Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.

Have you been admitted?

Yes
76
21%
No
288
79%
 
Total votes: 364

User avatar
2x2Matrix
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:37 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby 2x2Matrix » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:34 pm

bbkk wrote:
Vincent wrote:USAMO?


Sorry, Team China here. :oops: To clarify: I was in a special maths class trained for that, but I didn't participate in the actual one.


so you're REALLY good at math :shock:

CMO is harder than IMO, no?

User avatar
koalacity
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:56 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby koalacity » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:34 pm

jingosaur wrote:
midwest17 wrote:I think I still have a Mathcounts t-shirt somewhere.

Haha, I was 2nd in my region and 9th in NJ in Mathcounts. I never made the USAMO but I came really close. I think I got an 8 on the AIME one year. I got a 10 on the Putnam exam as a college freshman but I didn't take it again. So yeah, I guess I'm a mathlete. I only minored in math in college because I wanted to work in finance and my UG has a really good 2 year UG business school.

...did you recruit Lindsay Lohan in order to obtain jackets?

User avatar
angels2fly
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby angels2fly » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:37 pm

koalacity wrote:
jingosaur wrote:
midwest17 wrote:I think I still have a Mathcounts t-shirt somewhere.

Haha, I was 2nd in my region and 9th in NJ in Mathcounts. I never made the USAMO but I came really close. I think I got an 8 on the AIME one year. I got a 10 on the Putnam exam as a college freshman but I didn't take it again. So yeah, I guess I'm a mathlete. I only minored in math in college because I wanted to work in finance and my UG has a really good 2 year UG business school.

...did you recruit Cady Heron in order to obtain jackets?


ftfy

thestatusguo
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:06 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby thestatusguo » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:41 pm

This thread just got even more depressing and stressful because math got brought up. The combination of having to think about SLS admissions and math is just too much for my brain to handle.

User avatar
Sourrudedude
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:34 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Sourrudedude » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:48 pm

Wow I was certain that people had gotten accepted from all these posts. Might as well throw my hat in the ring: I also was on the math team in HS but never took a math course in college.

User avatar
Vincent
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Vincent » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:48 pm

angels2fly wrote:
koalacity wrote:
jingosaur wrote:
midwest17 wrote:I think I still have a Mathcounts t-shirt somewhere.

Haha, I was 2nd in my region and 9th in NJ in Mathcounts. I never made the USAMO but I came really close. I think I got an 8 on the AIME one year. I got a 10 on the Putnam exam as a college freshman but I didn't take it again. So yeah, I guess I'm a mathlete. I only minored in math in college because I wanted to work in finance and my UG has a really good 2 year UG business school.

...did you recruit Cady Heron in order to obtain jackets?


ftfy


I'm now really curious as to how MATHCOUNTS people do on the LSAT (and how many of us are math competition "close but not quite" members of the closet mathlete retirement community. 11th(?) in CA missing out on Countdown by 1 place; I was sad for weeks.

Most years an 8 would qualify you for USAMO! I never made it; never got higher than 4 (misbubbled two responses my first time).

User avatar
jingosaur
Posts: 2225
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby jingosaur » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:01 pm

My theory is that math people on average do better because logic games comes much easier and for the average LSAT taker, logic games is an absolute killer. I think the top performers (175-180) are generally better at verbal skills and just spent a crapload of time studying. There are also those people who are just really really good at the LSAT from the start and are generally good at everything.

And yeah, sorry for the false hope that calls went out. My prediction is that we'll get a couple more calls tomorrow afternoon.

User avatar
drawstring
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:52 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby drawstring » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:03 pm

I suck at math and suck at LG. Got more wrong on that section than the other 3 combined....

So, ya, LG seems 'mathy' to me.

Also, please call us Stanford

User avatar
Vincent
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Vincent » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:15 pm

bee wrote:
bbkk wrote:
physicsguy wrote:Just sent in my apps! 4.04/174/about to get my Ph.D. in physics from a top university.

I'm also applying to Berkeley, Columbia, Chicago, and Harvard (and likely Yale but I haven't written the 250 yet).


and yes..I'm a bit jelly too :oops:

i like how you're acting like your numbers arent equally as impressive ;)


bbkk,
I know having a boyfriend Stanford might seem like the only thing important to you right now, but you don't have to dumb yourself down in order for a guy Faye to like you.

User avatar
bbkk
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby bbkk » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:24 pm

Vincent wrote:bbkk,
I know having a boyfriend Stanford might seem like the only thing important to you right now, but you don't have to dumb yourself down in order for a guy Faye to like you.


Sorry dude I'm married. I don't need any guy (with the exceptions of adcoms) to like me.

2x2Matrix wrote:
CMO is harder than IMO, no?


Not really, CMO can be viewed as a process of selecting IMO candidates.

User avatar
koalacity
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:56 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby koalacity » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:36 pm

bbkk wrote:
Vincent wrote:bbkk,
I know having a boyfriend Stanford might seem like the only thing important to you right now, but you don't have to dumb yourself down in order for a guy Faye to like you.


Sorry dude I'm married. I don't need any guy (with the exceptions of adcoms) to like me.

bbkk, PLEASE tell me you have seen Mean Girls (Vincent was quoting from it).

P.S. I appreciated the reference :wink:

User avatar
bbkk
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby bbkk » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:39 pm

koalacity wrote:
bbkk wrote:
Vincent wrote:bbkk,
I know having a boyfriend Stanford might seem like the only thing important to you right now, but you don't have to dumb yourself down in order for a guy Faye to like you.


Sorry dude I'm married. I don't need any guy (with the exceptions of adcoms) to like me.

bbkk, PLEASE tell me you have seen Mean Girls (Vincent was quoting from it).

P.S. I appreciated the reference :wink:


Sorry I haven't seen it. International kid here. Sorry if I missed some of the insider jokes here. :oops: :oops: :oops:

User avatar
Vincent
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Vincent » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:40 pm

bbkk wrote:
koalacity wrote:
bbkk wrote:
Vincent wrote:bbkk,
I know having a boyfriend Stanford might seem like the only thing important to you right now, but you don't have to dumb yourself down in order for a guy Faye to like you.


Sorry dude I'm married. I don't need any guy (with the exceptions of adcoms) to like me.

bbkk, PLEASE tell me you have seen Mean Girls (Vincent was quoting from it).

P.S. I appreciated the reference :wink:


Sorry I haven't seen it. International kid here. Sorry if I missed some of the insider jokes here. :oops: :oops: :oops:


Ooh, I could see how my comment could be awkward. You should see it! One of the most quotable movies ever.

User avatar
bbkk
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby bbkk » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:42 pm

Vincent wrote:Ooh, I could see how my comment could be awkward. You should see it! One of the most quotable movies ever.


haha sure why not! I have plenty of time while waiting for admission decisions. :lol: :lol:

User avatar
djfududeman
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:49 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby djfududeman » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:47 pm

Math majors consistently place at the top of the LSAT hierarchy. Philosophy majors do too :P (gotta sell my major a little bit). I also know that philosophy kids are the best at getting into med schools (about 50% of those who apply get in, which is like 10% higher than bio and chem majors haha), I imagine mathies do well there too.

User avatar
phillywc
Posts: 3043
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:17 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby phillywc » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:05 pm

For what its worth, I was always ok but not great at math, and LG was far and away my best section, without any real sort of prep in it, so its not just math people!

Nooblarzlarz
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 12:18 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Nooblarzlarz » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:58 pm

So is there any reason to expect any changes in the status checker once you go UR?

User avatar
Vincent
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Vincent » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:10 pm

Nooblarzlarz wrote:So is there any reason to expect any changes in the status checker once you go UR?


I think the consensus is that emails won't be changing case this year.

esther0123
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby esther0123 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:30 pm

Is anyone else still waiting for their application to go complete? I wrote December LSAT but submitted in November with my October score..

User avatar
wowhio
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:52 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby wowhio » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:57 pm

So...no calls today? Really?

physicsguy
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby physicsguy » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:06 pm

bbkk wrote:
physicsguy wrote:
Aww, thank guys. TLS has been a great resource for me as I've lurked through the whole application process.


Just out of curiosity, what kind of physics you study? I have a very good friend who is getting a Ph.D in Physics in Stanford. He studies the black hole and time machines. IT IS SO COOL.

I'd prefer not to go into that detail, since it would be possible to identify me from that. The number of people graduating with a Ph.D. in a particular year in a particular subfield of physics from a "top" university is not that high. Black holes are tres cool though.

However, to add to this wonderful discussion on math that I've incited :D, I'll say that I did Mathcounts, and I also did the AIME test but didn't qualify (or even come close) for USAMO. I never did Putnam, though I remember looking at some of the questions in college and feeling frightened. But I really enjoy applied math, and even abstract math to a point.

User avatar
Vincent
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Vincent » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:24 pm

physicsguy wrote:
bbkk wrote:
physicsguy wrote:
Aww, thank guys. TLS has been a great resource for me as I've lurked through the whole application process.


Just out of curiosity, what kind of physics you study? I have a very good friend who is getting a Ph.D in Physics in Stanford. He studies the black hole and time machines. IT IS SO COOL.

I'd prefer not to go into that detail, since it would be possible to identify me from that. The number of people graduating with a Ph.D. in a particular year in a particular subfield of physics from a "top" university is not that high. Black holes are tres cool though.

However, to add to this wonderful discussion on math that I've incited :D, I'll say that I did Mathcounts, and I also did the AIME test but didn't qualify (or even come close) for USAMO. I never did Putnam, though I remember looking at some of the questions in college and feeling frightened. But I really enjoy applied math, and even abstract math to a point.


If you don't mind my asking, why law?

User avatar
Nonconsecutive
Posts: 2249
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:58 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Nonconsecutive » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:02 pm

esther0123 wrote:Is anyone else still waiting for their application to go complete? I wrote December LSAT but submitted in November with my October score..


I was sitting like this as well, but went to submitted for review yesterday evening.

AmericanBeauty
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby AmericanBeauty » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:11 pm

-
Last edited by AmericanBeauty on Mon May 09, 2016 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

physicsguy
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby physicsguy » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:49 pm

Vincent wrote:
physicsguy wrote:
bbkk wrote:Just out of curiosity, what kind of physics you study? I have a very good friend who is getting a Ph.D in Physics in Stanford. He studies the black hole and time machines. IT IS SO COOL.

I'd prefer not to go into that detail, since it would be possible to identify me from that. The number of people graduating with a Ph.D. in a particular year in a particular subfield of physics from a "top" university is not that high. Black holes are tres cool though.

However, to add to this wonderful discussion on math that I've incited :D, I'll say that I did Mathcounts, and I also did the AIME test but didn't qualify (or even come close) for USAMO. I never did Putnam, though I remember looking at some of the questions in college and feeling frightened. But I really enjoy applied math, and even abstract math to a point.


If you don't mind my asking, why law?

When I was 21, I felt sure that I wanted to do science for the rest of my life. I thought the dream was to get a Ph.D., become a professor at a renowned research institution, and live a life of academic purity. On a fellowship application, I wrote that my career goal was to stay in physics research, and I meant it. Now, I could stay in physics. I am pretty good at it, and I enjoy the work, too. And the freedom to set your own schedule cannot be beat.

But I've changed and grown a lot since I was 21. My interests and passions have evolved. Over the last couple years I have begun feeling the desire to be more directly involved in society and with societal issues than I can be as an academic scientist. I want to be engaged in issues that involve people. The physics research that I work on might be useful to people in the future, sure, but it doesn't hold quite the same excitement. My passions have simply turned elsewhere.

I am drawn to law and government as the arenas where I can potentially do the most good for the most people. The stakes are high there, and previously I never thought about them as within my "sphere of influence". Then I had a revelation where I realized that I can be involved. I can do more than just sit back and complain about the way things are. I have the opportunity, the ability, and the drive to make a difference, and that is what I will try to do.

AmericanBeauty wrote:Are MIT, Harvard, Caltech, Stanford, Princeton, and Berkeley all not offering tenure track professorships for your particular field in physics?!

Oh sure, they're all pounding down my door. :)




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AustinLu, call-me-bubbles, Cjsanders2, Kungfu Wontons, lawschoolbound2017, mav1993, oliviaj_j, potterotter, SuperAverageJoe and 26 guests