I’m from Australia and I have no athletics in my extracurriculars. I’m an insanely fast runner (11s/100m) and good long distance runner but I never did athletics outside of school because I don’t have time.
If your sats are not up to Stanford’s expectations you need some hook. But you would need to be recruited.
My Act comp is 33. I started a social media startup and I don’t know if I should include my failed ventures? - shows I don’t give up and keep trying??
If you’re female, that time is faster than anyone at Stanford or the Pac 12. If you’re male, while that’s fast it’s not fast enough to score at the conference meet so possibly not fast enough to be recruited at Stanford.
I’m female. But I’ve never done athletics outside of school and I don’t plan too. I’m just really fast. Should I tell them this?
I just timed myself after having not run for a while and I’m 12.02s.
If the Stanford track team wants you, that can make a significant difference in admissions so you might want to contact the coach and see if there’s interest. Generally they will want to see marks from meets but it couldn’t hurt to see what the coach says. As noted above, for sports to make a significant difference the coach has to advocate for you with admissions.
12.02 wouldn’t have scored at the Pac 12 meet this year - being fast enough to score at the conference meet is a common rule of thumb for being recruitable (some of the slower runners are walk ons) - but again I would see what the coach says.
http://static.pac-12.com/sports/trackfield/pdf/2015/15-complete_results.pdf
11.0 seconds is better than the all time record for US high schools in non windy conditions. Australia’s best time in the 2012 Olympics was 11.34. Is this an official personal best from competitions, or just someone unofficially timing you?
In the past, recruited female athletes have had personal bests in the high 11s (during HS), You shouldn’t peak and hit your personal best every time, but you should have an official record of your time, rather than just expecting the coach to take your word for it. They should have contact links on the Stanford athletic site. Even if you can run 100m faster than anyone on the existing Stanford team, don’t assume that means you are in. You still need to be academically qualified to be accepted, which includes more than just your ACT score.
I don’t quite follow this part. Do you mean that you don’t intend to be on the track and field team at Stanford? If so, you shouldn’t contact the coach and/or try to become a recruited athlete.
Also, speaking to the question in the thread title, you certainly don’t have to be an athlete to get into Stanford. While being recruited for sports is a significant advantage in admissions, fewer than 15% of those admitted are recruited athletes.
What I’m confused about is because I read to be a recruited athlete you need to have done years of training at a club and won state/national/international competitions. I haven’t got the time to participate in this, and I’ve never done any athletics outside of school. I always won all interschool events in primary school. So I’m confused as how can I get recruited when I literally have had no formal training, I’m just really fast?
And no I would love to be on their team. I have good grades and a 33 ACT comp.
And I recorded myself a few days ago and the time went up to 12.12s - a year ago it was 11.2x seconds. I’m sure if I train myself I can certainly get back to that stage.
@bluewater2015 I don’t mean recruited for sportI just mean have done sports outside of school as a hobby and maybe have participated in comps. Because I read most Stanford students did sport in HS.
It sounds like your question is whether NOT being an athlete in high school will keep you out of Stanford. If that’s your question, the answer is no, you don’t have to be an athlete to get into Stanford. You can be a really great musician. Or outstanding in some academic field.
To get admitted to Stanford you need to have credentials worthy of getting admitted to Stanford. That generally consists of strong grades with a tough course load and strong test scores (33 ACT is in the range, but nothing special; test scores will never get you in to Stanford, anyway) plus something else as evidenced by your accomplishments outside of the classroom. That can be in any number of areas, one of them being athletics. With all of that, the odds of getting admitted to Stanford are very low, averaging less than 1:20 for unhooked applicants, and probably less for international applicants.
Athletic recruits have a much higher chance of admission to Stanford, and assuming that you have acceptable academic credentials (I believe Stanford informally uses the Academic Index as a guide) then as a recruited athlete you could stand a very good chance. Most recruited athletes to Stanford will be nationally ranked in their sports and on coaches radar for a long time. There are a limited number of recruiting slots, and coaches are aggressive about competing for top athletes and filling slots early. So you need to get on the radar of the Stanford track and field staff. That said, there are rare stories of coaches “finding” amazing athletes overseas who were off the standard recruiting circuit. Talent is talent, and if you have a rare sprint talent, it’s possible that you will get interest.
As a rough guide, an 11.2 100m was the qualifying cutoff for the 2012 US women’s Olympic trials. So if you can get your time back in that range, I would guess that you would get a lot of interest. I’m also guessing that there is a big difference between that and 12.12.
@theivyleague I think mothergoldenbear and renaissancedad have summarized it well. Playing sports isn’t required for getting into Stanford, and in fact a good number of Stanford students are below average in sports (but excel in other things). For those good enough in a sport to be recruited by a Stanford team, that’s a significant advantage in admissions. For those who play sports but aren’t good enough to be recruited (or are good enough but don’t want to compete in college), a sport is a nice extracurricular activity but not required.
RE: “and in fact a good number of Stanford students are below average in sports (but excel in other things).”
The obverse is also completely true: a good number of Stanford athletes are below average in academics, but excel in sports.
My view is based on personal experience.
@theivyleague, it would be helpful if you posted more about your non-athletic background: GPA, test scores other than the ACT, curriculum, specific ECs, interests, etc. I think by this point the athletic angle is being addressed, but it would help to get some more sense of you as an applicant and a person.
Curriculum in Australia is really difficult. Basically equivalent to doing 6 APs if not harder. I’m doing the hardest subjects - apart from Maths, I’m doing the third highest out of 6, and the last of the ATAR.
Subjects:
Applications (Maths)
Physics
Chemistry,
Politics and Law
Economics
English
Physics, Chem, P&L are the most demanding subjects.
Additionally I’m really entrepreurial and I have had a few ventures but they didn’t work out. Do I still put them in my application? Does it show that I don’t give up and peservere?
Grades are pretty good (remember it is way more difficult to get an A in Australia, especially in Year 11/12. A 80% is basically unheard of). I have A in Applications, B in Physics, B in Chemistry, A in P&L, A in Economics and A in English. My ATAR is predicted to be 97/99.95. Putting me in the top 3% of the country.
We don’t have clubs at school but I did mock trials and we never won. There aren’t really many clubs in schools in Australia