[Goose]

I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.

To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in. 

I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.

The word "passion", used in association with anything other than hot sex, has been beaten beyond recognition. Like a stack of used tires. It, and "amazing" are hollow, lazy cliches.

I am not going to "take a stand" on this issue as such. However, what the discussion clearly demonstrates is that the result in terms of who gets a good evaluation is highly subjective depending on who does the interview. That is simply inevitable. If one gets lucky and "connects" with the interviewer, good things may happen. It is in no way an "objective" evaluation of anything.

On the conjecture that many of us would not have been admitted to Stanford if applying today, that is unquestionably true. How true is a bit fuzzy, but in general our raw odds of admission would be much lower. In 1967 when I was admitted your "odds" were 20%. Today it is 4%. It may be that today a much higher percentage of applicants to Stanford are reaching beyond what their qualifications will support and actually have almost no chance of being admitted. Conversely, many highly qualified applicants may be applying to all the "elite" schools simply hoping they get admitted to at least one of them. That didn't happen much back in 1967. Massive grade inflation is also a factor, as well as the much more common availability of AP classes. Probably the best guess for our class if applying today, 80% of the admits would be different people than were actually admitted in 1967, just based on the acceptance percentage alone.

[Goose]

I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.

To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in. 

I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.

The word "passion", used in association with anything other than hot sex, has been beaten beyond recognition. Like a stack of used tires. It, and "amazing" are hollow, lazy cliches.

I am not going to "take a stand" on this issue as such. However, what the discussion clearly demonstrates is that the result in terms of who gets a good evaluation is highly subjective depending on who does the interview. That is simply inevitable. If one gets lucky and "connects" with the interviewer, good things may happen. It is in no way an "objective" evaluation of anything.

On the conjecture that many of us would not have been admitted to Stanford if applying today, that is unquestionably true. How true is a bit fuzzy, but in general our raw odds of admission would be much lower. In 1967 when I was admitted your "odds" were 20%. Today it is 4%. It may be that today a much higher percentage of applicants to Stanford are reaching beyond what their qualifications will support and actually have almost no chance of being admitted. Conversely, many highly qualified applicants may be applying to all the "elite" schools simply hoping they get admitted to at least one of them. That didn't happen much back in 1967. Massive grade inflation is also a factor, as well as the much more common availability of AP classes. Probably the best guess for our class if applying today, 80% of the admits would be different people than were actually admitted in 1967, just based on the acceptance percentage alone.