Stanford University

3.75

Boastarr is right - the average GPA for incoming students at Harvard is a 4.0. And that makes sense - it is one of the best schools in the world and attracts the best and brightest students from around the globe. So does that mean you shouldn't apply if you don't have a 4.0? Absolutely not. While Harvard (and all Ivy League schools) attracts very smart students, GPA is not the only thing Harvard cares about. And many schools - including Harvard - are putting less and less emphasis on GPA overall every year. I've said it before in response to similar questions, but there are MANY students with perfect GPAs that get rejected from Harvard every year. And there are also students getting admitted with a GPA below a 4.0. (It is an average, after all! Not a minimum!) Harvard wants more than just a perfect GPA and a perfect SAT/ACT score. They want students who challenge themselves, and students who engage in the world around them (outside of the classroom!) What does that mean? Well, for one, it means that you should not choose all the easiest classes in school in order to maintain a 4.0 GPA. Harvard will recognize that instantly, and it won't do you aaaany favors. At the same time, if you are taking all Honors/AP courses and spending 100% of your time studying in order to get perfect grades, that's not going to help either. What you want to do is mix things up. Take those challenging courses AND get involved in activities OUTSIDE of school. That can be sports, it can be volunteering, it can be an instrument, it can be... anything! Find something you love and get involved. And don't do it just for the sake of your apps. Schools can tell that, too! Do it because you love it, because you enjoy doing it, because it is your passion and you get excited about it. When you go about it that way, you'll naturally get more and more invested in it, and you'll have a lot more to show for yourself when it comes time to apply to college. (And the schools really want to see who you are as a person and what you care about and all the cool things you've accomplished because it shows them what sort of community member you'll be when you get to campus.) And while you're doing that, make sure to stay focused on school as well. But don't stress out if your grades aren't 100% perfect. Schools, especially those in the Ivy League, would rather see you challenging yourself and getting a B+ than coasting through high school and getting an A+. At the end of the day, if you're targeting Harvard you DO want to get that GPA as high as possible. Same with your SAT/ACT scores. After all, consider who you will be competing against to get in. But you should not devote 100% of your attention to getting a PERFECT GPA. There's a LOT more the Harvard admissions committee wants to see, and focusing exclusively on your grades is a bad idea.

3.5 is a good gpa. It is not outstanding, but it is definitely solid and can get you into decent schools.

First of all, there is no magic formula that can guarantee your admission to a school like Stanford. The admissions office receives applications from the absolute best students in the world, and all of them have stellar grades, astronomical test scores, pages of extracurricular activities, glowing teacher recommendations, and essays they've slaved over for months. The Stanford Office of Undergraduate Admissions says that about 80% of students have the grades and SAT scores for admission and the rest is up to activities, recommendations, essays, and the like. So, the question is, how do you whittle down that 80% of qualified students to the 9% who are admitted? Many people are surprised when someone who has a seemingly stellar resume is rejected, like a friend of mine who was valedictorian, class president, NHS president, an intern for a corporate attorney, had 1000s of volunteer hours, perfect SAT score, teachers who called her the best student they've ever had, and a double legacy (her father went to Stanford for undergrad and grad, a huge plus for admissions). Nonetheless, she was rejected. What people don't think about is that Stanford's admissions is a competition on a worldwide level. There are 36,000 high schools in America. That means 36,000 valedictorians, 36,000 class presidents, and so on. So, those trappings on her resume are wholly unspectacular, because everyone has them. You have to have things that no one in the world has, otherwise, to Stanford, you are wholly unspectacular. Also, you should realize that Stanford isn't looking for the best students: they're looking for the best people, the people who will be the most successful in life, the people who will become rich and famous, and uphold and enhance the Stanford name. I know people who were admitted with 1700 SATs and GPAs that barely but them in the top quartile of their class - and no, they were not legacies or minorities. The reason they were admitted is that Stanford realized that they will become great, while many of their perfect-scoring valedictorian peers are destined for a life of anonymity. So, you ask, who are these people who are admitted? Well, one girl I know is the national fencing champion and a biomedical researcher. Another is the 20th ranked junior tennis player in the world and has been recruited for tennis at Stanford. Another guy started a photography business to take care of his impoverished family and wrote a fantastic essay about the obstacles he has overcome. Another won first place in the National Chemistry Olympiad and developed an educational computer program that her high school will use for years to come. Another girl was her state violin champion, a chemistry researcher, and a Juilliard professor said her violin playing was possibly the best he'd ever heard from a high school student. Another wrote 3 books in 3 different languages and ran a fashion show to raise money to bring clean water to rural India. Can there really be 2,400 people who have that sort of resume? No. Some are accepted with slightly less amazing stories if they are an underrepresented minority (black, Hispanic, or Native American) or they are a legacy (one of their parents went to Stanford). And some , like me, feel like the admissions officer must've accidentally put us in the admit pile when we should've been rejected. But really, what I think happened with people like me - people who didn't win any national championships, write any books, make any breakthrough research discoveries, overcome severe economic obstacles, or run half-million-dollar fundraisers - is that Stanford saw something in all those recommendations, essays, and short answers a sign of untapped greatness; there was something that made the admissions officers think that we are capable of doing something amazing if given the resources of an institution like Stanford. I can only hope that I fulfill their speculations. All in all, its practically impossible to predict your chances at admission to a school like Stanford. My best advice is to get out and do something. If you come up with an idea for a new gadget, or you see something you'd like to change about the world, or there is some skill or art that you excel at and that you love, get out and do it! Starting building that gadget, start that fundraiser or protest, practice at that skill. Then, when first semester of senior year rolls around, pour your heart and soul into that Stanford application, and maybe, just maybe, an admissions officer pouring through piles of essays, transcripts, and recommendations will stop at your application and think, This kid is destined for greatness: this kid is a Stanford kid. More input While I respect the opinions above, please keep in mind that there ARE specific things you can do to have a great shot at Stanford beyond simply working hard. It all comes down to the application itself and how you TELL YOUR STORY. Essays, short answers, supplemental materials, and teacher recs are all critical pieces of that story. At the end of the day, any machine can score 2400 on the SAT and 5's on ten AP tests. But very few can really sound like a unique individual with distinct passions and specific goals in life. Get those messages across and you'll stand a great chance. Even More Input I am a senior at Stanford majoring in Economics, and I whole heartedly second (third?) the opinions above. I got in on a 1350 SAT (old score), 30 ACT and a 4.2 GPA (Salutatorian in HS class). I was also a two sport All-League Varsity athlete from a medium sized public school in California. The Stanford coaches knew who I was but I was not officially recruited, although I eventually ended up on the varsity team. As you can see, my "numbers" were well below many of those who applied. From what I've gathered from the admissions office, the numbers are the deal breakers, the essays and recommendations are the deal makers. Stanford gets plenty of valedictorians and 2400's on the SATs. What I mean by this is that the average kid applying to Stanford has amazing grades, tests scores and extra-curriculars. The biggest thing is that its about your expressed ambitions, experiences, and recommendations, rather than your metrics. Ultimately, its not about how many hours you put in to community service, but rather what it taught you and how you hope to apply to those lessons to your future goals. It's not about how many clubs you're in, it's about which club inspired you to do something great while you were a sophomore in high school. Quality and depth are definitely better than quantity and a unique experience is definitely better than many generic extra-curriculars (NHS, volunteering, etc.). For you HS freshman and sophomores out there, I promise that you will be much better off, both in terms of college admissions and personal satisfaction, if you dedicate yourselves to a few core areas (grades, sports, businesses, non-profit, etc.) rather than trying to spread yourselves too thin. For you HS juniors and seniors, it's never too late. Stanford (and for that matter Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc...) are all looking for the future leaders of the world, and they are looking for signals that show them that you are this kind of material. Grades and test scores don't show them enough; plenty of hard-working kids can do that. You have to show them intelligence + hardworking + leadership material. There were many of my peers that had many more "bullet points" on their transcripts. I got in because I was able to express, through my essays, the fact that my problems as a high school senior were trivial compared to the challenges my parents had faced as a college dropout and a two time cancer survivor, respectively. Finally, I want to emphasize that a dedicated student will do great things at whichever college they attend. If you do not get into your top choices, don't worry. Motivation and hard work count for much more in the real world (and grad school) than the crap shoot that is undergraduate admissions. Keep working hard and commit to doing great things.

Leland Stanford, Jr.

Answer It depends on the school. Every school has different requirements. Usually the school posts that information in their admission materials. It can sometimes be found on the school's website as well.

27580

For what you have to pay to attend Stanford I would hope alot.

I read from their brochure Quinnipiac university states that they will generally accept students with an average of a C or higher in academics.

go to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ad... you'll find evrything you need there

I found a pretty good explanation here: http://college.mychances.net/college-3-Stanford-University.html From what I hear, the university wants students to generally have at least a 700 in each subject area. There are definitely exceptions - but they have to be exceptional to make up for that. Of course that is never reason to NOT apply, just a general guideline. You should always apply to the college of your dreams. But you can put in your information on that website and they'll give you a free prediction about whether or not you'll get in. A website like that isn't perfect but it will give you a good idea of where you fit into the applicant pool. (accepted and rejected students)

at least a 2.75 but it all depends on your act/sat score and extra curriculars as well

he was one of the big four inverters on the west cost investing in rail roads he owned a couple wineries and created Stanford University

There is no minimum GPA to enter Tufts. However the average GPA of an enetering undergrad student is 3.67.

It's about $50,000 per academic year, so a total of $200,000 over 4 years. Many qualify for financial aid, so they won't pay as much (i.e., those who make under $60,000 don't have to pay for anything to the school itself [tuition, room, board, books], and those who make under $100,000 don't have to pay tuition [which is about $37,000 per year]).

Yes, Stanford is a private research university in Stanford, California.

He only had one named Leland Stanford, Jr.

Building railroads and constructing companies

Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover.

Good day, you have to be a little more specific, job opportunities in US or in India? You'll also have to give a brief about the field of pharmacy you'll love to pursue a career in....pharmaclogy, pharmaceutics etc

Collis P. Huntington was a powerful man in his time. However, as we all know powerful men are not always good. Which leads us to why do we consider these great, powerful men to be robber barons? Collis P. Huntington was a power hungry fellow. He became involved with Thomas Scott in wanting to control all the lines in California, not just to the Arizona border. While trying to accomplish this he was involved in a hard-fought contest to influence Congress over rights of way. He was reported to be spending $200,000 to $500,000 each session to influence members of Congress. Huntington ended up winning the contest by getting an order from the federal government in 1877 that allowed the Southern Pacific (the railroad company) to build across Arizona and New Mexico. Huntington acted as the railroads lobbyist. He successfully blocked efforts to secure aid for potential competitors in Washington. In 1885 a feud between Collis Huntington and Leland Stanford. Huntington waited five years for revenge and got it by taking Stanford's job as president of the Southern Pacific. These are just a few of many reasons that Collis P. Huntington was a Robber Baron, but they successfully get the point across.

At least 2060

http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/history/begin.html You may have heard a story that a lady in "faded gingham" (Jane Stanford) and a man dressed in a "homespun threadbare suit" (Leland Stanford) went to visit the president of Harvard, were rebuffed, and as a result, went on to found their own university in Palo Alto. This untrue story is an urban myth, and Stanford's archivist has prepared a response for those desiring more information: For what it is worth, there was a book written by the then Harvard president's son that may have started the twist on actual events. Leland Stanford Junior was just short of his 16th birthday when he died of typhoid fever in Florence, Italy on March 13, 1884. He had not spent a year at Harvard before his death, nor was he "accidentally killed." Following Leland Junior's death, the Stanfords determined to found an institution in his name that would serve the "children of California." Detained on the East Coast following their return from Europe, the Stanfords visited a number of universities and consulted with the presidents of each. The account of their visit with Charles W. Eliot at Harvard is actually recounted by Eliot himself in a letter sent to David Starr Jordan (Stanford's first president) in 1919. At the point the Stanfords met with Eliot, they apparently had not yet decided about whether to establish a university, a technical school or a museum. Eliot recommended a university and told them the endowment should be $5 million. Accepted accounts indicate that Jane and Leland looked at each other and agreed they could manage that amount. The thought of Leland and Jane, by this time quite wealthy, arriving at Harvard in a faded gingham dress and homespun threadbare suit is quite entertaining. And, as a former governor of California and well-known railroad baron, they likely were not knowingly kept waiting for too long outside Eliot's office. The Stanfords also visited Cornell, MIT and Johns Hopkins. The Stanfords established two institutions in Leland Junior's name -- the University and the Museum, which was originally planned for San Francisco, but moved to adjoin the university.

There is no specific requirements for Stanford University. But you must be intelligent and your previous educational performances must be excellent. You also must have to score very high in SAT. It is quite difficult to get admission in Stanford. They only choose the best students. You must be outstanding to be accepted as student in Stanford. Chances of being accepted for admission in Stanford University is very low. Only about 25 percent of total applications submitted are approved for admission in Stanford University. UPDATE BY C.B.-- Stanford is looking for students with exceptional leadership and social skills. They are looking for students with excellent grades, high-level classes, extracurricular activities in and out of school, community service hours, and other things that show that you are an all round great student. You have to write an excellent essay to prove that you deserve to go to Stanford and prove that you will be dedicated to achieving success through your years in Stanford.

First of all, there is no magic formula that can guarantee your admission to a school like Stanford. The admissions office receives applications from the absolute best students in the world, and all of them have stellar grades, astronomical test scores, pages of extracurricular activities, glowing teacher recommendations, and essays they've slaved over for months. The Stanford Office of Undergraduate Admissions says that about 80% of students have the grades and SAT scores for admission and the rest is up to activities, recommendations, essays, and the like. So, the question is, how do you whittle down that 80% of qualified students to the 9% who are admitted? Many people are surprised when someone who has a seemingly stellar resume is rejected, like a friend of mine who was valedictorian, class president, NHS president, an intern for a corporate attorney, had 1000s of volunteer hours, perfect SAT score, teachers who called her the best student they've ever had, and a double legacy (her father went to Stanford for undergrad and grad, a huge plus for admissions). Nonetheless, she was rejected. What people don't think about is that Stanford's admissions is a competition on a worldwide level. There are 36,000 high schools in America. That means 36,000 valedictorians, 36,000 class presidents, and so on. So, those trappings on her resume are wholly unspectacular, because everyone has them. You have to have things that no one in the world has, otherwise, to Stanford, you are wholly unspectacular. Also, you should realize that Stanford isn't looking for the best students: they're looking for the best people, the people who will be the most successful in life, the people who will become rich and famous, and uphold and enhance the Stanford name. I know people who were admitted with 1700 SATs and GPAs that barely but them in the top quartile of their class - and no, they were not legacies or minorities. The reason they were admitted is that Stanford realized that they will become great, while many of their perfect-scoring valedictorian peers are destined for a life of anonymity. So, you ask, who are these people who are admitted? Well, one girl I know is the national fencing champion and a biomedical researcher. Another is the 20th ranked junior tennis player in the world and has been recruited for tennis at Stanford. Another guy started a photography business to take care of his impoverished family and wrote a fantastic essay about the obstacles he has overcome. Another won first place in the National Chemistry Olympiad and developed an educational computer program that her high school will use for years to come. Another girl was her state violin champion, a chemistry researcher, and a Juilliard professor said her violin playing was possibly the best he'd ever heard from a high school student. Another wrote 3 books in 3 different languages and ran a fashion show to raise money to bring clean water to rural India. Can there really be 2,400 people who have that sort of resume? No. Some are accepted with slightly less amazing stories if they are an underrepresented minority (black, Hispanic, or Native American) or they are a legacy (one of their parents went to Stanford). And some , like me, feel like the admissions officer must've accidentally put us in the admit pile when we should've been rejected. But really, what I think happened with people like me - people who didn't win any national championships, write any books, make any breakthrough research discoveries, overcome severe economic obstacles, or run half-million-dollar fundraisers - is that Stanford saw something in all those recommendations, essays, and short answers a sign of untapped greatness; there was something that made the admissions officers think that we are capable of doing something amazing if given the resources of an institution like Stanford. I can only hope that I fulfill their speculations. All in all, its practically impossible to predict your chances at admission to a school like Stanford. My best advice is to get out and do something. If you come up with an idea for a new gadget, or you see something you'd like to change about the world, or there is some skill or art that you excel at and that you love, get out and do it! Starting building that gadget, start that fundraiser or protest, practice at that skill. Then, when first semester of senior year rolls around, pour your heart and soul into that Stanford application, and maybe, just maybe, an admissions officer pouring through piles of essays, transcripts, and recommendations will stop at your application and think, This kid is destined for greatness: this kid is a Stanford kid. More input While I respect the opinions above, please keep in mind that there ARE specific things you can do to have a great shot at Stanford beyond simply working hard. It all comes down to the application itself and how you TELL YOUR STORY. Essays, short answers, supplemental materials, and teacher recs are all critical pieces of that story. At the end of the day, any machine can score 2400 on the SAT and 5's on ten AP tests. But very few can really sound like a unique individual with distinct passions and specific goals in life. Get those messages across and you'll stand a great chance. Even More Input I am a senior at Stanford majoring in Economics, and I whole heartedly second (third?) the opinions above. I got in on a 1350 SAT (old score), 30 ACT and a 4.2 GPA (Salutatorian in HS class). I was also a two sport All-League Varsity athlete from a medium sized public school in California. The Stanford coaches knew who I was but I was not officially recruited, although I eventually ended up on the varsity team. As you can see, my "numbers" were well below many of those who applied. From what I've gathered from the admissions office, the numbers are the deal breakers, the essays and recommendations are the deal makers. Stanford gets plenty of valedictorians and 2400's on the SATs. What I mean by this is that theaverage kid applying to Stanford has amazing grades, tests scores and extra-curriculars. The biggest thing is that its about your expressed ambitions, experiences, and recommendations, rather than your metrics. Ultimately, its not about how many hours you put in to community service, but rather what it taught you and how you hope to apply to those lessons to your future goals. It's not about how many clubs you're in, it's about which club inspired you to do something great while you were a sophomore in high school. Quality and depth are definitely better than quantity and a unique experience is definitely better than many generic extra-curriculars (NHS, volunteering, etc.). For you HS freshman and sophomores out there, I promise that you will be much better off, both in terms of college admissions and personal satisfaction, if you dedicate yourselves to a few core areas (grades, sports, businesses, non-profit, etc.) rather than trying to spread yourselves too thin. For you HS juniors and seniors, it's never too late. Stanford (and for that matter Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc...) are all looking for the future leaders of the world, and they are looking for signals that show them that you are this kind of material. Grades and test scores don't show them enough; plenty of hard-working kids can do that. You have to show them intelligence + hardworking + leadership material. There were many of my peers that had many more "bullet points" on their transcripts. I got in because I was able to express, through my essays, the fact that my problems as a high school senior were trivial compared to the challenges my parents had faced as a college dropout and a two time cancer survivor, respectively. Finally, I want to emphasize that a dedicated student will do great things at whichever college they attend. If you do not get into your top choices, don't worry. Motivation and hard work count for much more in the real world (and grad school) than the crap shoot that is undergraduate admissions. Keep working hard and commit to doing great things. Good luck.