6 ms·

Stanford's 2017 acceptance rate hits record low: 5.7%

42 points by aroman 14y ago

barry-cotter 14y ago
Look at how we respond to the US N&WR like all the other universities, by increasing our advertising spend and getting people who aren't even marginal admits to apply.
maximz 14y ago
This isn't surprising. Let's look at how many people applied and how many acceptances were issued over the last few years: * 2012-2013: 38,828 applied, 2210 accepted * 2011-2012: 36,631 applied, 2427 accepted * 2010-2011: 34,348 applied, 2427 accepted * 2009-2010: 32,000 applied, 2300 accepted There's a constant amount of spots and they take the same amount of people. The reason they are now more selective (percentage-wise) is simply that more people applied.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  The reason they are now more selective (percentage-wise) is simply that more people applied. A more accurate description would be "Stanford's increased marketing efforts got more people to apply". It's a trend nationwide, a race to the bottom to game the school rankings system. Edit: It's not limited to undergrad programs either. Business schools are at it as well. Edit2: It helps their top line too. Application fees are something like $100, marketing costs are definitely an order of magnitude smaller, and the cost of processing one application (especially if they just get rejected right away) is quite minimal.
  - aneth4 14y ago
    > Application fees are something like $100, marketing costs are definitely an order of magnitude smaller 32,000 applicants * $100 = $3.2M That's chump change for Stanford. They have an $18B endowment and massive tuition revenue. The idea that they run their application program as a profit center is ridiculous. And while some schools may "game the school rankings system," Stanford hardly needs to.
    - hkmurakami 14y ago
      Agreed about the profits. But I think you underestimate the need for Stanford to do everything it takes to get maximize their rankings. Most college applicants base their college choice largely on rankings, and the best students are going to be the most likely to give $$$ "back to the school" (whatever that means). If every other top college (I guess the "Ivy+" schools) is trying their darnedest to inflate their ranking metrics, then Stanford is eventually going to find itself towards the bottom half of the top 10 schools with respect to rankings. That will actually affect its long term student body quality in ways that it doesn't want. Now I personally don't think rankings mean anything, but this is me, 10+ years after my own college applications. From the school's perspective, they have to protect their ranking.
      - duaneb 14y ago
        I found the rankings immensely helpful in selecting a college. Since then I've realized how little the rankings mean for much of the top 50, 100 colleges. A startup that allowed the user to define their own rankings could make bank.
    - tanzam75 14y ago
      Application fees basically pay for the costs of running the Admissions Office. There are very few economies of a scale in an admissions office. Each additional application takes an extra half hours to read. Thus, a certain number of additional applications will require an additional Admissions Officer to be hired. (No, they're not that well-paid. Remember that applications are typically read by two admissions officers, that they have to meet to discuss candidates, and that the reading season only lasts from December to March. The other 2/3 of their time is thus spent on "marketing" activities, like going to college fairs. But it's not like you can eliminate this expense to cut the application fees -- the admissions staff has to have something to do during the rest of the year.) Because costs scale in direct proportion to the number of applications received, application fees are a natural way to pay for it.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  a constant amount of spots a 10% variation isn't what I'd call 'constant' exactly.
  - rvn1045 14y ago
    Yeah but you have to consider the yield too, they have to "guess" the number of applicants who will choose to go to Stanford if they are admitted.
theprodigy 14y ago
I would be curious to read the applications of the people who got in.
mjn 14y ago
I'd be interested in reading something about what they're doing to keep the process working in that case. I'm involved in various academic conferences, and acceptance rate is a big sticking point, which gets more problematic as the number gets lower. It's very easy to put on a symposium with a 60-70% acceptance rate: you just filter out the stuff that is clearly not good, and is not going to contribute. It's not much harder to go to 40-50%: you raise your bar for how well thought out something needs to be, how well it needs to ground itself in the existing research, and how good the prose itself needs to be. But once you start going south of that, things quickly get problematic. Now you start rejecting decent stuff, for reasons that depend on random assignment of reviewers: some reviewers are harsher than others, and if you don't correct for it, that impacts things. You have not easily comparable factors: is borderline contribution in area A better or worse than borderline contribution in area B? How precisely do you weight every possible factor? Is interestingness, rigor, or clearness of communication more important? You also, as you get towards 10-20% acceptance rates, easily end up slipping into a mode where papers get accepted more because of "can't find a reason to reject it" rather than "would actually want to accept it". Reviewers become very critical (since most papers need to be rejected), and look for any reason they can find to reject a paper. So what survives is not the best papers, but the papers nobody could find a good enough reason to reject. What that usually means is either 1) airtight incremental work; or 2) blockbuster media-friendly work. More generally, I think it gets exponentially harder to make any kind of review process meaningful as you accept a smaller and smaller percentage of applications. I believe I can honestly set up a screening system for accepting the top 30% of an applicant pool with at least acceptable error. But the top 5%? It starts looking like rolling dice. If Stanford does it better, I'd love to know how!
- aneth4 14y ago
  Two things: - They are just as happy with a random selection of 7% from the top 15-20% of applications - There is zero "error". They select who they select, and are not just looking for exactly the top applicants - in fact that has little meaning. What does top mean? Is someone with incredible musical talent but slightly weaker than another applicant in math better or worse? They want a solid diverse group of amazing students. This is not angel investing, where they are afraid of missing out on the one big hit.
jonemo 14y ago
Similar news just came out here at Cornell: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March13/Admissions2013.html http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March13/Admissions2013.h... The real news both in Cornell and Stanford is that more people applied but more or less the same number of places as always is available. My first guess was that this might be simply because there were more births in the years that have now reached college age, but that seems to not be true (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Vital_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...). Or it could be an economic effect, namely that people who couldn't afford sending their kids to college during the crisis years now can. Or maybe universities really just did better PR and therefore get more applications. Would be nice to have this data for every university to see if the same effect applies everywhere.
- wilfra 14y ago
  You're assuming all of the applicants are American. That's a very incorrect assumption. I would guess nearly all of the increase is international with China accounting for > 50% by itself.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Yes. Even Xi Jingping's daughter attends Harvard. The poor farmer kids who test well can go to Qinghua or PKU, all the kids whose parents have any money are going abroad. A bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- zevyoura 14y ago
  Students also now apply to many more schools than they did in the past, especially when you add in the Common App, which Stanford and Cornell both participate in.
- superprime 14y ago
  It's not about the cost of college, at least here. Places like Stanford and Princeton have generous enough financial aid programs that if you can't pay for it, they will (presuming you're accepted).
rkuykendall-com 14y ago
I received my letter on Wednesday, so I felt this one personally. I applied for the masters program, but I'm sure the trend is the same. It's been 3 days since I heard back, and I still think I'm feeling a little down. Interestingly, none of my other declines bothered me much at all, even from amazing schools with programs I may have picked over Stanford. I think it is because Stanford was the first graduate program that I got excited about. When you start a project, you never know where you will end up, but I think it's important to pick a star to follow, a goal to motivate yourself. After reading about the mobile and internet computing specialization at Stanford, I finally felt like graduate school was a place I could fit in, and I set Stanford at my star. When I was being lazy and not focusing enough, I set the Stanford logo as my desktop. Since then I have found a number of places which would be just fantastic places for me. Picking a star motivated me, and got me where I needed to go, but it's hard not to be sad when it doesn't work out.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  That's a healthy attitude. It's one that Stanford won't be getting. Their loss. Best of luck to your other endeavors!
- jcheng 14y ago
  Stanford et al are a huge leg up when getting your first job out of school. But do they really matter once you have a few years of job experience? When I'm hiring I care vastly more about a candidate's last two jobs than where he or she went to school.
  - robryan 14y ago
    Depends on the area of study. For Computer Science and related I think most smart students that aren't in an academic bubble know this. Often it is more intellectual curiosity than any eventual financial payoff that is the major motivating factor.
    - rkuykendall-com 14y ago
      I have been told by many professors that I would earn more by directly entering the workforce. It takes a massive salary increase to catch up to 2-3 years of pay. Intellectual curiosity is really the only reason you can choose graduate school, or you will hate it. I found my undergraduate advanced electives and research with professors exciting and interesting, so I decided I would rather spend 2-3 years learning more and researching, than spending 2-3 working my way up in my first few jobs. I will probably end up someplace similar, but I will enjoy it much more, and I believe be a better person because of it.
rkaplan 14y ago
I'm fortunate enough to have been included in that 5.7% today. Nonetheless, the statistic is highly misleading and the entire college process is becoming increasingly arbitrary. With so many talented candidates, it is often simply a crapshoot for all but the very best applicants. Admission to an individual school in particular is extremely difficult to predict. I have friends who were just accepted to Harvard and rejected from Stanford, vice versa, accepted to Yale and neither Harvard nor Stanford, etc. It's similar to an earlier discussion today here on HN about the applicability of group statistics to an individual situation: even if you're an exceedingly qualified applicant, your essays just might not click with a particular school's screener. Or perhaps you're not fully qualified, but someone in the admissions committee really connects with your personal story. These kinds of things happen all of the time in college admissions; with such a competitive pool, getting into any particular school often comes down to chance. As for the acceptance rate itself, it's as much a measure of how good a school is at marketing as it is of its competitiveness. Harvard (and many others) sends pamphlets by the thousands trying to bait almost-certainly-hopeless students into sending an application, just to drive down their acceptance percentage. Many schools also reject candidates that are "too good," ("Tufts syndrome") because an admissions office will gamble that such candidates will matriculate at a better school. They would prefer to get their acceptance percentage lower than accept a student who probably wouldn't matriculate.
- nnexx 14y ago
  > I have friends who were just accepted to Harvard and rejected from Stanford, vice versa, accepted to Yale and neither Harvard nor Stanford, etc. There has always been speculation that the elite schools get together and do a little horse trading in regards to whom they will accept. Other than those truly exceptional students that they all want, they'll pretty much make sure people get into one or two but not all of the top universities. This is to keep them from wasting too many slots on the same people. They'll deny it of course, but it seems a little too coincidental given how often it happens.
  - tanzam75 14y ago
    Unlikely, given the volumes of applications that they're now dealing with. It's simply much harder to get into two elite universities these days. At single-digit admit rates, we're well past the point of selecting for qualified students. Which means that a lot of students are selected based on essentially random factors. And when something is random, humans like to see patterns where none exist. You may be thinking of the fact that the elite colleges coordinate financial aid decisions for students who have already been admitted to multiple schools. Suppose Stanford costs $60k and offers a $40k aid package, while MIT costs $58k and offers a $45k aid package. In that case, both schools might agree to offer a $42k package, so that the $7k difference in out-of-pocket costs gets narrowed to $2k. Coordination of financial aid makes coordination of admissions unnecessary, as it prevents schools from "stealing" students from each other by offering higher aid packages.
reader5000 14y ago
Do these ridiculous accept rates hurt society? That is, is there any measurable difference in human capital between the top 5.7% that got in and say the next 5.7%, or even the next 20%? But only the particular 5.7% that got in will be able to use Stanford branding to get to the top of the interview heap for the rest of their lives. For everybody else, employers will have to either invest more resources to discern their quality or will forgo the added expense and also miss the opportunity of a Stanford-quality employee that just happened to not get access to Stanford branding due to the increasingly fantastical notion that what Stanford offers is "education" which can only be supplied to a limited number of seats per year.
latj 14y ago
Is anyone with a small child currently planning on how to get their kid into Stanford? My intuition is that Stanford (and the other elite schools of today) will not be so important in 20 years.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- wilfra 14y ago
  haha that's taking things a bit far. Yes, 99% of parents would love for their children to go to Stanford. I haven't even had kids yet and I would very much like for mine to go there. The Cal State Fullerton's of the World may well be obsolete within a generation, but Harvard/Stanford/MIT etc are here to stay as powerful institutions, wealth creators and status symbols.
nextstep 14y ago
This is just like any highly-selective admissions process. They (Stanford, but it could be any Ivy, or a company like Google) has accepted the fact that they will turn down many good candidates. It doesn't really matter as they can't accept more than a certain number anyway. Hiring/acceptance policies are more about guaranteeing low false positives, not preventing false negatives. However, with college admissions, the schools have a lot to gain by increasing the number of applicants. Colleges charge $50-$100 per application, so some revenue is generated to cover the application process's costs. Schools like Stanford can brag about how low their acceptance rates are, just by increasing the number of applicants.
- duaneb 14y ago
  Funny- I heard quite a few complaints about the quality of new hires dropping at google ever since they expanded rapidly five(?) years ago. I don't think you can always hire people better than you are, because unlike a college it was in google's best interest to multiply their work force. Stanford operates on exclusivity whereas workers are more of a resource to google.
brianbreslin 14y ago
Stanford's MBA program accepts less than 5.7% if I recall correctly. Closer to 4.5%
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Think of an application as an expensive lottery ticket.
siscia 14y ago
I felt it personaly. The idea that university in the US take the "best" students really bother me. I got reject from both, CalTech, MIT and Stanford. My curricul very shortly is: Italian student, best of his class. (italian school is a "little" harder tha American) AFS/Exchange student in America for the school year 2011/12 (GPA 4.0 that year) Some project on github (does it count ?) Very good letters from my teacher. Interest in about every single field (scientific or not) ACT -> 29 SAT Math2 -> 770 SAT Chem -> 720 Toefl -> 102 Now, I am sure that there are plenty of students better than me, but I feel really bad about that. On the other side POLIMI, best tech university in Italy, took me in very quickly, but I really wanted to come back in the US. Sorry about that, but I needed...
- hga 14y ago
  MIT caps the foreign students in a class at about 15%, so you were competing for one out of a bit over 150 slots. You very possibly made the "Can you do the work?" cut; overall, before applications shot up from 13,000 to 18,000, about 1/3 made that cut, but MIT has room for only a bit over 1,000. It's nothing personal, and the people involved in admissions do not like turning down qualified applicants, but they don't have any choice.
  - siscia 14y ago
    I knew that it was hard, but still really suck when you are rejected no one but three times. Thanks anyway... "Good luck, Bad luck, who knows ?" XP
  - tanzam75 14y ago
    Actually, it's even harder than you state. MIT's quota for international applicants is not 15%, but 8%. Sources: (1) http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/international_men_women_of_mys http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/international_men_women... (2) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/admissions-2011-0404.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/admissions-2011-0404.html
spullara 14y ago
The http://www.minervaproject.com http://www.minervaproject.com is creating a university just for this reason. Plenty of qualified people get rejected from the prestigious universities just due to the numbers of positions / applicants.

42 points by aroman 14y ago

Look at how we respond to the US N&WR like all the other universities, by increasing our advertising spend and getting people who aren't even marginal admits to apply.

maximz 14y ago

This isn't surprising. Let's look at how many people applied and how many acceptances were issued over the last few years: * 2012-2013: 38,828 applied, 2210 accepted * 2011-2012: 36,631 applied, 2427 accepted * 2010-2011: 34,348 applied, 2427 accepted * 2009-2010: 32,000 applied, 2300 accepted There's a constant amount of spots and they take the same amount of people. The reason they are now more selective (percentage-wise) is simply that more people applied.

hkmurakami 14y ago
The reason they are now more selective (percentage-wise) is simply that more people applied. A more accurate description would be "Stanford's increased marketing efforts got more people to apply". It's a trend nationwide, a race to the bottom to game the school rankings system. Edit: It's not limited to undergrad programs either. Business schools are at it as well. Edit2: It helps their top line too. Application fees are something like $100, marketing costs are definitely an order of magnitude smaller, and the cost of processing one application (especially if they just get rejected right away) is quite minimal.
- aneth4 14y ago
  > Application fees are something like $100, marketing costs are definitely an order of magnitude smaller 32,000 applicants * $100 = $3.2M That's chump change for Stanford. They have an $18B endowment and massive tuition revenue. The idea that they run their application program as a profit center is ridiculous. And while some schools may "game the school rankings system," Stanford hardly needs to.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    Agreed about the profits. But I think you underestimate the need for Stanford to do everything it takes to get maximize their rankings. Most college applicants base their college choice largely on rankings, and the best students are going to be the most likely to give $$$ "back to the school" (whatever that means). If every other top college (I guess the "Ivy+" schools) is trying their darnedest to inflate their ranking metrics, then Stanford is eventually going to find itself towards the bottom half of the top 10 schools with respect to rankings. That will actually affect its long term student body quality in ways that it doesn't want. Now I personally don't think rankings mean anything, but this is me, 10+ years after my own college applications. From the school's perspective, they have to protect their ranking.
    - duaneb 14y ago
      I found the rankings immensely helpful in selecting a college. Since then I've realized how little the rankings mean for much of the top 50, 100 colleges. A startup that allowed the user to define their own rankings could make bank.
  - tanzam75 14y ago
    Application fees basically pay for the costs of running the Admissions Office. There are very few economies of a scale in an admissions office. Each additional application takes an extra half hours to read. Thus, a certain number of additional applications will require an additional Admissions Officer to be hired. (No, they're not that well-paid. Remember that applications are typically read by two admissions officers, that they have to meet to discuss candidates, and that the reading season only lasts from December to March. The other 2/3 of their time is thus spent on "marketing" activities, like going to college fairs. But it's not like you can eliminate this expense to cut the application fees -- the admissions staff has to have something to do during the rest of the year.) Because costs scale in direct proportion to the number of applications received, application fees are a natural way to pay for it.
anigbrowl 14y ago
a constant amount of spots a 10% variation isn't what I'd call 'constant' exactly.
- rvn1045 14y ago
  Yeah but you have to consider the yield too, they have to "guess" the number of applicants who will choose to go to Stanford if they are admitted.

theprodigy 14y ago

I would be curious to read the applications of the people who got in.

mjn 14y ago

I'd be interested in reading something about what they're doing to keep the process working in that case. I'm involved in various academic conferences, and acceptance rate is a big sticking point, which gets more problematic as the number gets lower. It's very easy to put on a symposium with a 60-70% acceptance rate: you just filter out the stuff that is clearly not good, and is not going to contribute. It's not much harder to go to 40-50%: you raise your bar for how well thought out something needs to be, how well it needs to ground itself in the existing research, and how good the prose itself needs to be. But once you start going south of that, things quickly get problematic. Now you start rejecting decent stuff, for reasons that depend on random assignment of reviewers: some reviewers are harsher than others, and if you don't correct for it, that impacts things. You have not easily comparable factors: is borderline contribution in area A better or worse than borderline contribution in area B? How precisely do you weight every possible factor? Is interestingness, rigor, or clearness of communication more important? You also, as you get towards 10-20% acceptance rates, easily end up slipping into a mode where papers get accepted more because of "can't find a reason to reject it" rather than "would actually want to accept it". Reviewers become very critical (since most papers need to be rejected), and look for any reason they can find to reject a paper. So what survives is not the best papers, but the papers nobody could find a good enough reason to reject. What that usually means is either 1) airtight incremental work; or 2) blockbuster media-friendly work. More generally, I think it gets exponentially harder to make any kind of review process meaningful as you accept a smaller and smaller percentage of applications. I believe I can honestly set up a screening system for accepting the top 30% of an applicant pool with at least acceptable error. But the top 5%? It starts looking like rolling dice. If Stanford does it better, I'd love to know how!

aneth4 14y ago
Two things: - They are just as happy with a random selection of 7% from the top 15-20% of applications - There is zero "error". They select who they select, and are not just looking for exactly the top applicants - in fact that has little meaning. What does top mean? Is someone with incredible musical talent but slightly weaker than another applicant in math better or worse? They want a solid diverse group of amazing students. This is not angel investing, where they are afraid of missing out on the one big hit.

jonemo 14y ago

Similar news just came out here at Cornell: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March13/Admissions2013.html http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March13/Admissions2013.h... The real news both in Cornell and Stanford is that more people applied but more or less the same number of places as always is available. My first guess was that this might be simply because there were more births in the years that have now reached college age, but that seems to not be true (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Vital_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...). Or it could be an economic effect, namely that people who couldn't afford sending their kids to college during the crisis years now can. Or maybe universities really just did better PR and therefore get more applications. Would be nice to have this data for every university to see if the same effect applies everywhere.

wilfra 14y ago
You're assuming all of the applicants are American. That's a very incorrect assumption. I would guess nearly all of the increase is international with China accounting for > 50% by itself.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Yes. Even Xi Jingping's daughter attends Harvard. The poor farmer kids who test well can go to Qinghua or PKU, all the kids whose parents have any money are going abroad. A bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zevyoura 14y ago
Students also now apply to many more schools than they did in the past, especially when you add in the Common App, which Stanford and Cornell both participate in.
superprime 14y ago
It's not about the cost of college, at least here. Places like Stanford and Princeton have generous enough financial aid programs that if you can't pay for it, they will (presuming you're accepted).

rkuykendall-com 14y ago

I received my letter on Wednesday, so I felt this one personally. I applied for the masters program, but I'm sure the trend is the same. It's been 3 days since I heard back, and I still think I'm feeling a little down. Interestingly, none of my other declines bothered me much at all, even from amazing schools with programs I may have picked over Stanford. I think it is because Stanford was the first graduate program that I got excited about. When you start a project, you never know where you will end up, but I think it's important to pick a star to follow, a goal to motivate yourself. After reading about the mobile and internet computing specialization at Stanford, I finally felt like graduate school was a place I could fit in, and I set Stanford at my star. When I was being lazy and not focusing enough, I set the Stanford logo as my desktop. Since then I have found a number of places which would be just fantastic places for me. Picking a star motivated me, and got me where I needed to go, but it's hard not to be sad when it doesn't work out.

cantankerous 14y ago
That's a healthy attitude. It's one that Stanford won't be getting. Their loss. Best of luck to your other endeavors!
jcheng 14y ago
Stanford et al are a huge leg up when getting your first job out of school. But do they really matter once you have a few years of job experience? When I'm hiring I care vastly more about a candidate's last two jobs than where he or she went to school.
- robryan 14y ago
  Depends on the area of study. For Computer Science and related I think most smart students that aren't in an academic bubble know this. Often it is more intellectual curiosity than any eventual financial payoff that is the major motivating factor.
  - rkuykendall-com 14y ago
    I have been told by many professors that I would earn more by directly entering the workforce. It takes a massive salary increase to catch up to 2-3 years of pay. Intellectual curiosity is really the only reason you can choose graduate school, or you will hate it. I found my undergraduate advanced electives and research with professors exciting and interesting, so I decided I would rather spend 2-3 years learning more and researching, than spending 2-3 working my way up in my first few jobs. I will probably end up someplace similar, but I will enjoy it much more, and I believe be a better person because of it.

rkaplan 14y ago

I'm fortunate enough to have been included in that 5.7% today. Nonetheless, the statistic is highly misleading and the entire college process is becoming increasingly arbitrary. With so many talented candidates, it is often simply a crapshoot for all but the very best applicants. Admission to an individual school in particular is extremely difficult to predict. I have friends who were just accepted to Harvard and rejected from Stanford, vice versa, accepted to Yale and neither Harvard nor Stanford, etc. It's similar to an earlier discussion today here on HN about the applicability of group statistics to an individual situation: even if you're an exceedingly qualified applicant, your essays just might not click with a particular school's screener. Or perhaps you're not fully qualified, but someone in the admissions committee really connects with your personal story. These kinds of things happen all of the time in college admissions; with such a competitive pool, getting into any particular school often comes down to chance. As for the acceptance rate itself, it's as much a measure of how good a school is at marketing as it is of its competitiveness. Harvard (and many others) sends pamphlets by the thousands trying to bait almost-certainly-hopeless students into sending an application, just to drive down their acceptance percentage. Many schools also reject candidates that are "too good," ("Tufts syndrome") because an admissions office will gamble that such candidates will matriculate at a better school. They would prefer to get their acceptance percentage lower than accept a student who probably wouldn't matriculate.

nnexx 14y ago
> I have friends who were just accepted to Harvard and rejected from Stanford, vice versa, accepted to Yale and neither Harvard nor Stanford, etc. There has always been speculation that the elite schools get together and do a little horse trading in regards to whom they will accept. Other than those truly exceptional students that they all want, they'll pretty much make sure people get into one or two but not all of the top universities. This is to keep them from wasting too many slots on the same people. They'll deny it of course, but it seems a little too coincidental given how often it happens.
- tanzam75 14y ago
  Unlikely, given the volumes of applications that they're now dealing with. It's simply much harder to get into two elite universities these days. At single-digit admit rates, we're well past the point of selecting for qualified students. Which means that a lot of students are selected based on essentially random factors. And when something is random, humans like to see patterns where none exist. You may be thinking of the fact that the elite colleges coordinate financial aid decisions for students who have already been admitted to multiple schools. Suppose Stanford costs $60k and offers a $40k aid package, while MIT costs $58k and offers a $45k aid package. In that case, both schools might agree to offer a $42k package, so that the $7k difference in out-of-pocket costs gets narrowed to $2k. Coordination of financial aid makes coordination of admissions unnecessary, as it prevents schools from "stealing" students from each other by offering higher aid packages.

reader5000 14y ago

Do these ridiculous accept rates hurt society? That is, is there any measurable difference in human capital between the top 5.7% that got in and say the next 5.7%, or even the next 20%? But only the particular 5.7% that got in will be able to use Stanford branding to get to the top of the interview heap for the rest of their lives. For everybody else, employers will have to either invest more resources to discern their quality or will forgo the added expense and also miss the opportunity of a Stanford-quality employee that just happened to not get access to Stanford branding due to the increasingly fantastical notion that what Stanford offers is "education" which can only be supplied to a limited number of seats per year.

latj 14y ago

Is anyone with a small child currently planning on how to get their kid into Stanford? My intuition is that Stanford (and the other elite schools of today) will not be so important in 20 years.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
wilfra 14y ago
haha that's taking things a bit far. Yes, 99% of parents would love for their children to go to Stanford. I haven't even had kids yet and I would very much like for mine to go there. The Cal State Fullerton's of the World may well be obsolete within a generation, but Harvard/Stanford/MIT etc are here to stay as powerful institutions, wealth creators and status symbols.

nextstep 14y ago

This is just like any highly-selective admissions process. They (Stanford, but it could be any Ivy, or a company like Google) has accepted the fact that they will turn down many good candidates. It doesn't really matter as they can't accept more than a certain number anyway. Hiring/acceptance policies are more about guaranteeing low false positives, not preventing false negatives. However, with college admissions, the schools have a lot to gain by increasing the number of applicants. Colleges charge $50-$100 per application, so some revenue is generated to cover the application process's costs. Schools like Stanford can brag about how low their acceptance rates are, just by increasing the number of applicants.

duaneb 14y ago
Funny- I heard quite a few complaints about the quality of new hires dropping at google ever since they expanded rapidly five(?) years ago. I don't think you can always hire people better than you are, because unlike a college it was in google's best interest to multiply their work force. Stanford operates on exclusivity whereas workers are more of a resource to google.

brianbreslin 14y ago

Stanford's MBA program accepts less than 5.7% if I recall correctly. Closer to 4.5%

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Think of an application as an expensive lottery ticket.

siscia 14y ago

I felt it personaly. The idea that university in the US take the "best" students really bother me. I got reject from both, CalTech, MIT and Stanford. My curricul very shortly is: Italian student, best of his class. (italian school is a "little" harder tha American) AFS/Exchange student in America for the school year 2011/12 (GPA 4.0 that year) Some project on github (does it count ?) Very good letters from my teacher. Interest in about every single field (scientific or not) ACT -> 29 SAT Math2 -> 770 SAT Chem -> 720 Toefl -> 102 Now, I am sure that there are plenty of students better than me, but I feel really bad about that. On the other side POLIMI, best tech university in Italy, took me in very quickly, but I really wanted to come back in the US. Sorry about that, but I needed...

hga 14y ago
MIT caps the foreign students in a class at about 15%, so you were competing for one out of a bit over 150 slots. You very possibly made the "Can you do the work?" cut; overall, before applications shot up from 13,000 to 18,000, about 1/3 made that cut, but MIT has room for only a bit over 1,000. It's nothing personal, and the people involved in admissions do not like turning down qualified applicants, but they don't have any choice.
- siscia 14y ago
  I knew that it was hard, but still really suck when you are rejected no one but three times. Thanks anyway... "Good luck, Bad luck, who knows ?" XP
- tanzam75 14y ago
  Actually, it's even harder than you state. MIT's quota for international applicants is not 15%, but 8%. Sources: (1) http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/international_men_women_of_mys http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/international_men_women... (2) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/admissions-2011-0404.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/admissions-2011-0404.html

spullara 14y ago

The http://www.minervaproject.com http://www.minervaproject.com is creating a university just for this reason. Plenty of qualified people get rejected from the prestigious universities just due to the numbers of positions / applicants.