Each week, I receive more than a hundred letters and hundreds of e-mail messages. Their subject matter reflects a tremendous diversity--from well-wishers to schoolchildren seeking advice to alumni and supporters raising questions about the future of the University. Some of the letters make me laugh, while others lift my spirit.
There is one class of letters, however, that is always very distressing. The letters usually start something like this:
Dear President Hennessy,
My daughter was the valedictorian of her high school class. She has a 4.0 gpa and scored 1550 on her SAT. She was a finalist in the all-state piano competition and volunteered as a counselor at an environmental studies camp every summer during high school. . . .
These letters start coming in mid-April. From the moment I start reading one, I know where it is headed. Stanford has rejected an exceptional young person who has worked long and hard to gain admission to the University. The applicant and his or her family are demoralized, and there is little I can say to console them.
These letters are painful, because in most cases, the writer is correct on the central point: the student in question is outstanding. What most writers are less aware of, however, is that our admissions staff is selecting from thousands of applicants who are equally exceptional. As Robin Mamlet, the dean of admission and financial aid, will tell you, making choices among such a field is brutally difficult.
This year, we received 19,078 applications for a class of 1,630--or 12 applications for each space in the class. Over the last 10 years, Stanford's applicant pool has grown 40 percent and the resulting admission rate has dropped from 20 percent to 12.7 percent. The good news is that the growth in applications reflects the tremendous regard for Stanford nationwide. Unfortunately, becoming more selective means we turn down more exceptional applicants than ever.
Consider just these two facts to put this in perspective:
- Of the nearly 16,000 applicants who reported a grade point average, more than half earned a 4.0 or higher--enough to fill our class five times over.
- Students from more than 5,000 high schools applied, and Dean Mamlet reported that we could have filled our entire class with high school valedictorians.
These facts illustrate some of the hard choices that our admissions staff faces every year. Few would argue for a formulaic admissions process, especially when the relationship between the elements of the formula and success at Stanford is unclear. So, how does the University make fair decisions about who gets in when such judgments must entail some amount of subjectivity?
In a general way, our goal seems quite simple: we look for students who have excelled academically. In this regard, to quote the Stanford Bulletin, we envision a student body "whose abilities, intellectual interests, and personal qualities will allow them to benefit from and contribute to the University's wide range of teaching and research programs in the humanities, sciences, and engineering." Further, to paraphrase Dean Mamlet, we are obligated to search for a student body that will, as a whole, use the University in its entirety, rather than engaging some disciplines while neglecting others. Likewise, we value students with a highly developed skill in one area, as well as students with a broad academic portfolio.
There are other factors, of course, including athletics, artistic or musical talent, legacy considerations and a desire for a broadly diverse student body.
The cornerstone of the selection process is individual consideration for each applicant. Objective data such as test scores and gpas, as well as less quantifiable achievements, are all part of the larger picture. The result is an admissions process that relies on an intense commitment of the admissions staff to read and analyze the strengths of every single applicant. Although I would not claim that this process is perfect, I believe it is about as good as an imperfect system gets.
In closing, I cite the story of a young man, the son of an alumna, who was denied admission to Stanford many years ago. He was disappointed, but he pursued undergraduate and master's study at a fine public institution. He then applied--and was admitted--to a PhD program at Stanford. He went on to become a highly respected teacher in his field and, eventually, a professor at Stanford. That young man, John Etchemendy, is now the provost of Stanford.
The college you attend does not determine the scope and possibility of your life's achievements. It will have some influence, no doubt. What is more important is the encouragement and support that we, as parents and friends, offer these prospective students as they explore their own educational trail. In the end, the experiences they encounter and the depth of character they build along the way will mean far more than the name of the institution on their diploma.
