<p>Phantasmagoric your statement is utterly ridiculous. You CANNOT group students who row and play squash with football, basketball, or baseball. Women’s squash does not recruit because literally NO ONE gives a **** about women’s squash, so Stanford does not need to put a respectable product on the field.</p>
<p>For a sport that people actually care about, like football, the school needs to put a good product on the field for $$$ and interest. Thus, they recruit and lower their academic standards to attract athletic talent. In “real” sports like football, basketball, and baseball, I bet close to 100% of students were recruited.</p>
<p>You can’t group pseudo-sports with the ones that actually generate revenue, that is deceptive and preposterous. YES, the women’s squash players got in “100% on their own merit”, but the real athletes like the one OP describes did NOT, not even close. Stop acting like they’re the same.</p>
<p>You completely missed my point. I am saying that of the varsity sports, there isn’t a fine distinction between which ones are heavily recruited for and which ones aren’t at all. There’s a gray area. Saying that “no one gives a ****” is a very non-Stanford attitude–considering that people aren’t crazy about football and such, there’s comparable support for other non-big-time sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s like you didn’t even read my post. I’m not even going to reply to this; look back at what I first said. There’s are several good reasons why this intuition of yours makes little to no sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m willing to bet you aren’t a Stanford student–“pseudo-sports”? Tell that to the students that play those “pseudo-sports.” You do realize, right, that only two sports have a noticeable effect on revenue (I’ll find you the citation if you’d like)–football and basketball–and it’s football that supports most of the other sports? (This isn’t an assumption; it was in the Daily.) And that, further, the people on these sports make up a tiny fraction of Stanford’s varsity athletes, and an even tinier fraction of Stanford’s student-athletes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stop trying to straw-man my argument. That was not the main sport I was talking about–you’re taking that one single example and attempting to make it sound like that was the whole point. It isn’t. Squash isn’t even a varsity sport.</p>
<p>Finally, not only does my argument in post #12 have a lot more logic behind it–not to mention facts–but I also have several sources–from the admissions department to the sports department–that say that Stanford doesn’t lower its admissions standards. Sure it might happen sometimes; but the overall standards are, as they say, just as high. Do you have a source supporting your assertion that “they recruit and lower their academic standards to attract athletic talent”? Or “I bet close to 100% of students were recruited”? (I can’t remember what proportion I’d read are walk-ons, but walk-ons are very, very common.)</p>
<p>Phantasagoric is correct. At all elite schools there are athletes who play “pseudo-sports” who are technically recruited. The top 3 squash players at my school are all going ivy. Yes, the bar is slightly higher for them than the top 3 football players (who are going nescac btw), but they still probably wouldn’t get in without sports. Football is the only sport that generates significant revenue at Stanford (Including basketball). No Women sports generate revenue, yet they all get recruits. The “pseudo-sports?” get less recruits who are often extremely smart, but they are recruited athletes nonetheless</p>
I think the higher level question this begs is the IVYies position on not giving athletic or merti scholarships … as long as they do not give scholarships their athletics will nver compete with Stanford, Northwestern, Notre Dame, etc. (PS - this is one IVY league grad who will seriously consider ceasing making donations the day the league decides to start giving athletic and merit scholarships … I LOVE the current scholarship/financial aid prioritization)</p>
<p>No need to be holier than thou. It’s not clear to me that athletic scholarships are matters of morality. That said, I follow both Ivy and non-Ivy athletic recruiting very closely. Let’s just say that you’re kidding yourself if you think that Ivy recruited athletes do not have better FA “scholarships” than their EFC would suggest. That the Ivy athletes do not get the cushiest work study jobs and so on. At least Stanford is honest and upfront about what they’re doing, while the Ivies keep everything hush-hush and under the table.</p>
<p>^ not sure where you get your info … the league has rules and oversite to ensure that the “wink-wink” financial-aid for athletes scenario doesn’t happen … do I think schools find some wiggle room on the edges? absolutely … do I think students athletes get an extra $25,000/yr in financial aid compared to if they were non-athletes? not a chance. What is your evidence of such behavior? (hopefully not anedotes where you’ve been told that people got “athletic” scholarships from IVYies)</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that for the most part, the Ivies don’t offer monetary incentive, in general. That’s why Stanford has such high quality athletes: because there are great athletes, and then there are great student athletes. Everyone wants the latter, and because Stanford will give them a fat scholarship to attend (though nothing beyond the cost of attendance), Stanford manages to recruit top athletes who are also top scholars, the ones who would get in regardless of their athletic ability. Even in big-time sports where their athletic talent is a major factor in admissions, they do not lower the bar for academics. I think that Stanford is one of the few schools that buck the trend of “athletes lowering the quality of the student body”: because of its name, its quality, and the quality of its sports, the best athletes, the ones who are also amazing students, end up at Stanford.</p>
<p>Another reason why Stanford attracts better athletes is that they are more appreciated. For example, while they have no priority in course selection, they may be able to switch to a different section if it interferes with their practice. In contrast, at at least one certain top ivy, all review sessions before finals were scheduled during practice times. At Stanford, faculty will attend games; at some ivies, students-athletes try not to let it be known that they are athletes. Read the recent discussion at the Daily Princetonian about the academic inferiority of athletes, supposedly posted by a faculty member.
So, if you’re smart and a national/international caliber athlete, wouldn’t you rather go to a college where your athleteic achievements get acknowledged, especially if you spend 25+ horus/week on them?</p>
<p>Oh get off your pedastal Phantasmagoric. It comes down to this: you originally asserted that Stanford does not lower it’s academic standards for athletes, and you backed that up by saying that the majority of Stanford athletes were not recruited.</p>
<p>It’s just ridiculous to group “student-athletes” that play Varsity badmitton or squash or whatever with those who play NCAA football. Stanford will not lower it’s academic standards for women’s badmitton players because getting better talent will NOT generate additional revenue for the school. These unpopular sports are much more comparable to something like Stanford chess club or mock trial in they are student activities for students to enjoy participating in, not to generate major revenue for the school.</p>
<p>To get talent in football or basketball or whatever other sport that generates revenue, Stanford WILL lower their academic standards because that will put a better product on the field, which means more $$$.</p>
<p>PS: No I’m not a Stanford student. I don’t need to be one to make this argument, it’s all common sense.</p>
<ol>
<li>I admitted that squash is a club sport and so was not a good example, but I did provide other examples before that (like rowing).</li>
<li>You base your entire argument on disproving that one point, and then act as though the conclusion–that Stanford lowers its standards for athletes–is therefore the most logical. You fail to address any of my other points, which are the ones that most clash with your conclusion.</li>
<li>Your “common sense” only gets you so far; your conception of the system is extremely simplistic and thus filled with logical missteps. I have offered a more thorough, sound, and at least partially empirically observed and supported conception.</li>
<li>You have failed to provide any evidence that supports your point. Saying “it’s all common sense” is not a valid argument. (If we just thought “well, common sense got us here,” and think our job is done, without acknowledging the many dimensions and variables of an issue, we would be centuries behind in our knowledge and way of thinking.)</li>
</ol>
<p>On a tangential but intersting note: the past two years, Stanford’s had a Heisman runner-up (Andrew Luck and Toby Gerhart), and both are excellent students who were the top of their classes in high school and continue to do extremely well at Stanford. Funny how that works.</p>
<p>You’re on a pedestal because all your posts have a condescending tone and you seem to think you’re an expert on every issue relating to Stanford because you’re a student.</p>
<p>And what “other points” do you keep referring to? The only “data” I see in your post is this:</p>
<p>“Literally, about 10% of the students are intercollegiate athletes. Only a fraction of those were playing that sport in high school (in other words, they walked on to the team while at Stanford). Only a fraction of those who played the sport in high school are actually recruited (i.e. talk with coaches). Only a fraction of those are actually getting a boost in admissions. And only a tiny fraction of those weren’t terribly qualified.”</p>
<p>Which is pretty much EXACTLY what I’m referring to: You’re grouping recruiting of intercollegiate athletes of synchronized swimming with that of football, which is ridiculous.</p>
<p>How about finding me this data: Of sports that GENERATE revenue for Stanford, what % of the students were recruited compared to walk on? And how does the average GPA/SAT score of these athletes compare to the student body as a whole?</p>
<p>As far as Luck and Gerhart, that’s anecdotal evidence and certainly is not a representation of the general student-athlete.</p>
<p>Every response of yours to my posts has been along the lines of “wow that makes no sense” or “you’re missing the point”. How about a real rebuttal?</p>
<p>Oh and as far as criticizing my spelling, I am typing on an iPhone so I hope my spelling/grammar errors are tolerable in your eyes.</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for some kind of evidence to back up your claims. (You’re the one making a claim contrary to what officials say; you’re the one with the burden of evidence here.)</p>
<p>(By the way, you should listen to your own posts and you might hear the condescending tone; at least in my case, I have legitimate ideas, from experience and knowledge, after being a student here for a few years. You, on the other hand, are likely a high school student just learning about how admissions works, with no evidence, data, experience, or knowledge to back it up.)</p>
<p>(Like I said, not many of Stanford’s athletes are recruited, and recruiting =/= boost in admissions, rather recruiting = attempt to get them to attend, in the same way that Yale attempts to recruit top science students with likely letters, a special admit weekend for them, etc.)</p>
<p>19 football recruits each year x 4 (for each class) = 76. Add on a few fifth-year seniors too. So even with attrition and injury reducing that number, that still leaves enough players to field a team.</p>
<p>My daughter is a freshman on a Stanford team. Every one of her fellow freshman teammates was recruited, as in they all came on an official visit there. Based on Stack rankings and the Director’s Cup, Stanford athletics are the best in the country. The competitive level is much too high level for walk-ons to have a realistic shot at contributing to a team. Even recruited athletes can’t all make varsity. </p>
<p>Another point: I don’t know how it works for other teams, but for my daughter’s team the rule was that you had to submit your application and be accepted by admissions before the coach would continue the recruiting process and invite you for an official visit. I wouldn’t be surprised if exceptions were made from time to time, but in general that’s how it works. </p>
<p>If you take this discussion over to the athletic recruits forum, you can meet a couple of parents whose kids were courted this year by Stanford coaches as a top-5 recruit, but then were rejected by admissions ED. And guess where these athletes are going instead? Ivies. So if Stanford lowers academic standards for athletes, which they no doubt do in some but not all cases, then their bar is no lower than that of the Ivies and perhaps less than at the Ivies because Stanford is a more desirable place for the serious athlete who’s also very smart. In addition to more competitive teams for most sports, the weather is much better for training purposes. 68 degrees F in February, versus 15 inches of snow and ice. A no-brainer.</p>
<p>Interesting points, TheGFG. Ignoring how it interfaces with admissions, I find it unlikely that Stanford would be able to recruit enough students for the variety of its sports, and walk-ons are going to be more common with other sports. With football, it’s probably least likely, but the # who actually do (even based on the very inclusive figure you calculate) suggests that the other sports definitely have a lot of walk-ons.</p>
<p>On an unrelated but interesting note, people seem to be all for lowering the ‘bar’ if there are exceptional accomplishments of a student–e.g. they founded a very successful company, or they did really notable volunteer work–but they don’t seem to want to make that admission for students who accomplished quite a bit in athletics, as is the case for students who might have the bar lowered for them. (As any student athlete will tell you, their sport consumed their time, and their talent was honed through years of practice and hard work, nothing to be scoffed at.)</p>
<p>There you go again. Yes I’m a high school student, that doesn’t mean I can’t use logic. Better talent = more money. Great talent doesn’t always have 2300 SAT score. Hence, the bar is lowered.</p>
<p>I don’t need to provide evidence because my argument is common sense. You’re the one who is presenting a counter-intuitive claim… try again on the whole evidence thing by the way seeing as how your last attempt with the whole 19 recruits thing fell flat on it’s face.</p>
<p>By the way if I’m not qualified to speak in your dignified presence O’ great and knowledgable Stanford student, then you I guess you should take a seat and defer to the poster who is a parent of someone who is actually a recruited athlete. Seriously quit acting like you’re the ****.</p>
<p>Eventually you’ll learn that this argument never flies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter which one is counterintuitive; it matters which one opposes the current evidence. The current evidence from admissions officers and coaches, which is my position, indicates the exact opposite of what you’re attempting to prove. Therefore the floor is yours to show why that isn’t true.</p>
<p>I’m not even going to bother debating this with you anymore, because you clearly just fall back on the same fallacies and pretend to know what you’re talking about, then fling a bunch of insults in a tantrum-like way because another viewpoint opposes yours.</p>
<p>Though if you ever do find evidence, do post it. (I won’t be holding my breath.)</p>
<p>@phantasmagoric: you shouldn’t speak about athletic recruitment if you don’t know much about it.</p>
<p>recruitment is a boost in admissions in even non-revenue sports. it is not consistent each year, but it is a boost.</p>
<p>for example, my best friend’s sport last year had 10/11 of the recruiting class admitted. this year, it was about 4/12ish, so it is less profound. i realize this info is not statistically sound as evidence, but i’m just trying to make a point. </p>
<p>also, we should all be careful about what we mean by “recruited”. as you said before, there are different levels of recruitment, but most varsity sports at Stanford have very few walk-ons. and even those walk-ons were skilled in high school but just weren’t recruited.</p>