Stanford University sent acceptance letters Friday to 748 high school students who sought admission to the class of 2018 under the university’s early admission program.
The students were selected from 6,948 early admission candidates, the largest early application pool in Stanford’s history.
All early applicants were notified of Stanford’s decision – admitted, denied or deferred to the regular decision round – by email Friday afternoon.
Dean of Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid Richard Shaw said the admitted students come from 48 states and 36 countries.
Stanford reserves the majority of spaces in its freshman class for students who apply for admission under its regular decision program. Students admitted under both the early and regular decision programs have until May 1, 2014, to accept Stanford’s offer.
Last year, the university got a record-breaking 36,631 applicants in the early and regular decision programs combined, ultimately admitting 2,210 (including 725 early applicants) to yield a freshman class this fall numbering 1,679.
By Palo Alto Weekly Staff
By Palo Alto Weekly Staff
By Palo Alto Weekly Staff
I am surprised…Stanford accepts 2210 and 1679 show up?
That means Stanford is rejected by 25% of it’s winning applicants.
That doesn’t seem very good…is this normal?
This is not normal, but apparently more and more parents of applicants think that Stanford is a “party school” and diploma mill.
Having worked there previously, I know that they will keep kids in until they are eligible to graduate. I remember a student from Japan about ten years ago, who tested pretty well, could read English well, but could barely speak it or understand it when spoken to her. She could not write it well at all. At the time I left! she had been there six years and had to retake many classes.
My previous employer’s daughter was accepted there, but her parents did not let her attend due to the “party” and drug-use reputation at the time. it is also not considered a particularly safe campus.
These students have multiple acceptances from other academic powerhouses like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Brown, MIT, Cal Tech, etc. So the student that accepts Stanford has rejected several of these universities, and the Student that accepts Harvard or Yale has likely rejected Stanford.
The rate of acceptance by admitted applicants is called the “yield rate,” and this is the statistic that is tracked to indicate the success of universities that compete for the best and brightest students.
Rather than being rejected by 24%, Stanford was accepted by 76% of these students. See the following article on the respective yield rate from the class that was admitted in 2010. Stanford’s yield rate has increases from 72% then to 76% now.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/24/admission-sees-yield-rate-increase/
The following article shows universities with the highest yield rates for 2013. I submit that of the top academic institutions in our country, Stanford stands out as having a remarkably high yield rate.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/01/28/national-universities-where-most-accepted-students-enroll
@Surprised – Only Harvard has a higher yield rate than Stanford in the country. Of course Harvard is Harvard.
One does not simply reject Harvard’s acceptance.
Juilliard and Curtis also have higher yield rates than Stanford. Curtis also gives full scholarships to all attendees.
I loved my time at Stanford, but I do think this incredible emphasis on “selectivity” and “yield rate” is a sad comment on our society. Nice to go to Harvard, the Stanford of the east, W’s alma mater, Yale,, Princeton–it’s accredited too. Or even Vanderbilt, the Harvard of the south. But we have many fine institutions in or country, and it would be so nice if we just let our kids find a good match and develop themselves to their highest potential. Instead, we make them feel like failures if they don’t win the empyrean university lottery.
Palo Alto would be better off if we parents put less pressure on our kids, and concentrated on giving them space to grow into fully developed and thoughtful human beings.
“This is not normal, but apparently more and more parents of applicants think that Stanford is a “party school” and diploma mill.
Having worked there previously, I know that they will keep kids in until they are eligible to graduate. I remember a student from Japan about ten years ago, who tested pretty well, could read English well, but could barely speak it or understand it when spoken to her. She could not write it well at all. At the time I left! she had been there six years and had to retake many classes.
My previous employer’s daughter was accepted there, but her parents did not let her attend due to the “party” and drug-use reputation at the time. it is also not considered a particularly safe campus.”
Party school, diploma mill???? Drug use?? Not a safe campus?
Anecdotes about others children????
How about some facts? This posting has a familiar feel.
Stanford, party school and diploma mill. Who would want to go there? Gosh, Stanford students drink and earn degrees at a very high rate? Sounds like a party school and diploma mill to me. We didn’t do any of that when I was there, of course.
You know, it’s strange, one of my daughters went to Stanford as well, and did get a pretty good education. It’s amazing, with all Stanford’s faults, that that could happen.
Another daughter went to Pomona College. Good education there, too. Astonishing. I think Cal is accredited too. And SF State. I’ve known people who did well at UC Davis. It’s really confusing sometimes. Are there even good universities and colleges in the midwest?
Be nice if we could get a little more real, and a lot less snooty, folks.
De Vaux, I highly doubt you worked at Stanford. Everything (and I mean everything you posted) is false. Stanford’s 78% yield rate is second in the nation to Harvard. Stanford’s yield rate has been steadily going up for a very long time. You are making stuff up.
James — good catch. De vaux’s post sounded highly doubtful to me as well. A Japanese student who could not speak English accepted as an undergrad!!!!!!!! Stanford a. “ diploma mill”!!!!! Bet you are are many many students who would live a diploma from this “mill” . Check what you need to get into Stanford and see that it is not a diploma mill. Amazing that someone could post that and think that people would believe it
I think I know who you are talking about. Actually, she worked at Stanford Equestrian Center before John Arrillaga took it over. She also worked with the Equestrian Team in the nineties and early oughts. She’s bitter because John Arrillaga kicked out everyone who was not a Stanford grad or student when he took over.
However, she once complained. About the student partying at the Equestrain Center, and the fact that the athletes had afternoons off from school.
@Palyparent, I would certainly reject Harvard’s acceptance. Even the best of schools are not for everyone, I would much rather go to UC Berkeley or Stanford and would choose those any day over Harvard.
Daniellle wrote, “Juilliard and Curtis also have higher yield rates than Stanford.”
There are many fine single subject institutes that are very narrow in their scope. Juilliard and Curtis excel at music education but neither is a “University.” Universities must be both EDUCATIONAL and RESEARCH institutions of higher education that offer both bachelor and advanced degrees in multiple disciplines. There are very few universities that have the ability to offer the best education and research opportunities in many fields.
For a high school student that knows that his/her career will be as a professional musician, Juilliard is second to none. For me, I wanted to matriculate at a university that offered a broad undergraduate education and the best education in a number of possible majors.
The truth is that after graduation, most university graduates spend their life working in narrow field of expertise, but what makes life worth living are the values and education which the individual learned outside his university major. My major was in the sciences, but what I learned in philosophy, history, literature, language, art appreciation, etc. is what makes my life full.
Stanford is not the only institution that offers this level of education but for me, I cannot imagine having gone elsewhere.
Stanford Alumnus
“My major was in the sciences, but what I learned in philosophy, history, literature, language, art appreciation, etc. is what makes my life full.”
Believe it or not, this can and does happen in hundreds of other universities. I did not attend Stanford, but if I had a choice, I would have wanted to go there because of the size, and location. Not too small, not too big, and California sunshine, it’s extremely attractive. A drawback would have been the pressure to perform among so many brilliant students. I was a very good student, but not stratospherically good so I did well by being strong in a broader type of demographic.
Yield rates are just one of many competition measures, students are smart enough to know that their particular college fate will not be defined by only one measure of success.