Do I have a good chance to get into Stanford?

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Why are you set on Stanford? For undergrad, they aren't an amazing school. UCLA and UC Berkeley are almost certainly better academic schools for undergrad. However, they don't have as strong of an alumni network to artificially "boost" the reputation as Stanford.

Um...what?!

Stanford is a step above Berkeley and UCLA. Stanford is one of the best universities in the world, and it is often in the top 5 in the country. US News and World Report has them tied with Columbia for 4th behind Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

In that same ranking, Berkeley is 20th, and UCLA is 23rd. Neither of them come close to Stanford.

Stanford is an AMAZING place and affords a better education and more opportunity on a prettier campus than Berkeley or UCLA...a clear winner over those two.

agip, Stanford is a reach for EVERYONE. Minority helps, but there is no guarantee unless you are a recruited athlete who falls within their range of GPA and test scores. When my daughter was looking at colleges, Stanford sent us a mailing (for graduates only) that said they only accepted 64% of those with a perfect 2400 SAT the previous year. The OP needs to fill out that recruiting questionnaire ASAP if he has not yet done so. He will go for free if admitted.

Flagpole wrote:

Um...what?!

Stanford is a step above Berkeley and UCLA. Stanford is one of the best universities in the world, and it is often in the top 5 in the country. US News and World Report has them tied with Columbia for 4th behind Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

In that same ranking, Berkeley is 20th, and UCLA is 23rd. Neither of them come close to Stanford.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the US News rankings. I've spent a lot of time around faculty and admissions people at elite schools. I haven't heard anyone say a good word about those rankings. I have heard a lot of people say they wish high school students and their parents would stop paying attention to them.

The truth is that those rankings are completely worthless. The formula they use to rank schools is meaningless. They then apply it to data that has been so heavily massaged that it bears little if any relation to the truth.

Colleges regularly manipulate their admission processes to "improve" their numbers. Some exclude athletes and legacies, or winter, spring and summer admits. Others count anyone who started to fill out an application on line as having applied so as to improve their selectivity. They wait-list kids who they predict will go to "better" schools so as to keep their yield up. And on and on.

You don't have to believe me. Just look at what happened to Reed College when they stopped sending their data to US News. The very next year, their ranking fell dramatically.

PS for the OP: Stanford, is a great place, especially for athletes, but it's not for everyone. If you do get in, do your homework. Find some recent track alumni/ae (ordinary kids, not stars) and drop them a line to see what they have to say.

Flagpole wrote:

Stanford is a reach for EVERYONE. Minority helps, but there is no guarantee unless you are a recruited athlete who falls within their range of GPA and test scores. When my daughter was looking at colleges, Stanford sent us a mailing (for graduates only) that said they only accepted 64% of those with a perfect 2400 SAT the previous year. The OP needs to fill out that recruiting questionnaire ASAP if he has not yet done so. He will go for free if admitted.

Flagpole is right. Very few people are "sure admits" at Stanford. Unless you are Andrew Luck, or an incredibly mature 15 year old taking graduate classes in math at the University of New Mexico, Stanford is a reach. The reason is simple -- Stanford gets way too many qualified applicants. They have to turn away lots of kids who would thrive at Stanford. They just don't have enough room to admit them all. So in many ways, getting admitted is a crap shoot.

The good news is that not every kid at Stanford is Andrew Luck or a 15 year old math whiz. As Flagpole pointed out, there are lots of kids at Stanford who don't have perfect GPAs or SATs. Some of those kids are actually pretty ordinary in most ways.

The lesson for you is simple: Because there is no magic formula for admission to Stanford (or any other college), you shouldn't waste your time trying to make yourself into the perfect candidate. Be sensible, but don't over do it. Remember, admissions officers know they can't accept most applicants, so they are looking for a good, quick reason to reject people. "Desperation," "faking it" or "trying too hard" is as good a reason as any to ding an applicant.

Be sure you talk to the track guys sooner rather than later. Unlike the rest of us, they can actually give you useful guidance about your prospects, and about what you can do to improve those prospects.

And finally, STOP ASKING STRANGERS FOR ADVICE. Very few people understand college admissions. That includes most alumni. And nobody on this board knows you. So instead of wasting your time listening to a bunch of old guys who love the sound of their own voices, to talk to your parents and other adults you know. Ask them how they made their way through life. Ask them how they got where they are. Did they plan to end up where they are? Ask them what they'd do differently if they had it to do over. Ask them what advice they'd give their young selves. Ask them the most important things they learned. And so on.

Yes, I know all about Reed, and I know how it all works. No one said you didn't have to play the game a little. Reed got on a high horse they never should have. You know who says they wish parents and students would stop paying attention to college rankings? Students (and their parents) who can't get into those elite colleges. Even IF UCLA were as good as Stanford (and it's not), the tie breaker would be that the students at Stanford are SOOOO much brighter. Benefits a smart kid to be surrounded by other smart kids.

well Stanford is a whole lot less a stretch for this student. it may not even be a stretch. Berkeley might be a stretch but much less so private schools.

The student doesn't need another hook - he HAS a hook - he has TWO hooks - his skin color and his lower middle class origins. I don't think he needs much else - I bet he will be highly prized by several Ivy+ institutions and flown out for ethnic weekends and whatnot.

Your saying he will 100% be denied admission to Ivy+ schools without athletics is wrong - the competition for smart people of color is very very intense.

(yes I am a little bitter about the whole thing but it's not about me)

take a look at this - the basic consensus seems to be that a 31 ACT is enough to be in the running at any Ivy+ school. not a lock, but not a stretch either.

Some students with 28 ACT scores got in to multiple ivies.

his being in the top 3% of his class is also huge point in his favor.

I think you have a solid chance of getting in. Don't let these people disuade you from Stanford its a phenomenal school and you'll love wherever you end up. That being said listen to their advice and talk to many different coaches. Don't leave all of your eggs in one basket and you never know you might fall in love with another school along the way. Junior year I wanted to go to a completely different school from the school I ended up going to. You have a lot going for you goodluck!

Hyperleo7 wrote:

Hi, I know the admission process is often luck of the draw because Stanford is such a top notch college and by no means am I a Grant Fisher. However I have a 31 ACT top 3% in my class of 462 (one B freshman year got me ). I'm apart of NHS and I do community service quite alot. I'm good enough to make it to state in xc (16:00) but considering they just placed 2nd at nationals I dont think it helps. I placed 6th at state in wrestling (138). Last I split a 1:53 on the 4x800 relay in track and ran a 47.9 open 400m. This year I'm hoping to run around a 47.5, 1:51 and 4:09. If I hit these marks will I be a good candidate. If it's any help I'm a Latino/african american mix and my family makes $45,000 a year.

Based purely on academics, the answer is most likely no; I can't say absolutely no because elite college admissions are a bit of a crapshoot. Your running is your hook because Stanford needs MD types, if you can hit those times, (47.5, 1:51 and 4:09), I would say you have better than a 50% chance. Also, Consider Nova and G'Town, which are track powerhouses and have some undergraduate programs on par with Stanford.

agip wrote:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/african-american-students/644480-what-are-the-average-sat-scores-and-gpas-of-admitted-african-american-at-ivy-leagues.html

take a look at this - the basic consensus seems to be that a 31 ACT is enough to be in the running at any Ivy+ school. not a lock, but not a stretch either.

Some students with 28 ACT scores got in to multiple ivies.

his being in the top 3% of his class is also huge point in his favor.

agip,

31 on the ACT at Stanford is at the 25% line (better for black students). That is the case for many of the Ivies too. Can't use exceptions like 28 on the ACT to show that a 31 is good enough. A kid with a 31 on the ACT must have something else, and while minority and low income help, unless you are a recruited athlete or have some other VERY UNIQUE quality, there are no slam dunks at Stanford; Stanford is a REACH for EVERYONE. Again, for the entry class of 2013, only 64% with a perfect 2400 on the SAT got in to Stanford.

A dude though who runs 47.x and potentially 1:51...well, that dude can make it a slam dunk. Needs to contact the coach immediately. Any advice to a kid just because he is a minority that he has it made because of a 31 on the ACT at HYPSM and other Ivies is bad advice. Makes them more attractive, but it is far from a guarantee.

well we're not exactly disagreeing - just varying on the spectrum of how much easier it is for students of color to get in.

In the end, I would say that if he applies to 15 ivy+ schools he is a lock to get into at least one of them. And get huge financial aid.

TrackCoach wrote:

Based purely on academics, the answer is most likely no; I can't say absolutely no because elite college admissions are a bit of a crapshoot. Your running is your hook because Stanford needs MD types, if you can hit those times, (47.5, 1:51 and 4:09), I would say you have better than a 50% chance. Also, Consider Nova and G'Town, which are track powerhouses and have some undergraduate programs on par with Stanford.

Man, you people are not giving Stanford its due credit. Stanford is one of the very best universities in the WORLD. You can get a decent education at Villanova or Georgetown and there could be an argument at ANY university that a certain discipline might be better, but overall neither (Georgetown is closer than Villanova) is on par with Stanford. Stanford is the top of the top. Villanova? Not even close. Georgetown? Better than Villanova but now in Stanford's league.

This guy has the goods to likely get into Stanford (again, to guarantee, he needs to contact the track coach TODAY if he hasn't already), and he shouldn't be steered away toward Villanova. Stanford is steak. Villanova is White Castle in comparison.

kjbh wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

3) Stanford should LOVE to get you as an athlete if you actually get your times down to your goals. The main reason is that they will NOT have to give you athletic scholarship money. Because your family makes just $45,000 a year, you will get a full ride (tuition and room and board) from Stanford. Your family can make up to $65,000 and get that actually.

If this is true, that is ridiculous. People making $45-60k can afford to pay for college. It really shouldn't even have anything to do with your family's income. You're 18. Get a job or take a loan.

You are either Ted Cruz or Boko Haram.

agip wrote:

well we're not exactly disagreeing - just varying on the spectrum of how much easier it is for students of color to get in.

In the end, I would say that if he applies to 15 ivy+ schools he is a lock to get into at least one of them. And get huge financial aid.

If he applies to all 8 Ivy League schools and Stanford (which I hope he doesn't because those schools are all so different; he should find the ones that would be a fit for him) and doesn't get recruited to run track at any of them, I agree that he will likely get into one of them; he though is targeting Stanford, and when you are talking about one school, you can't get too sure about the possibilities. I can't tell you how many minority (including black and Hispanic) students I have seen rejected in the last year by top schools and they were shocked they didn't get in (kind of up on all this these days as my daughter was going through this process and will begin college in the fall). Being a URM (under-represented minority) is not a guarantee. And, based on family income, he won't just get huge financial aid, he will get a full ride to ANY of them.

Any school he applies to needs to have a need-blind policy (Stanford does).

Stanford is a special place, and for any student who has designs on attending there, they need to do everything they can to get in. The OP has a chance to make it a slam dunk...not something most can do. To rest on the laurels of being minority and low-income is not safe.

That's "NOT" in Stanford's league.

Undergraduate physics is one of the most demanding majors you can pick. It's on par with Chemistry, Biology, and Engineering majors. This will be tough to balance with athletics anywhere.

On top of the heavy math and academic rigor, these majors traditionally have a lot of lab classes in the afternoons when practice times typically are for athletics. This will take some more research on your part by talking to coaches, athletes in your proposed sport and major, and academic advisors in your proposed major about how realistic/commonplace it is to be a (physics) major at (Stanford) and compete on the (track and XC) teams. Unless there is an outright conflict with classes for your major, you may not find anyone who says it "can't" be done, but you may find that you will be over-extended. Your best bet will be to talk to someone on the team or a recent graduate (at Stanford) who is majoring in (physics/pre-med) and find out how they balance it out.

If you are serious about pre-med, you will want to prioritize going to a school where you will do best academically. This will also be tough to balance with athletics anywhere. In general, medical school admissions won't care if you got a lower GPA in undergraduate school because you chose to do athletics.

Stanford tends to do better than most D1 schools with athletes balancing hard majors and doing athletics. Observationally, they do better than the D1 UC schools. Ivy League schools tend to do better also since they don't offer athletic scholarships.

Several messages on here have made a good case for going to a good D3 school if you are serious about academics and pre-med.

If your heart is set on Stanford (or another highly selective school), talk to an admissions officer and find out how they evaluate applicants. There's generally no formula, but if you are an under-represented person who can add to the campus community (by athletics or music or other) and have the academic background, then they should encourage you to apply (or not). Also talk to the coach about going through the recruiting process and see if/how they can help with an admissions offer if you are planning to be on the team.

Have a backup plan like attending a community college that has a transfer agreement with one of your target schools.

Neutral Observertard wrote:

kjbh wrote:

If this is true, that is ridiculous. People making $45-60k can afford to pay for college. It really shouldn't even have anything to do with your family's income. You're 18. Get a job or take a loan.

You are either Ted Cruz or Boko Haram.

Well..he isn't related to me, but my last name is Cruz

Here's one for all of the dummies out there who didn't get to go to a real school:

You can always tell a Stanford student...you just can't tell them much!

Flagpole wrote:Even IF UCLA were as good as Stanford (and it's not), the tie breaker would be that the students at Stanford are SOOOO much brighter. Benefits a smart kid to be surrounded by other smart kids.

You'll find plenty of very, very bright kids at UCLA. The absolute top students at both schools, in fact, will probably be pretty darn close to equal. The median of Stanford's going to be higher, although as a physics major, you'll meet some very smart kids either way.

It's also worth noting that a kid with a 31 ACT (and, I'm assuming not quite perfect scores on AP AB/BC Calc / Physics E&M / Physics Mech / Chemistry exams?) might actually be better served at UCLA over Stanford, especially as a physics major. I'd recommend reading Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath: the crux of the book's early chapters is that sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big one.

I grew up in Palo Alto. About 15 kids from my graduating class went on to attend Stanford for undergrad. As someone who's seen the type of kids Stanford draws, I'd pity a kid who's in the 95th percentile of all high school students and chooses Stanford. Why? Because they're going to be surrounded by students that make up the 99.9th percentile.

This situation fosters the sort of environment where that 95th percentile student--who's pretty damn good in the grand scheme of things--has a high probability of being unhappy about their academic prospects, unhappy with their ability to compete academically, and generally doesn't feel like they fit in too well.

Think about it this way: if you have a 5k PR of 13:40, you're around the 95th percentile of all 5k runners in the world. Should you expect to do well if you hop into a DL race? Hell no. Because that's where you're dealing with the guys in the 99th+ percentile.

That situation would lead to a few different possibilities. You might get dragged to a PR, hurting like hell the whole way, and still finish in 15th in 13:35, as another runner nobody's really paying attention to. Worse, you try and go with the 13:10 guys, run a few laps of 63, and then break halfway through and get lapped a few times before stepping off the track or jogging through the finish. The rarest scenario of all would be you go out with the 13:10 guys, hold on, and PR by a ton to finish mid, or even front pack. Does it happen? Occasionally. Should you expect it to happen? Probably not.

Anyway, I hope the crappy metaphorical running explanation was sufficient. tl;dr I'd say choose a school based on how well you think you'd fit. Georgetown, Cornell, UCLA, Cal, and a couple dozen other schools all have excellent academics and track programs, and might be a better fit for you as a physics major than Stanford would be. Could you get into Stanford? Possibly. You have as good a shot as any kid, better if their track program wants you. Would you have a better time there than at any other college? Not necessarily.

Either way, OP seems like a very good student, and his track times are excellent, so he should definitely contact coaches, visit schools, and figure out what he wants to do for college. I wish him luck!