terry12 wrote:
First off, I don't think I'm all that special
With respect to Stanford admission decisions... I have no idea how they're made. Plenty of amazing candidates get dinged, and I'm not sure what differentiates the accepted folks from others. There does appear to be a touch of randomness to the process.
I interviewed last night and I was thinking about this on the drive home. I don't know for sure, but I think a lot of the admit decision is based on character as much, if not more, than accomplishments. I know that every school wants accomplished people who demonstrate good character, but I think Stanford really goes out of its way to admit people who have put themselves "out there" for something they believe in, have succeeded at it and grown as a person through their experience. You can see this in the people you meet at the GSB and in the essay questions. For example, Stanford asks "What matters to you and why?" whereas, for example, Harvard asks "What are your three biggest accomplishments and why?" I'm sure Harvard has its own way of evaluating character, but Stanford seems to really want to know what makes people tick, not just what they have done. As they say on the website, you don't have to have saved the world, but you do need to know the person inside your own skin -- and I believe that you have to convincingly show this person to the GSB to get an admit (or even an interview for that matter), irrespective of how great your academic and work accomplishments may be.
On a personal note, I won some grants during my senior year that allowed me to travel extensively to several countries around the world (most expenses paid!). During this time, I wrote and published about twenty travel writing pieces, among other things. Although this is on my resume, none of my non-Stanford interviewers asked about this, instead focusing solely on work experience. My Stanford interviewer really drilled down into why I chose to travel, where I went, what I learned and how it shaped me as a person. It seemed that he could not care less about what I did at work (I'm sure he got the gist of it based on my resume), but instead was trying to evaluate me as a person, not just a potential manager. It's just one anecdote, but I think it gives some clue as to "what is important to Stanford and why." Character is petty hard to evaluate and is definitely not something that we can judge as third parties reading profiles over the internet, which may lead to some of the perceived "randomness."