local regional high school. Similar numbers. Knew nothing about college except that I was expected to attend. One day my oldest brother tells me I should apply to Penn because they have a good B school. OK. Sure. Why not. Holey crap! They let me in!

When I got to campus, I was scared out of my mind. Bunch of kids from big name schools who all seemed to know each other already and talked about things I'd never heard of.  Couldn't understand a word in the first class (Calculus with a Chinese teacher). I was so sure that there was a big mistake and my parents would kill me for wasting their money that I ended up on muscle relaxers for the first three semesters. That's how long it took to dawn on me that there was no mistake and I really could do this stuff better than 95% of those kids that scared me so.

When I got to Stanford for law school, I didn't fall for that "there must be a mistake" trick again. Sure, the people were even more impressive. Whatever.

[82 Card]

I have to enter this discussion.  Hope it's not too long/boring but I sense some kindred souls here.  Did you ever feel, secretly, in your Fr year they had somehow made a mistake?

The first in my family for generations to go to college, I was naive in the extreme.  Public, middle of the road HS in So. Low APR U, zero knowledge of college except my parents began telling me I WOULD go to college while I was still nursing.  #25 out of a graduating class of 250, 3.5 GPA, SAT of 1260.  ....

Somehow, it worked out, I graduated and accepted a fellowship to the Business School. 

Probably no one here can relate to my story but I feel good telling it, so thanks for reading.  If you know some poor soul struggling, feel free to share it with them

Go Card!

I can relate to that story. Although my parents went to college, I started out similarly. 26th in a class of 365 at the local regional high school. Similar numbers. Knew nothing about college except that I was expected to attend. One day my oldest brother tells me I should apply to Penn because they have a good B school. OK. Sure. Why not. Holey crap! They let me in!

When I got to campus, I was scared out of my mind. Bunch of kids from big name schools who all seemed to know each other already and talked about things I'd never heard of.  Couldn't understand a word in the first class (Calculus with a Chinese teacher). I was so sure that there was a big mistake and my parents would kill me for wasting their money that I ended up on muscle relaxers for the first three semesters. That's how long it took to dawn on me that there was no mistake and I really could do this stuff better than 95% of those kids that scared me so.

When I got to Stanford for law school, I didn't fall for that "there must be a mistake" trick again. Sure, the people were even more impressive. Whatever.

[jacketree]

It was all so easy in yesteryear, when all you had to do to get into an elite university was to drive like a maniac up "the" five, drug the admissions counselor and set fire to his building.

It is just a vicious feedback loop. If everyone applies to twelve schools, I better apply to 20 and the number of applications go through the roof.  Which means acceptance rates go down everywhere. Which means there is more pressure to apply to more schools. Which means.... The good news is that a lot of smart kids are being spread around to what were once 'second and third tier' universities (hate that terminology myself), so those second tier schools become that much better.


Most of my dreams these days involve either work (routine work in a dream - should I be getting overtime?) or being eaten alive by flying snakes when I can't fly fast enough.  I've always had strange dreams like that. I've been eaten alive by snakes, sharks, alligators, lions, tigers, bears, Ann Wilson (but that was back when she could use the protein), the "C" in Conoco (an admittedly strange one), and the studded snow tires stored in our basement.  I had a huge phobia about those snow tires when I was three years old. One of my first memories.  That and my grandfather shooting me with a bb gun. I think by mistake...

[jacketree]

It was all so easy in yesteryear, when all you had to do to get into an elite university was to drive like a maniac up "the" five, drug the admissions counselor and set fire to his building.

It is just a vicious feedback loop. If everyone applies to twelve schools, I better apply to 20 and the number of applications go through the roof.  Which means acceptance rates go down everywhere. Which means there is more pressure to apply to more schools. Which means.... The good news is that a lot of smart kids are being spread around to what were once 'second and third tier' universities (hate that terminology myself), so those second tier schools become that much better.


Most of my dreams these days involve either work (routine work in a dream - should I be getting overtime?) or being eaten alive by flying snakes when I can't fly fast enough.  I've always had strange dreams like that. I've been eaten alive by snakes, sharks, alligators, lions, tigers, bears, Ann Wilson (but that was back when she could use the protein), the "C" in Conoco (an admittedly strange one), and the studded snow tires stored in our basement.  I had a huge phobia about those snow tires when I was three years old. One of my first memories.  That and my grandfather shooting me with a bb gun. I think by mistake...

[akiddoc]

My daughter was just rejected and is probably going to Pomona. Wash U and Dartmouth are the other options. 1% chance X 2 of getting into Princeton or Yale off the wait list. There are 10,000 kids applying to Stanford with SAT's over 2300 and 4.0 unweighted GPA's. 15,000 valedictorians. Everyone has 5's on their AP tests. Athletes, artists, musicians. 5% get accepted. 15% of the legacies are accepted. That is the state of affairs.

I applied to only one college in 1974. Lived in Canada and didn't really know any better. My parents refused to pay for a UCB application. Said it wasn't that good a school. If I had not gotten in, I would have attended the U of Manitoba. On my first paper, 1st quarter at Stanford, I received a 2 out of 5. Intro to Philosophy with Mothershead. Shocked me to the core. Taking that course wasn't a smartly planned move, but in the end it changed the course of my education. My Philosophy TA took a liking to me and coached me through the course. I gradually learned to write a semi-coherent paper. I entered the final with a B-, but aced the final for an A. Same thing happened in Physical Chem. Aced the final after coming in with a B. That TA taught me what was expected of a college student at Stanford. I took a lot of philosophy courses at Stanford, which put a drag on my GPA, but my interviewer from Yale Med was totally impressed that I had taken all of those classes and let me in. Funny how one choice at the beginning of freshman year can change your life.

http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pd...sheadJ.pdf

[akiddoc]

My daughter was just rejected and is probably going to Pomona. Wash U and Dartmouth are the other options. 1% chance X 2 of getting into Princeton or Yale off the wait list. There are 10,000 kids applying to Stanford with SAT's over 2300 and 4.0 unweighted GPA's. 15,000 valedictorians. Everyone has 5's on their AP tests. Athletes, artists, musicians. 5% get accepted. 15% of the legacies are accepted. That is the state of affairs.

I applied to only one college in 1974. Lived in Canada and didn't really know any better. My parents refused to pay for a UCB application. Said it wasn't that good a school. If I had not gotten in, I would have attended the U of Manitoba. On my first paper, 1st quarter at Stanford, I received a 2 out of 5. Intro to Philosophy with Mothershead. Shocked me to the core. Taking that course wasn't a smartly planned move, but in the end it changed the course of my education. My Philosophy TA took a liking to me and coached me through the course. I gradually learned to write a semi-coherent paper. I entered the final with a B-, but aced the final for an A. Same thing happened in Physical Chem. Aced the final after coming in with a B. That TA taught me what was expected of a college student at Stanford. I took a lot of philosophy courses at Stanford, which put a drag on my GPA, but my interviewer from Yale Med was totally impressed that I had taken all of those classes and let me in. Funny how one choice at the beginning of freshman year can change your life.

http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pd...sheadJ.pdf

[jacketree]

akiddoc,

Obviously her choice, but Wash U. in St. Louis would be fantastic, particularly for a young woman who plays a mean trumpet.  The flight is longer than into Ontario and all that, but getting out of California might be kind of cool.

When we stepped on the Pomona campus, my daughter broke out in hives, so she called the tour guide to cancel and we went drove all the way down to Newport Beach for the day instead.  (She was creeped out for whatever reason.) I liked the area well enough (smog free day - could see Mt. Baldy) and there is a great record store right there in Claremont. The important things....

Never been to Hanover. Will be passing through Lebanon at peak folliage next fall on the way to Maine.  I guess that will be too late for feedback.

Good luck to your daughter. Exciting time!

[jacketree]

akiddoc,

Obviously her choice, but Wash U. in St. Louis would be fantastic, particularly for a young woman who plays a mean trumpet.  The flight is longer than into Ontario and all that, but getting out of California might be kind of cool.

When we stepped on the Pomona campus, my daughter broke out in hives, so she called the tour guide to cancel and we went drove all the way down to Newport Beach for the day instead.  (She was creeped out for whatever reason.) I liked the area well enough (smog free day - could see Mt. Baldy) and there is a great record store right there in Claremont. The important things....

Never been to Hanover. Will be passing through Lebanon at peak folliage next fall on the way to Maine.  I guess that will be too late for feedback.

Good luck to your daughter. Exciting time!

[needle]

My oddest college admissions experience (circa 1997) involved visiting University of Texas at Austin's honors college. As I recall, I just showed up with my older brother accompanying me. Got to meet the director of the college. Turns out I had been rejected, but I guess my being interested enough to visit the campus (I lived in state) swayed the gatekeeper to reverse his decision. So, I have both a rejection letter and an admissions letter from the place (not really, as I didn't keep that stuff).

Also, I'm way more likely to dream about my very humble high school football career than college (where my record was similarly mediocre).

[needle]

My oddest college admissions experience (circa 1997) involved visiting University of Texas at Austin's honors college. As I recall, I just showed up with my older brother accompanying me. Got to meet the director of the college. Turns out I had been rejected, but I guess my being interested enough to visit the campus (I lived in state) swayed the gatekeeper to reverse his decision. So, I have both a rejection letter and an admissions letter from the place (not really, as I didn't keep that stuff).

Also, I'm way more likely to dream about my very humble high school football career than college (where my record was similarly mediocre).

[M T]

I think this whole focus on the admission rate as a fraction of applications is misguided.  It's not like the schools pick a random sample out of the applications so if more people apply your chances are lower.  (Maybe I'm wrong there.  I could conceive of a government-run university being required to set a particular standard and then hand out admissions by randomly sampling the set of students meeting those qualifications.  Gosh, I hope the Calif. legislature doesn't see this.)

Stanford admits about 2000-2600 a year and winds up with about 1500-1800 enrollments, dating back to 1970 (or further).  (I only sampled some years, not all that range.)  Instead of figuring a rate with the denominator being the number of applications, consider a rate figured against the number of US high school graduates.  Since 1970, that number has grown from about 2.9M to 3.3M (there was a decrease during the middle of that period with the post-war baby boomers or their children lifting either end of that period).  About 0.052% of US high school graduates got into Stanford in 1970.  About 0.046% of that group got into Stanford in 2013.  So, the chances of your children getting in is  only about 8% worse than your chances were (given only the criteria that they were a US high school graduate).

That said, the fact that Stanford may not be able to distinguish which ~0.05% are the best does mean the increased applications probably result in more variance as to whether one of the best (by whatever measure Stanford wants to use) students actually get in.

Another way to look at the numbers is that 38,828 people applied (non-resident aliens included), when about 3.3M graduated from US high school that year, or close to 1.2% of all US high school graduates applied to Stanford.  That would have meant that my Texas high school's baseball starting 9 could have all applied, and there still would have been room for me to apply and be under that average.

If the ante (ie, admissions fees) were raised for betting on being accepted, then there'd be fewer applications and a higher admissions rate (probably missing some that should have gotten in).  If lowered, there'd be more applications and a lower admissions rate (at greater expense to Stanford for a possibly better set of students).  But about the same number would wind up attending Stanford.


Sources include
http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002382.pdf
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/t...07_100.asp
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/mag...e_id=32005

---

As for the comments about athletes, I think most high-achieving athletes (across the breadth of sports) are good students.  There is an overlap of perseverance, intelligence, and good health.  In most sports, athletes have to deal with other people (good & bad) and with hardships, both of which prepare them better than "book worms".

---

The relation between high school graduates and the choice of colleges they apply to is probably a lot like the social matching phenomenon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_hypothesis)  Or, maybe, the students & the college they wind up at is probably more like that.  The former is probably more like the attempts to form social relationships (ie, dating).

[M T]

I think this whole focus on the admission rate as a fraction of applications is misguided.  It's not like the schools pick a random sample out of the applications so if more people apply your chances are lower.  (Maybe I'm wrong there.  I could conceive of a government-run university being required to set a particular standard and then hand out admissions by randomly sampling the set of students meeting those qualifications.  Gosh, I hope the Calif. legislature doesn't see this.)

Stanford admits about 2000-2600 a year and winds up with about 1500-1800 enrollments, dating back to 1970 (or further).  (I only sampled some years, not all that range.)  Instead of figuring a rate with the denominator being the number of applications, consider a rate figured against the number of US high school graduates.  Since 1970, that number has grown from about 2.9M to 3.3M (there was a decrease during the middle of that period with the post-war baby boomers or their children lifting either end of that period).  About 0.052% of US high school graduates got into Stanford in 1970.  About 0.046% of that group got into Stanford in 2013.  So, the chances of your children getting in is  only about 8% worse than your chances were (given only the criteria that they were a US high school graduate).

That said, the fact that Stanford may not be able to distinguish which ~0.05% are the best does mean the increased applications probably result in more variance as to whether one of the best (by whatever measure Stanford wants to use) students actually get in.

Another way to look at the numbers is that 38,828 people applied (non-resident aliens included), when about 3.3M graduated from US high school that year, or close to 1.2% of all US high school graduates applied to Stanford.  That would have meant that my Texas high school's baseball starting 9 could have all applied, and there still would have been room for me to apply and be under that average.

If the ante (ie, admissions fees) were raised for betting on being accepted, then there'd be fewer applications and a higher admissions rate (probably missing some that should have gotten in).  If lowered, there'd be more applications and a lower admissions rate (at greater expense to Stanford for a possibly better set of students).  But about the same number would wind up attending Stanford.


Sources include
http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2013
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002382.pdf
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/t...07_100.asp
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/mag...e_id=32005

---

As for the comments about athletes, I think most high-achieving athletes (across the breadth of sports) are good students.  There is an overlap of perseverance, intelligence, and good health.  In most sports, athletes have to deal with other people (good & bad) and with hardships, both of which prepare them better than "book worms".

---

The relation between high school graduates and the choice of colleges they apply to is probably a lot like the social matching phenomenon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_hypothesis)  Or, maybe, the students & the college they wind up at is probably more like that.  The former is probably more like the attempts to form social relationships (ie, dating).

[CTcard]

Stanford admits about 2000-2600 a year and winds up with about 1500-1800 enrollments, dating back to 1970 (or further).  (I only sampled some years, not all that range.)  Instead of figuring a rate with the denominator being the number of applications, consider a rate figured against the number of US high school graduates.  Since 1970, that number has grown from about 2.9M to 3.3M (there was a decrease during the middle of that period with the post-war baby boomers or their children lifting either end of that period).  About 0.052% of US high school graduates got into Stanford in 1970.  About 0.046% of that group got into Stanford in 2013.  So, the chances of your children getting in is  only about 8% worse than your chances were (given only the criteria that they were a US high school graduate).

I basically agree, but I am biased as I wrote basically the same argument.

But, a comment.
It is not clear that the total number of high school graduates is necessarily a relevant denominator for the "how difficult to get in" question at the most selective private universities, as the average student (for example) simply does not have a chance. It would be something like the number of students within X range of the top 0.05% of students. While there is no way to know that, I recall but cannot find some research claiming that the wings of the achievement curve of American high school students has been building at the expense of the center. That might lead to more students qualified for a top school.

Of course you should be skeptical of that "research" result, because it is only from my memory and I probably remember it more because it matches my preconceived notions more than for being a solid study.

And a question.
Which link has the HS graduation numbers going way back? I only saw back to 1996-7, but probably didn't look hard enough.
My impression is that the largest cohort of 18 year old Americans was towards the latter Baby Boom (born circa 1960, reached 18 circa 1978), but of course hs grad rates may have changed a bit as well.

[CTcard]

Stanford admits about 2000-2600 a year and winds up with about 1500-1800 enrollments, dating back to 1970 (or further).  (I only sampled some years, not all that range.)  Instead of figuring a rate with the denominator being the number of applications, consider a rate figured against the number of US high school graduates.  Since 1970, that number has grown from about 2.9M to 3.3M (there was a decrease during the middle of that period with the post-war baby boomers or their children lifting either end of that period).  About 0.052% of US high school graduates got into Stanford in 1970.  About 0.046% of that group got into Stanford in 2013.  So, the chances of your children getting in is  only about 8% worse than your chances were (given only the criteria that they were a US high school graduate).

I basically agree, but I am biased as I wrote basically the same argument.

But, a comment.
It is not clear that the total number of high school graduates is necessarily a relevant denominator for the "how difficult to get in" question at the most selective private universities, as the average student (for example) simply does not have a chance. It would be something like the number of students within X range of the top 0.05% of students. While there is no way to know that, I recall but cannot find some research claiming that the wings of the achievement curve of American high school students has been building at the expense of the center. That might lead to more students qualified for a top school.

Of course you should be skeptical of that "research" result, because it is only from my memory and I probably remember it more because it matches my preconceived notions more than for being a solid study.

And a question.
Which link has the HS graduation numbers going way back? I only saw back to 1996-7, but probably didn't look hard enough.
My impression is that the largest cohort of 18 year old Americans was towards the latter Baby Boom (born circa 1960, reached 18 circa 1978), but of course hs grad rates may have changed a bit as well.

[CTcard]

I applied to only one college in 1974. Lived in Canada and didn't really know any better. My parents refused to pay for a UCB application. Said it wasn't that good a school. If I had not gotten in, I would have attended the U of Manitoba. On my first paper, 1st quarter at Stanford, I received a 2 out of 5. Intro to Philosophy with Mothershead. Shocked me to the core. Taking that course wasn't a smartly planned move, but in the end it changed the course of my education. My Philosophy TA took a liking to me and coached me through the course. I gradually learned to write a semi-coherent paper. I entered the final with a B-, but aced the final for an A. Same thing happened in Physical Chem. Aced the final after coming in with a B. That TA taught me what was expected of a college student at Stanford. I took a lot of philosophy courses at Stanford, which put a drag on my GPA, but my interviewer from Yale Med was totally impressed that I had taken all of those classes and let me in. Funny how one choice at the beginning of freshman year can change your life.

Well, I topped you by applying to all of two schools because I didn't know any better. Each of those could easily have rejected me. Too bad I didn't have an older brother to sit me down and explain to me how these college admission things really worked.


I am afraid that my odd frosh experience that set me on a decent path was in rather the opposite vein. By the time I arrived at Stanford I had more or less figured out how difficult it was to get into, found out all my classmates had a bunch of something called AP that I had never heard of, and had become convinced that my cohorts would academically crush me beneath their heels. However, circumstances caused me to end up hanging out extensively with, and enrolled in the same classes as, what must have been the two-three ... worst prepared (?) students at Stanford. I then made the opposite (completely incorrect) leap of faith: that they represented the norm at Stanford - and at the least I had better be able to top that. The fact that this bit of hubris was both unseemly and completely unwarranted by reality made it no less important in getting me over the confidence-hurdle I needed to force myself through.

[CTcard]

I applied to only one college in 1974. Lived in Canada and didn't really know any better. My parents refused to pay for a UCB application. Said it wasn't that good a school. If I had not gotten in, I would have attended the U of Manitoba. On my first paper, 1st quarter at Stanford, I received a 2 out of 5. Intro to Philosophy with Mothershead. Shocked me to the core. Taking that course wasn't a smartly planned move, but in the end it changed the course of my education. My Philosophy TA took a liking to me and coached me through the course. I gradually learned to write a semi-coherent paper. I entered the final with a B-, but aced the final for an A. Same thing happened in Physical Chem. Aced the final after coming in with a B. That TA taught me what was expected of a college student at Stanford. I took a lot of philosophy courses at Stanford, which put a drag on my GPA, but my interviewer from Yale Med was totally impressed that I had taken all of those classes and let me in. Funny how one choice at the beginning of freshman year can change your life.

Well, I topped you by applying to all of two schools because I didn't know any better. Each of those could easily have rejected me. Too bad I didn't have an older brother to sit me down and explain to me how these college admission things really worked.


I am afraid that my odd frosh experience that set me on a decent path was in rather the opposite vein. By the time I arrived at Stanford I had more or less figured out how difficult it was to get into, found out all my classmates had a bunch of something called AP that I had never heard of, and had become convinced that my cohorts would academically crush me beneath their heels. However, circumstances caused me to end up hanging out extensively with, and enrolled in the same classes as, what must have been the two-three ... worst prepared (?) students at Stanford. I then made the opposite (completely incorrect) leap of faith: that they represented the norm at Stanford - and at the least I had better be able to top that. The fact that this bit of hubris was both unseemly and completely unwarranted by reality made it no less important in getting me over the confidence-hurdle I needed to force myself through.

[Stymie]

Don't have any more angst over that C in Math 43, Publius.  I got the same grade/same 1st Frosh 1/4 and lived to tell the tale.  Of course, then (1964) anybody who got a 5 AP score got a pass on all of Math 41-43 and only the dummies like me that got a 3 had to take Math 43.  Outside of "The Philosphy of Language" it was the hardest course I took in my 4 years on the Farm, and the only reason I got a C was because the Prof. (or his assistant) carried the "1" one too many times and scored my paper as 67 rather than the 57 points that I actually accumulated in the final exam.  Go figure....

As to admissions, and as one who interviews 5-10 kids every year for Stanford, I think that the elite Universities have reached a tipping point vis a vis the number of applications, where they are probably going to have to move to a two-step process which separates the wheat from the chaff far earlier in the process (December?) and then focuses on the 15-20,000 remaining applicants who have a real chance to be admitted (including elite athletes, musicians, poets, etc.).

Finally, as to the issue of international applicants, they are not going to go away, particularly if Stanford wants to be a global force in education (which they very much do, and should do).  As high as the bar is now at LSJU, once the % of international students rises aboe 10%, to 15-20% as it should, the bar will take a quantum leap, just as it has over the past 5-10 years.

Do not be afraid.

Stymie

[Stymie]

Don't have any more angst over that C in Math 43, Publius.  I got the same grade/same 1st Frosh 1/4 and lived to tell the tale.  Of course, then (1964) anybody who got a 5 AP score got a pass on all of Math 41-43 and only the dummies like me that got a 3 had to take Math 43.  Outside of "The Philosphy of Language" it was the hardest course I took in my 4 years on the Farm, and the only reason I got a C was because the Prof. (or his assistant) carried the "1" one too many times and scored my paper as 67 rather than the 57 points that I actually accumulated in the final exam.  Go figure....

As to admissions, and as one who interviews 5-10 kids every year for Stanford, I think that the elite Universities have reached a tipping point vis a vis the number of applications, where they are probably going to have to move to a two-step process which separates the wheat from the chaff far earlier in the process (December?) and then focuses on the 15-20,000 remaining applicants who have a real chance to be admitted (including elite athletes, musicians, poets, etc.).

Finally, as to the issue of international applicants, they are not going to go away, particularly if Stanford wants to be a global force in education (which they very much do, and should do).  As high as the bar is now at LSJU, once the % of international students rises aboe 10%, to 15-20% as it should, the bar will take a quantum leap, just as it has over the past 5-10 years.

Do not be afraid.

Stymie

[Redrum]

Actually I think it was a bit less the year I transferred in.  I still don't know why I got in and others didn't.  (See the movie Brazil with Michael Palin and the intersection of the insect /mechanical worlds that starts it in motion.)  Makes about the same amount of sense to me.  Stanford now takes dramatically fewer transfers,  but back then they simply treated arriving transfers as afterthoughts... a way to compensate for their mistake in letting you in.  Decades later I am still baffled as to why I was more qualified than other applicants.  Not particularly gifted, all I did was grind at a community college while all my HS friends went off on the college freshman adventure.    What I didn't know was that in that same transfer cohort (we never really met in a "group") was a transfer from CalTech,  who had been going to school there in Pasadena at the same time  I was at the CC only a mile away.    We bonded at Stanford in Germany and he remains my best friend to this day.  The only catch is he has season Stanford football tickets and I have to pirate my Stanford football broadcasts from the Central Time Zone. 

I was lucky and remain thankful for my Stanford experience, but still disapprove of how Stanford -- so obsessed with freshman "integration" into campus and intellectual life--managed to screw up the integration of transfers.  I got better orientation and assistance at the community college.  Of course, this was waaay "back in the day."  Maybe the treatment and integration of transfers got better with time, but in the current Stanford sellers market,  maybe making transfers near non-existent is a more cost effective way of solving the problem.

[Redrum]

Actually I think it was a bit less the year I transferred in.  I still don't know why I got in and others didn't.  (See the movie Brazil with Michael Palin and the intersection of the insect /mechanical worlds that starts it in motion.)  Makes about the same amount of sense to me.  Stanford now takes dramatically fewer transfers,  but back then they simply treated arriving transfers as afterthoughts... a way to compensate for their mistake in letting you in.  Decades later I am still baffled as to why I was more qualified than other applicants.  Not particularly gifted, all I did was grind at a community college while all my HS friends went off on the college freshman adventure.    What I didn't know was that in that same transfer cohort (we never really met in a "group") was a transfer from CalTech,  who had been going to school there in Pasadena at the same time  I was at the CC only a mile away.    We bonded at Stanford in Germany and he remains my best friend to this day.  The only catch is he has season Stanford football tickets and I have to pirate my Stanford football broadcasts from the Central Time Zone. 

I was lucky and remain thankful for my Stanford experience, but still disapprove of how Stanford -- so obsessed with freshman "integration" into campus and intellectual life--managed to screw up the integration of transfers.  I got better orientation and assistance at the community college.  Of course, this was waaay "back in the day."  Maybe the treatment and integration of transfers got better with time, but in the current Stanford sellers market,  maybe making transfers near non-existent is a more cost effective way of solving the problem.

[stupac2]

1% chance X 2 of getting into Princeton or Yale off the wait list.

I can't help myself, but if we assume these are independent processes with a 1% chance of success, you actually have a 1-.99^2 or 1.99% chance of getting into one or both. Marginal difference here, but that's how the probability works! Anyway, good luck, I can't really imagine how nerve-wracking this must be from a Stanford alum's perspective.

[stupac2]

1% chance X 2 of getting into Princeton or Yale off the wait list.

I can't help myself, but if we assume these are independent processes with a 1% chance of success, you actually have a 1-.99^2 or 1.99% chance of getting into one or both. Marginal difference here, but that's how the probability works! Anyway, good luck, I can't really imagine how nerve-wracking this must be from a Stanford alum's perspective.

[oman]

  Did you ever feel, secretly, in your Fr year they had somehow made a mistake?

I feel that way now.  I didn't when I was a freshman.

[oman]

  Did you ever feel, secretly, in your Fr year they had somehow made a mistake?

I feel that way now.  I didn't when I was a freshman.

[Mick]

[quote author=2 for 2028 link=topic=9773.msg87036#msg87036 date=1396456512]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=9773.msg86998#msg86998 date=1396410167]
On the other hand, I really am starting to wonder how much of the halving of the admit rate is due to the increase of quality applicants vs common-app spammers with dreams. Hard to tell unless you're on the inside, and there's no way they're telling us that.

The fact that the early action admit rate is over 10% suggests to me that it is the latter:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/decem...21313.html
[/quote]

Overall, it certainly has to be the latter. Admission rates at almost every school in the country have been plummeting in recent years. Mathematically, this is clearly because on average kids are applying to more schools - though of course in the end they are still attending just one.
The phenomenon seems to be driven by 1) it being easier to apply to many schools as others have noted, and 2) various places that do ratings using acceptance rates as a measure of school selectivity - so schools push it.

Over the course of a few years, there is no demographic change at Stanford (or the Ivies) or in America that could have made admission to those institutions significantly tougher on an absolute scale. This despite the currently rapidly dropping admission rates that are trumpeted by so many schools right about now.

Over the course of many years (60 years a big effect, 30 years less so, 20,10 I don't know the time cutoff), there are many changes that probably have made Stanford tougher to get into, and may have made "elite schools" tougher, though it is hard to tell or even properly define the question.

Stanford has risen in the perceived pantheon of American universities - certainly over 60 years, and also continuing but for the past 20-30 years there has been much upside to move there.

Demographics have jumped around, but the size of the 18 year old cohort in America hasn't changed that much since the height of the baby-boomer years were the biggest for this.

There are also studies I have read (but cannot find right now) that have indicated that the average competence of American high school graduates hasn't changed all that much for 30 years - and just maybe has dropped. However, these were combined with some indication that the distribution has spread - with more students on the wings on both the high and low achieving side. This latter might be an indication that the applicant pool to elite universities has improved.

There are brobdingnagian changes over 60 years in just what students admissions at elite universities are targeting, though these changes were stronger over the start of that time span. There are far more minority students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds at these schools than there used to be, which by definition must mean fewer non-minority students from advantaged backgrounds. That has certainly changed the mix - and almost by definition there is a correlation between that latter group and children of alums. To the extent that is public knowledge, that might serve to bring in more top-level applicants who previously would simply not have tried.

------------------------

Somewhat more meaningful (but not entirely reliable) numbers with respect to weighing the relative perceived attractiveness of various schools is the yield rate and the head to head yield rates (i.e. of the 400 students admitted to both school X and school Y, how many choose X). Stanford has been rising on these, but still trails Harvard.
[/quote]

That even the most selective colleges aggressively market themselves to people who have very limited odds of being admitted to those universities.  I attended one presentation by five schools (if memory serves, Hahvahd, Stanford, Georgetown, Duke and one other) and I saw a number of students in the room (with whom I was personally familiar) that had extremely slight odds of being admitted to any of them.  My sense is that those schools undergo this exercise to boost applications to stratospheric numbers, both to generate revenue and low acceptance rates.  And let's face it, if your admissions office receives, oh -- let's pick a number -- 40,000 applications at -- let's pick another number -- $90, that's $3.6 million, and you admit the same number of students either way.  And you can clear cut 1,000 applicants as near-automatic admits, and 35,000 as near-automatic rejects, then you have 4,000 applications to review closely.

[Mick]

[quote author=2 for 2028 link=topic=9773.msg87036#msg87036 date=1396456512]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=9773.msg86998#msg86998 date=1396410167]
On the other hand, I really am starting to wonder how much of the halving of the admit rate is due to the increase of quality applicants vs common-app spammers with dreams. Hard to tell unless you're on the inside, and there's no way they're telling us that.

The fact that the early action admit rate is over 10% suggests to me that it is the latter:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/decem...21313.html
[/quote]

Overall, it certainly has to be the latter. Admission rates at almost every school in the country have been plummeting in recent years. Mathematically, this is clearly because on average kids are applying to more schools - though of course in the end they are still attending just one.
The phenomenon seems to be driven by 1) it being easier to apply to many schools as others have noted, and 2) various places that do ratings using acceptance rates as a measure of school selectivity - so schools push it.

Over the course of a few years, there is no demographic change at Stanford (or the Ivies) or in America that could have made admission to those institutions significantly tougher on an absolute scale. This despite the currently rapidly dropping admission rates that are trumpeted by so many schools right about now.

Over the course of many years (60 years a big effect, 30 years less so, 20,10 I don't know the time cutoff), there are many changes that probably have made Stanford tougher to get into, and may have made "elite schools" tougher, though it is hard to tell or even properly define the question.

Stanford has risen in the perceived pantheon of American universities - certainly over 60 years, and also continuing but for the past 20-30 years there has been much upside to move there.

Demographics have jumped around, but the size of the 18 year old cohort in America hasn't changed that much since the height of the baby-boomer years were the biggest for this.

There are also studies I have read (but cannot find right now) that have indicated that the average competence of American high school graduates hasn't changed all that much for 30 years - and just maybe has dropped. However, these were combined with some indication that the distribution has spread - with more students on the wings on both the high and low achieving side. This latter might be an indication that the applicant pool to elite universities has improved.

There are brobdingnagian changes over 60 years in just what students admissions at elite universities are targeting, though these changes were stronger over the start of that time span. There are far more minority students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds at these schools than there used to be, which by definition must mean fewer non-minority students from advantaged backgrounds. That has certainly changed the mix - and almost by definition there is a correlation between that latter group and children of alums. To the extent that is public knowledge, that might serve to bring in more top-level applicants who previously would simply not have tried.

------------------------

Somewhat more meaningful (but not entirely reliable) numbers with respect to weighing the relative perceived attractiveness of various schools is the yield rate and the head to head yield rates (i.e. of the 400 students admitted to both school X and school Y, how many choose X). Stanford has been rising on these, but still trails Harvard.
[/quote]

That even the most selective colleges aggressively market themselves to people who have very limited odds of being admitted to those universities.  I attended one presentation by five schools (if memory serves, Hahvahd, Stanford, Georgetown, Duke and one other) and I saw a number of students in the room (with whom I was personally familiar) that had extremely slight odds of being admitted to any of them.  My sense is that those schools undergo this exercise to boost applications to stratospheric numbers, both to generate revenue and low acceptance rates.  And let's face it, if your admissions office receives, oh -- let's pick a number -- 40,000 applications at -- let's pick another number -- $90, that's $3.6 million, and you admit the same number of students either way.  And you can clear cut 1,000 applicants as near-automatic admits, and 35,000 as near-automatic rejects, then you have 4,000 applications to review closely.

[Mick]

I wonder how many 3***, 4**** or 5***** football or basketball players were amongst the unfortunate 95%.........

Every single one that committed to other schools...

[Mick]

I wonder how many 3***, 4**** or 5***** football or basketball players were amongst the unfortunate 95%.........

Every single one that committed to other schools...

[Mick]

of Stanford alums whose kid got the thin envelope - or thin email. A day or so after the email, an article ran in the paper indicating the out of the 2000 or so acceptances, there were people from 70 countries. That combined with the fact that 4 underrepresented kids from my son's school with weaker grades, scores, and academic load got accepted leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Right now, it looks like the kids who are truly underrepresented at Stanford are the people whose parents went to college and have jobs.  All in all, I would rather pass on the kids from Holland, Beliz, and UAE, and take more kids from California! I will still root Stanford football and encourage my other kids to apply, but for now...

Go Michigan! :)

I know about 1/2 dozen admissions people (including one currently on Stanford's admissions staff) and they say that the leapfrogging issue is their most difficult to deal with.  At the same time, though...unless your name is Arrillaga (or the equivalent donor), it is highly unlikely that it will move the needle.  I seem to recall that Stanford weighted their criteria (like most schools) in four categories; major, minor, "considered" and "not considered" and that the children-of-alumni factor fell into the "considered" category.  Major factors were academics, test scores and special abilities, essentially.

I do recall seeing my dear wife nearly sprain a muscle rolling her eyes when a friend of hers (MAJOR donor to Stanford -- $10 mms.+) worried aloud about her son's chances at being admitted...he was indeed admitted.

[Mick]

of Stanford alums whose kid got the thin envelope - or thin email. A day or so after the email, an article ran in the paper indicating the out of the 2000 or so acceptances, there were people from 70 countries. That combined with the fact that 4 underrepresented kids from my son's school with weaker grades, scores, and academic load got accepted leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Right now, it looks like the kids who are truly underrepresented at Stanford are the people whose parents went to college and have jobs.  All in all, I would rather pass on the kids from Holland, Beliz, and UAE, and take more kids from California! I will still root Stanford football and encourage my other kids to apply, but for now...

Go Michigan! :)

I know about 1/2 dozen admissions people (including one currently on Stanford's admissions staff) and they say that the leapfrogging issue is their most difficult to deal with.  At the same time, though...unless your name is Arrillaga (or the equivalent donor), it is highly unlikely that it will move the needle.  I seem to recall that Stanford weighted their criteria (like most schools) in four categories; major, minor, "considered" and "not considered" and that the children-of-alumni factor fell into the "considered" category.  Major factors were academics, test scores and special abilities, essentially.

I do recall seeing my dear wife nearly sprain a muscle rolling her eyes when a friend of hers (MAJOR donor to Stanford -- $10 mms.+) worried aloud about her son's chances at being admitted...he was indeed admitted.

[Mick]

[quote author=82lsju link=topic=9773.msg87030#msg87030 date=1396454062]
below is a link to his essay.
....
http://nypost.com/2014/04/02/this-is-the...l-8-ivies/

I tried reading the essay. He lost me right away with "opting to select". He repeatedly uses three words when 1 would would be better. I don't think I could have gotten into Penn in 1975 with that essay.
[/quote]


And sometimes one word would be better than two.... :P

[Mick]

[quote author=82lsju link=topic=9773.msg87030#msg87030 date=1396454062]
below is a link to his essay.
....
http://nypost.com/2014/04/02/this-is-the...l-8-ivies/

I tried reading the essay. He lost me right away with "opting to select". He repeatedly uses three words when 1 would would be better. I don't think I could have gotten into Penn in 1975 with that essay.
[/quote]


And sometimes one word would be better than two.... :P

[Mick]

[quote author=akiddoc link=topic=9773.msg87085#msg87085 date=1396496931]

I applied to only one college in 1974. Lived in Canada and didn't really know any better. My parents refused to pay for a UCB application. Said it wasn't that good a school. If I had not gotten in, I would have attended the U of Manitoba. On my first paper, 1st quarter at Stanford, I received a 2 out of 5. Intro to Philosophy with Mothershead. Shocked me to the core. Taking that course wasn't a smartly planned move, but in the end it changed the course of my education. My Philosophy TA took a liking to me and coached me through the course. I gradually learned to write a semi-coherent paper. I entered the final with a B-, but aced the final for an A. Same thing happened in Physical Chem. Aced the final after coming in with a B. That TA taught me what was expected of a college student at Stanford. I took a lot of philosophy courses at Stanford, which put a drag on my GPA, but my interviewer from Yale Med was totally impressed that I had taken all of those classes and let me in. Funny how one choice at the beginning of freshman year can change your life.

http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pd...sheadJ.pdf

In the ned my unusual memory saved me. Probably I was too intimidated or naive to reach out for help but I received none.  Two instances:

I completely blew off Phys. anthro (my major) and missed the midterm.  Not so good.  The night before the final I staggered into UGLY and found the text book, and flipped through it.  One open page caught my eye; a collection of photos on one side and descriptions on the other.  The next morning I opened the blue book and began.  The first few essay questions were easy to fake through, but the last one was worth 50%. Tell what you know about these objects.  Damn, right from that page, and the image floated into my mind.  So I just copied what I saw in my mind.  When I handed it in I made sure Prof. Gerow knew I had been there there the whole time and had not cheated.  He gave me an A and a B in the course, with a note on my blue book, "this happened once before and I believe you."

The other time was in Italy.  In what was becoming a pattern I blew off a course in Italian art.  The night before the final I snuggled into bed with a bottle of wine and the reference book.  In the morning I pushed the book off my chest, got up, and went to my doom.  Damn.  First question:  what can you say about this piece?  I just pulled up the page from the night before and quoted it.  A.
[/quote]


My first job, I worked for an incredibly smart man who essentially blew off most of his accounting classes to play golf his senior year.  On the first day of class, the professor told the class that the final exam was essentially worth 100% of the grade. There were other tests and homework, but your final grade would be determined by the final.  My boss skipped every single class, read the textbook the weekend before the final, aced the final -- and the professor gave him an F...  He must not have read the fine print...

[Mick]

[quote author=akiddoc link=topic=9773.msg87085#msg87085 date=1396496931]

I applied to only one college in 1974. Lived in Canada and didn't really know any better. My parents refused to pay for a UCB application. Said it wasn't that good a school. If I had not gotten in, I would have attended the U of Manitoba. On my first paper, 1st quarter at Stanford, I received a 2 out of 5. Intro to Philosophy with Mothershead. Shocked me to the core. Taking that course wasn't a smartly planned move, but in the end it changed the course of my education. My Philosophy TA took a liking to me and coached me through the course. I gradually learned to write a semi-coherent paper. I entered the final with a B-, but aced the final for an A. Same thing happened in Physical Chem. Aced the final after coming in with a B. That TA taught me what was expected of a college student at Stanford. I took a lot of philosophy courses at Stanford, which put a drag on my GPA, but my interviewer from Yale Med was totally impressed that I had taken all of those classes and let me in. Funny how one choice at the beginning of freshman year can change your life.

http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pd...sheadJ.pdf

In the ned my unusual memory saved me. Probably I was too intimidated or naive to reach out for help but I received none.  Two instances:

I completely blew off Phys. anthro (my major) and missed the midterm.  Not so good.  The night before the final I staggered into UGLY and found the text book, and flipped through it.  One open page caught my eye; a collection of photos on one side and descriptions on the other.  The next morning I opened the blue book and began.  The first few essay questions were easy to fake through, but the last one was worth 50%. Tell what you know about these objects.  Damn, right from that page, and the image floated into my mind.  So I just copied what I saw in my mind.  When I handed it in I made sure Prof. Gerow knew I had been there there the whole time and had not cheated.  He gave me an A and a B in the course, with a note on my blue book, "this happened once before and I believe you."

The other time was in Italy.  In what was becoming a pattern I blew off a course in Italian art.  The night before the final I snuggled into bed with a bottle of wine and the reference book.  In the morning I pushed the book off my chest, got up, and went to my doom.  Damn.  First question:  what can you say about this piece?  I just pulled up the page from the night before and quoted it.  A.
[/quote]


My first job, I worked for an incredibly smart man who essentially blew off most of his accounting classes to play golf his senior year.  On the first day of class, the professor told the class that the final exam was essentially worth 100% of the grade. There were other tests and homework, but your final grade would be determined by the final.  My boss skipped every single class, read the textbook the weekend before the final, aced the final -- and the professor gave him an F...  He must not have read the fine print...

[M T]

I basically agree, but I am biased as I wrote basically the same argument.

But, a comment.
It is not clear that the total number of high school graduates is necessarily a relevant denominator for the "how difficult to get in" question at the most selective private universities, as the average student (for example) simply does not have a chance. It would be something like the number of students within X range of the top 0.05% of students. ....

And a question.
Which link has the HS graduation numbers going way back? I only saw back to 1996-7, but probably didn't look hard enough.
My impression is that the largest cohort of 18 year old Americans was towards the latter Baby Boom (born circa 1960, reached 18 circa 1978), but of course hs grad rates may have changed a bit as well.

Sorry, I should have referenced your post.  I started trying to pull together these numbers back when the discussion was just started but I couldn't find them quickly.  As I was missing some of the numbers, I wound up having to rewrite it more generically than putting what I had in a table.  One point I didn't make was that the number of non-resident aliens that enrolled was less than I expected.  I was trying to base it for the US high school graduate population vs admissions (not enrollment). (Stymie mentioned that the international student admission numbers rising.)

Most of the nces.ed.gov data show graduation rates, either for high school freshman, or for an age group, but they don't show graduation numbers per year.  The numbers in http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/t...7_100.asp  go way back from 2003.  http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/...ble_12.asp has more recent numbers to 2009 and projections to 2022

Yes, there was a peak (3.15M) of HS grads in 1976-77 with a low (2.46M) in 1993-4.  We had a (projected in these tables) peak (3.4M) in 2011, with 3.4M being hit again in 2021.    Although I spoke of parents and children, the peaks are further apart than the usual gap between generations, but maybe is two generations apart (1970-1982, 2007-2022+).

Edit:  Two other interesting pages on scores of Stanford admissions/rejections are
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/...ofile.html
http://www.parchment.com/c/college/colle...rsity.html (I have no idea who their members are, but they have a couple of stats on their rejected group from 2012)

[M T]

I basically agree, but I am biased as I wrote basically the same argument.

But, a comment.
It is not clear that the total number of high school graduates is necessarily a relevant denominator for the "how difficult to get in" question at the most selective private universities, as the average student (for example) simply does not have a chance. It would be something like the number of students within X range of the top 0.05% of students. ....

And a question.
Which link has the HS graduation numbers going way back? I only saw back to 1996-7, but probably didn't look hard enough.
My impression is that the largest cohort of 18 year old Americans was towards the latter Baby Boom (born circa 1960, reached 18 circa 1978), but of course hs grad rates may have changed a bit as well.

Sorry, I should have referenced your post.  I started trying to pull together these numbers back when the discussion was just started but I couldn't find them quickly.  As I was missing some of the numbers, I wound up having to rewrite it more generically than putting what I had in a table.  One point I didn't make was that the number of non-resident aliens that enrolled was less than I expected.  I was trying to base it for the US high school graduate population vs admissions (not enrollment). (Stymie mentioned that the international student admission numbers rising.)

Most of the nces.ed.gov data show graduation rates, either for high school freshman, or for an age group, but they don't show graduation numbers per year.  The numbers in http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/t...7_100.asp  go way back from 2003.  http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/...ble_12.asp has more recent numbers to 2009 and projections to 2022

Yes, there was a peak (3.15M) of HS grads in 1976-77 with a low (2.46M) in 1993-4.  We had a (projected in these tables) peak (3.4M) in 2011, with 3.4M being hit again in 2021.    Although I spoke of parents and children, the peaks are further apart than the usual gap between generations, but maybe is two generations apart (1970-1982, 2007-2022+).

Edit:  Two other interesting pages on scores of Stanford admissions/rejections are
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/...ofile.html
http://www.parchment.com/c/college/colle...rsity.html (I have no idea who their members are, but they have a couple of stats on their rejected group from 2012)