|
0 members (),
375
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 281
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 281 |
The impression I get from watching my friends who have kids at some of these elite schools. The schools who only pick the 'pointy' students are the top 5-10 schools in the country (less than 5% acceptance) not really the top 40-50. Yes, I was pondering if the 20% admission rate should have been closer to 15% or even 10%. And it depends on the school what type of pointy they are looking for. For example MIT or Cal Tech want students who really stand out in math/science for some reason and win science completions. Stanford is known for accepting you if your an athlete that has prospects to make it to the Olympics. MIT and CalTech will certainly take those kids. But an acquaintance of mine knows a few people in MIT admissions. He says what MIT would really welcome is the talented athlete that is also strong academically. Few of those kids apply to MIT, but many apply to Stanford.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1 |
Excellent! "To thine own self be true!" - Shakespeare Applying Sideways sums it up nicely, without people spending a boatload of money on books which summarize prior years' decision making as to who gets the thick envelope. from the MIT admissions site is more informative. If you are seriously interested in MIT, you probably think math and science are serious fun. We offer this abbreviated list of some remarkable competitions, fairs, summer programs, organizations and websites that will challenge your imagination and powers of analysis, connect you with other young people who dare to enjoy science and math, and help you prepare for the rigor and excitement of MIT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
What Val said.
The only way to win the game is not to play.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489 |
MIT and CalTech will certainly take those kids. But an acquaintance of mine knows a few people in MIT admissions. He says what MIT would really welcome is the talented athlete that is also strong academically. Few of those kids apply to MIT, but many apply to Stanford. Because if you want to play sports at university you don't aim to go to MIT. Why would you? Yes MIT does have sports but it's not what people think of about their university. You go because it has a research labs like almost no other university. CalTech plays in NCAA Division III and only has a few teams vs. Stanford playing at NCAA Division I. Sure both CalTech & MIT love a top student who's also an athlete. But if your a top athlete who wants to go somewhere in hour sport your not looking at these schools.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
A major difference is CalTech offers a top-notch education plus an outlet for those who are athletically inclined, where Stanford offers a top-notch education that is free for select candidates. Stanford sets itself apart from the rest of Division I by NOT watering down its admissions standards for athletes, which has had the effect of making it an attractive place for intelligent athletes. There have been a number of articles exploring the effect this has had on its football program: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lp-stanford-elevate-itself-in-recruitingStanford's recruiting process is opposite from virtually every other program in major college football and has been for the past few years. The staff doesn't watch film of prospects until after it receivers--and evaluates--a recruit's academic transcript. Many schools these days offer scholarships to kids whose transcripts they've never seen.
Not Stanford.
"We can't afford to waste time," says Shaw. "I need to look at kids who are great players and great students."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
1. Its admission rate is below 20%.
2. When JonLaw hears the name of the college, he immediately wants to respond with: "Power! Glory! Awesomeness!" Is the 20% admission rate too high for that, JonLaw? I don't know quite how to answer that. The glory that we are looking for really comes from certain highly selective institutions. For instance, MIT is not a truly glorious university because it's not the right kind of glory. It's kind of technical, which is the bad kind of glory. There are also the universities that are kind of glorious, but don't quite make the list because they are not in the northeast, such as Duke and Stanford.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 599
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 599 |
War Games!!!!!
How about a nice game of chess?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 37
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 37 |
A major difference is CalTech offers a top-notch education plus an outlet for those who are athletically inclined, where Stanford offers a top-notch education that is free for select candidates. Stanford sets itself apart from the rest of Division I by NOT watering down its admissions standards for athletes, which has had the effect of making it an attractive place for intelligent athletes. There have been a number of articles exploring the effect this has had on its football program: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lp-stanford-elevate-itself-in-recruitingStanford's recruiting process is opposite from virtually every other program in major college football and has been for the past few years. The staff doesn't watch film of prospects until after it receivers--and evaluates--a recruit's academic transcript. Many schools these days offer scholarships to kids whose transcripts they've never seen.
Not Stanford.
"We can't afford to waste time," says Shaw. "I need to look at kids who are great players and great students." Stanford definitely has higher standards for athletes than Alabama, Oregon, or even Duke, but the minimum academic standards for top tier athletes are closer to those for children of seven figure donors than to those of the average applicant. Stanford's minimum two-part SAT score for athletes is 1000 and the core GPA minimum is a 3.0. http://news.stanford.edu/stanfordtoday/ed/9703/9703sf03.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489 |
A major difference is CalTech offers a top-notch education plus an outlet for those who are athletically inclined, where Stanford offers a top-notch education that is free for select candidates. Stanford sets itself apart from the rest of Division I by NOT watering down its admissions standards for athletes, which has had the effect of making it an attractive place for intelligent athletes. There have been a number of articles exploring the effect this has had on its football program: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lp-stanford-elevate-itself-in-recruitingStanford's recruiting process is opposite from virtually every other program in major college football and has been for the past few years. The staff doesn't watch film of prospects until after it receivers--and evaluates--a recruit's academic transcript. Many schools these days offer scholarships to kids whose transcripts they've never seen.
Not Stanford.
"We can't afford to waste time," says Shaw. "I need to look at kids who are great players and great students." Yes but if you look at the numbers for Stanford admits.. The students/athletes on average have lower lower GPA/test scores than the average of all the rests of the admits. Being a nationally ranked athlete who is also a good solid high GPA will give you a BIG advantage in their selection process. But I will admit that they do have a "bottom" line. And only admit student who meet minimum (very high) criteria of academic criteria. In this way they are MUCH better at having true student/athletes than many top sports schools.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 77 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 77 Likes: 1 |
Having just gone to DD's high school awards ceremony which had a segment listing the college choice, scholarship, and awards for some of the students, I would say that the kiddos that went to HYPS etc did have the "core" of good grades ( 4.0 un-weighted), IB diploma, AP scholar or better, over 100 hours of community service (at DD's school this does not include the 50 or more done for IB) and leadership in student organizations. Then they went on to do things like qualify for AIME , be an Intel Science Fair finalist, volunteer over 500 hours with local government, etc. So, another vote for well rounded AND pointy. Have a look at Stanford's admission stats for 2014 here: http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html73% of admitted students had a 4.0 95% were in the top 10% of their class Harvard (see here: http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/freshman-survey/admissions/) had "only" 54% with a 4.0, but looking at a plot of GPA vs SAT demonstrates that high GPA and high test scores both characteristics of admitted students. Also, I wish now, that I'd taken DD to a high school awards night when she was in 5th grade so she could see what was possible.
|
|
|
|
|
