[jacket3ree]

What criteria are they using to differentiate between students if not a standardized test?

I've long been convinced it is something like this:



With that many applications and so few slots, there is no way admissions staff are spending hours or days looking at any individual application. I've heard stories, but only second or third hand.

The truly fair way would be to set minimum standards, which could be 4.0 GPA, X extras, Y/Z APs the high school offers, and SAT/ACT, bin them by State population, and randomly draw.  But life ain't fair, so they do something else. Or do they? It would be interesting to watch.  (I bet they do it like pledge selection in Animal House.  'We need the tuition, man!')

Athletes are in their own pool competing with other athletes. Well, obviously, since there was pay to play, I mean pretend to play, going on not so long ago and people thought that was a golden ticket. Was it just sailors at Stanford?  That's what I remember.

With or without standardized tests, grad transfers have a freaking degree to hang their hats on. Someone commented up thread that there was no way to tell grad transfers which AP courses to take, XCs, and so forth, but why would any of that high school stuff matter?  They've been in a college/university setting for most likely four years, or are good enough to graduate in less time than that.  How they did as an undergraduate while playing a sport at a (presumably) Division I level tells Stanford all it needs to know.

I remember taking the GRE nursing a hangover (major party the night before - not missing that) and wondering why it was necessary. I survived one of the hardest of hard ass schools and you need me to redo the SAT? Really?

[jacket3ree]

What criteria are they using to differentiate between students if not a standardized test?

I've long been convinced it is something like this:



With that many applications and so few slots, there is no way admissions staff are spending hours or days looking at any individual application. I've heard stories, but only second or third hand.

The truly fair way would be to set minimum standards, which could be 4.0 GPA, X extras, Y/Z APs the high school offers, and SAT/ACT, bin them by State population, and randomly draw.  But life ain't fair, so they do something else. Or do they? It would be interesting to watch.  (I bet they do it like pledge selection in Animal House.  'We need the tuition, man!')

Athletes are in their own pool competing with other athletes. Well, obviously, since there was pay to play, I mean pretend to play, going on not so long ago and people thought that was a golden ticket. Was it just sailors at Stanford?  That's what I remember.

With or without standardized tests, grad transfers have a freaking degree to hang their hats on. Someone commented up thread that there was no way to tell grad transfers which AP courses to take, XCs, and so forth, but why would any of that high school stuff matter?  They've been in a college/university setting for most likely four years, or are good enough to graduate in less time than that.  How they did as an undergraduate while playing a sport at a (presumably) Division I level tells Stanford all it needs to know.

I remember taking the GRE nursing a hangover (major party the night before - not missing that) and wondering why it was necessary. I survived one of the hardest of hard ass schools and you need me to redo the SAT? Really?

[BobK]

Stanford and the UC schools stopped using test scores about 18 months ago or more. Due the the pandemic HS students couldn’t take prep classes in person

Stop and pop the portal is new. I’m sure you know that. Hoping to land a HS player every other school missed is a hard find. But I did post Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact

[BobK]

Stanford and the UC schools stopped using test scores about 18 months ago or more. Due the the pandemic HS students couldn’t take prep classes in person

Stop and pop the portal is new. I’m sure you know that. Hoping to land a HS player every other school missed is a hard find. But I did post Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact

[81alum]

What criteria are they using to differentiate between students if not a standardized test?

I've long been convinced it is something like this:







With that many applications and so few slots, there is no way admissions staff are spending hours or days looking at any individual application. I've heard stories, but only second or third hand.



The truly fair way would be to set minimum standards, which could be 4.0 GPA, X extras, Y/Z APs the high school offers, and SAT/ACT, bin them by State population, and randomly draw.  But life ain't fair, so they do something else. Or do they? It would be interesting to watch.  (I bet they do it like pledge selection in Animal House.  'We need the tuition, man!').

Stanford (and all the elites) really do read entire applications.  It is large state universities like Cal and UCLA that rely more on the numbers and less on the whole application.  Big publics do not have the staff or the budget to do that kind of in-depth screening.  Stanford does.  Admissions has to hire veritable armies of readers to help.  It has been 35 years since I was a part of that, but I doubt that Stanford has changed its philosophy that much.  I never saw how an entire application was judged, but I know that every essay was read and scored blind by two different readers.  I have since seen presentations by former Stanford admissions personnel who have gone into private coaching and who have (despite NDAs) given out a lot of specifics on the process--more than I knew from my small vantage point.

Reading the whole application before making a cut, by the way, is a big advantage for athletes.  Stanford has been criticized by other elites for putting almost equal weight on extra curriculars as on academics.  It is much easier to put numbers on academics, with high school GPA, the high school's competitiveness, and (formerly) test scores.  The achievements of athletes (and musicians etc.) don't show up as easily as something that can be quantified for use in a first cut, so judging students holistically allows for a greater diversity of talent to be admitted. 

It is also for this reason that Stanford can say, honestly, that they are not "lowering" their standards to admit athletes.  Stanford never said that academics were more than half of an application, and so if a student has lower academic achievements they would need to have higher non-academic achievements.  I still remember that in my entering class 60% of the freshmen had been student body presidents in high school.  As a former Vice President, I felt inferior ;)

[81alum]

What criteria are they using to differentiate between students if not a standardized test?

I've long been convinced it is something like this:







With that many applications and so few slots, there is no way admissions staff are spending hours or days looking at any individual application. I've heard stories, but only second or third hand.



The truly fair way would be to set minimum standards, which could be 4.0 GPA, X extras, Y/Z APs the high school offers, and SAT/ACT, bin them by State population, and randomly draw.  But life ain't fair, so they do something else. Or do they? It would be interesting to watch.  (I bet they do it like pledge selection in Animal House.  'We need the tuition, man!').

Stanford (and all the elites) really do read entire applications.  It is large state universities like Cal and UCLA that rely more on the numbers and less on the whole application.  Big publics do not have the staff or the budget to do that kind of in-depth screening.  Stanford does.  Admissions has to hire veritable armies of readers to help.  It has been 35 years since I was a part of that, but I doubt that Stanford has changed its philosophy that much.  I never saw how an entire application was judged, but I know that every essay was read and scored blind by two different readers.  I have since seen presentations by former Stanford admissions personnel who have gone into private coaching and who have (despite NDAs) given out a lot of specifics on the process--more than I knew from my small vantage point.

Reading the whole application before making a cut, by the way, is a big advantage for athletes.  Stanford has been criticized by other elites for putting almost equal weight on extra curriculars as on academics.  It is much easier to put numbers on academics, with high school GPA, the high school's competitiveness, and (formerly) test scores.  The achievements of athletes (and musicians etc.) don't show up as easily as something that can be quantified for use in a first cut, so judging students holistically allows for a greater diversity of talent to be admitted. 

It is also for this reason that Stanford can say, honestly, that they are not "lowering" their standards to admit athletes.  Stanford never said that academics were more than half of an application, and so if a student has lower academic achievements they would need to have higher non-academic achievements.  I still remember that in my entering class 60% of the freshmen had been student body presidents in high school.  As a former Vice President, I felt inferior ;)

[cardfan1996]

I am in favor of interviews like McKinsey to differentiate including one on ethics. It can even be via AI and timed. You then cannot hide behind essays that have been edited by any number of people.

[cardfan1996]

I am in favor of interviews like McKinsey to differentiate including one on ethics. It can even be via AI and timed. You then cannot hide behind essays that have been edited by any number of people.

[stopandpop]

We have a companion.

Indiana Women’s Basketball Quiet in Offseason, No Transfer Portal Grabs (msn.com)

[stopandpop]

We have a companion.

Indiana Women’s Basketball Quiet in Offseason, No Transfer Portal Grabs (msn.com)

[81alum]

I am in favor of interviews like McKinsey to differentiate including one on ethics. It can even be via AI and timed. You then cannot hide behind essays that have been edited by any number of people.

Indeed, my time was in the pre-internet era.  Since then, essays have become increasingly problematic.  Since AI--even more so.

I've been doing oral exams and lots of in-class writing in my own teaching.  There are not a lot of good alternatives for many fields.

[81alum]

I am in favor of interviews like McKinsey to differentiate including one on ethics. It can even be via AI and timed. You then cannot hide behind essays that have been edited by any number of people.

Indeed, my time was in the pre-internet era.  Since then, essays have become increasingly problematic.  Since AI--even more so.

I've been doing oral exams and lots of in-class writing in my own teaching.  There are not a lot of good alternatives for many fields.

[Erika]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

[Erika]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

[Lorcan]

Hailey Van Lith to LSU as expected.

[Lorcan]

Hailey Van Lith to LSU as expected.

[cardfan1996]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

I want the best of both worlds - maintain high standards for admissions and high caliber athletes that meet those standards. Otherwise, we are no better than Duke. And yuck to that!

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

[cardfan1996]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

I want the best of both worlds - maintain high standards for admissions and high caliber athletes that meet those standards. Otherwise, we are no better than Duke. And yuck to that!

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

[Maple Leaf]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

I want the best of both worlds - maintain high standards for admissions and high caliber athletes that meet those standards. Otherwise, we are no better than Duke. And yuck to that!

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

Was the prospective transfer student eligible for admission coming out of high school?   And what is the prospective transfer student's college academic achievement (grades and courses taken).

[Maple Leaf]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

I want the best of both worlds - maintain high standards for admissions and high caliber athletes that meet those standards. Otherwise, we are no better than Duke. And yuck to that!

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

Was the prospective transfer student eligible for admission coming out of high school?   And what is the prospective transfer student's college academic achievement (grades and courses taken).

[cardfan1996]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

I want the best of both worlds - maintain high standards for admissions and high caliber athletes that meet those standards. Otherwise, we are no better than Duke. And yuck to that!

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

Was the prospective transfer student eligible for admission coming out of high school?   And what is the prospective transfer student's college academic achievement (grades and courses taken).

Only the 2nd question should be relevant.

[cardfan1996]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

Just another perspective...

I want the best of both worlds - maintain high standards for admissions and high caliber athletes that meet those standards. Otherwise, we are no better than Duke. And yuck to that!

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

Was the prospective transfer student eligible for admission coming out of high school?   And what is the prospective transfer student's college academic achievement (grades and courses taken).

Only the 2nd question should be relevant.

[BobK]

"Was the prospective transfer student eligible for admission coming out of high school? And what is the prospective transfer student's college academic achievement (grades and courses taken).

Only the 2nd question should be relevant."


Except for Stanford they both are important.

[BobK]

"Was the prospective transfer student eligible for admission coming out of high school? And what is the prospective transfer student's college academic achievement (grades and courses taken).

Only the 2nd question should be relevant."


Except for Stanford they both are important.

[81alum]

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

Elimination of the test scores might have the effect of "raising standards" in ways that are not necessarily good for athletes.  One of the arguments that had been made for keeping test scores was that weighting the other alternatives like essays, extra curricular achievements, etc. more heavily could shift the outcomes towards the more privileged families that can afford them.   A lot of very bright working class kids have less than stellar GPAs due to poor schools, lack of encouragement, the need to work or to provide child care to siblings, etc., but could nevertheless prove their potential through a test.

Of course, others argued that the tests were intrinsically biased in various ways, and that it could cost a fortune to prepare for them.

I've been on the anti-testing side of the debate, but it is not straightforward, e.g. maybe AP courses will be even more important now than they were before.

[81alum]

Since SAT/ACT criteria are out now (and my natural conclusion that standards are being lowered), this gives Tara and company exactly zero excuses not being able to land a transfer. What am I missing?

Elimination of the test scores might have the effect of "raising standards" in ways that are not necessarily good for athletes.  One of the arguments that had been made for keeping test scores was that weighting the other alternatives like essays, extra curricular achievements, etc. more heavily could shift the outcomes towards the more privileged families that can afford them.   A lot of very bright working class kids have less than stellar GPAs due to poor schools, lack of encouragement, the need to work or to provide child care to siblings, etc., but could nevertheless prove their potential through a test.

Of course, others argued that the tests were intrinsically biased in various ways, and that it could cost a fortune to prepare for them.

I've been on the anti-testing side of the debate, but it is not straightforward, e.g. maybe AP courses will be even more important now than they were before.

[BobK]

Test scores were not required for those entering Stanford for this current school year.

[BobK]

Test scores were not required for those entering Stanford for this current school year.

[Spiny_Norman]

A regular transfer applicant would likely have to submit high school transcript, college transcript, essays and references. Do prospective athletic transfers have to complete the full package as well? Even that extra work compared to other schools could be a deterrent for transfers considering Stanford. And of course grad transfers have to be admitted by the graduate program, not by Undergrad Admissions. And some programs do require a GRE score. For example, MS&E masters program requires the GRE.

[Spiny_Norman]

A regular transfer applicant would likely have to submit high school transcript, college transcript, essays and references. Do prospective athletic transfers have to complete the full package as well? Even that extra work compared to other schools could be a deterrent for transfers considering Stanford. And of course grad transfers have to be admitted by the graduate program, not by Undergrad Admissions. And some programs do require a GRE score. For example, MS&E masters program requires the GRE.

[81alum]

A regular transfer applicant would likely have to submit high school transcript, college transcript, essays and references. Do prospective athletic transfers have to complete the full package as well? Even that extra work compared to other schools could be a deterrent for transfers considering Stanford. And of course grad transfers have to be admitted by the graduate program, not by Undergrad Admissions. And some programs do require a GRE score. For example, MS&E masters program requires the GRE.

Spiny, I think you just hit the nail on the head.

Transfer students will need to submit full applications.  When we recruit high school students, we often have years to prepare them and instruct them how to accumulate and gather the materials for the application.  During the "portal" we have weeks at best, and many of the top prospects are gone in days.  There is not really sufficient time to do for transfer students what we have always done for high school applicants.

[81alum]

A regular transfer applicant would likely have to submit high school transcript, college transcript, essays and references. Do prospective athletic transfers have to complete the full package as well? Even that extra work compared to other schools could be a deterrent for transfers considering Stanford. And of course grad transfers have to be admitted by the graduate program, not by Undergrad Admissions. And some programs do require a GRE score. For example, MS&E masters program requires the GRE.

Spiny, I think you just hit the nail on the head.

Transfer students will need to submit full applications.  When we recruit high school students, we often have years to prepare them and instruct them how to accumulate and gather the materials for the application.  During the "portal" we have weeks at best, and many of the top prospects are gone in days.  There is not really sufficient time to do for transfer students what we have always done for high school applicants.

[joemontes]

The #1 2023 transfer prospect 5'7 combo guard and All-American Hailey VAN LITH 
commits to LSU.

On paper, this fortifies LSU's position as one of the Top 3 national title contenders 
along with UConn and South Carolina.

LSU's  top players and reserves in their 2023-2024 current roster:

F/G - Mikayla WILLIAMS          6'1    Fr      (2023 #1 PN, #2 ESPN, McDAA)
F - Angel REESE                    6'3    Sr      (2020 #2 ESPN, #6 PN, McDAA, 1st Team AA)
C - Aaliyah DEL ROSARIO     6'6    Fr      (2023 #7 ESPN, McDAA) 
G - Hailey Van Lith                  5'7  Grad   (2020 #2 PN, #7 ESPN, McDAA, 3rd Team AA)
G - Flaujae JOHNSON           5'10   So     (2022 #18 PN, #26 ESPN, McDAA)

F - Samyah SMITH               6'2   So      (2022 #58)
F - Amani BATRLETT           6'3    Jr       (2021 #51)
G - Kateri POOLE                5'8    Sr      (2020 #24)
G - Angelica VELEZ             5'7   Fr       (2023 #44)
G - Last-Tear POA               5'11  Sr      (2022 #1 National Junior College Player)

[joemontes]

The #1 2023 transfer prospect 5'7 combo guard and All-American Hailey VAN LITH 
commits to LSU.

On paper, this fortifies LSU's position as one of the Top 3 national title contenders 
along with UConn and South Carolina.

LSU's  top players and reserves in their 2023-2024 current roster:

F/G - Mikayla WILLIAMS          6'1    Fr      (2023 #1 PN, #2 ESPN, McDAA)
F - Angel REESE                    6'3    Sr      (2020 #2 ESPN, #6 PN, McDAA, 1st Team AA)
C - Aaliyah DEL ROSARIO     6'6    Fr      (2023 #7 ESPN, McDAA) 
G - Hailey Van Lith                  5'7  Grad   (2020 #2 PN, #7 ESPN, McDAA, 3rd Team AA)
G - Flaujae JOHNSON           5'10   So     (2022 #18 PN, #26 ESPN, McDAA)

F - Samyah SMITH               6'2   So      (2022 #58)
F - Amani BATRLETT           6'3    Jr       (2021 #51)
G - Kateri POOLE                5'8    Sr      (2020 #24)
G - Angelica VELEZ             5'7   Fr       (2023 #44)
G - Last-Tear POA               5'11  Sr      (2022 #1 National Junior College Player)

[treetop11]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

I hear you. I did interviewing for a couple of years and stopped because of the antiquated software Oval was using that caused all kinds of problems in submitting reports. But like you, I interviewed some outstanding candidates who got rejected. I was shocked that at least one wasn't admitted.

Just another perspective...

[treetop11]

A tenured Stanford professor I knew always said "Every time Stanford wins a football game, the value of my (Stanford) degree decreases." Not an uncommon attitude.

For the past 5 years I have been interviewing Stanford Undergraduate applicants. NONE of them (about 50) were offered admission and many of them were so stellar, I felt like in 20 years I could say "I knew you when...."  

It has just gotten so discouraging that I keep decreasing the number I interview because I am tired of reading DENY as the outcome on every single one.

I hear you. I did interviewing for a couple of years and stopped because of the antiquated software Oval was using that caused all kinds of problems in submitting reports. But like you, I interviewed some outstanding candidates who got rejected. I was shocked that at least one wasn't admitted.

Just another perspective...

[stopandpop]

Stanford and the UC schools stopped using test scores about 18 months ago or more. Due the the pandemic HS students couldn’t take prep classes in person

Stop and pop the portal is new.  I’m sure you know that.  Hoping to land a HS player every other school missed is a hard find.  But I did post Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact

The portal was established in October, 2018; not exactly new, although the NCAA has made tweaks since then.  The portal has taken off in the last 2 years, and this year it exploded, which makes it seem new.

My question to you is- If we passed on getting several players from the Ivy League, how could Tara be trying to add a player through the portal at this late stage?  And even if she was, what kinds of quality players (that match our needs), are left?    

Do agree with you about HS players if you're talking about U.S. players.  Foreign players, a different story.

[stopandpop]

Stanford and the UC schools stopped using test scores about 18 months ago or more. Due the the pandemic HS students couldn’t take prep classes in person

Stop and pop the portal is new.  I’m sure you know that.  Hoping to land a HS player every other school missed is a hard find.  But I did post Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact

The portal was established in October, 2018; not exactly new, although the NCAA has made tweaks since then.  The portal has taken off in the last 2 years, and this year it exploded, which makes it seem new.

My question to you is- If we passed on getting several players from the Ivy League, how could Tara be trying to add a player through the portal at this late stage?  And even if she was, what kinds of quality players (that match our needs), are left?    

Do agree with you about HS players if you're talking about U.S. players.  Foreign players, a different story.

[PVTree]

I had a similar experience when I lived in the Boston area. I was an OVAL volunteer and interviewed 8 applicants. They were all very bright and had accomplished much, much more than I had at that age.

I gave glowing reviews to 7 out of the 8*. I remarked that they had the potential to be: "Future senator", "Future Surgeon General", "Next Steve Jobs", etc.

To my surprise, none of them were accepted.

*The one that I didn't recommend was probably the brightest of them. She was a year younger and had started two social service type of projects.

However, I always started with what I considered a "soft ball" question that they should hit out of the park. I asked, "What do you know about Stanford?" I hoped to hear some of the passion that I have for Stanford..."the best at X"..."cradle of innovation".."dream school"...etc.

Instead, she answered that she knew it was one of the 10 best schools in America, and she wanted to be accepted into all 10.

Right away, I got the sense that it was an ego trip. She did not have the passion for Stanford, but wanted to say that she got into all the top schools. I could not give her a positive recommendation after that answer.

[PVTree]

I had a similar experience when I lived in the Boston area. I was an OVAL volunteer and interviewed 8 applicants. They were all very bright and had accomplished much, much more than I had at that age.

I gave glowing reviews to 7 out of the 8*. I remarked that they had the potential to be: "Future senator", "Future Surgeon General", "Next Steve Jobs", etc.

To my surprise, none of them were accepted.

*The one that I didn't recommend was probably the brightest of them. She was a year younger and had started two social service type of projects.

However, I always started with what I considered a "soft ball" question that they should hit out of the park. I asked, "What do you know about Stanford?" I hoped to hear some of the passion that I have for Stanford..."the best at X"..."cradle of innovation".."dream school"...etc.

Instead, she answered that she knew it was one of the 10 best schools in America, and she wanted to be accepted into all 10.

Right away, I got the sense that it was an ego trip. She did not have the passion for Stanford, but wanted to say that she got into all the top schools. I could not give her a positive recommendation after that answer.