<p>What are the general standards for a Stanford Men's Crew recruit? Are the academic standards for athletic recruits as strict as the Ivy League or are they slightly more relaxed? The Ivy benchmark seems to be about 3.5 and 2000 on the SAT's, maybe a little higher depending on which school.</p>
<p>From what I have seen and heard, the benchmarks for Stanford are as high or higher than the Ivy benchmarks.</p>
<p>When my son took his unofficial at Stanford we found out that there is no break for athletes, they need to get in on their own merit and not even coaches can get them in for their sport. Stanford has lost some good athletes to USC because of this.</p>
<p>We had a wrestler from our high school last year that went to Stanford with less than stellar GPA and test scores. GPA 3.6 ACT 28. Went to a Stanford wrestling camp the summer before senior year, did so well that the head coach ended up driving him to the airport, and offering him a spot on the team which did work out through admissions. He’s a freshman there now.</p>
<p>football player from son’s school recruited for stanford. he took his first AP course as a senior. don’t know SAT scores, but GPA is mid 3.5ish from good academic prep school</p>
<p>Does anyone know the rough standards for girl rowers there?</p>
<p>^^^Yes, rowkid, and you can PM me for more information. Stanford’s academic standards tend to be higher than HYP and other ivies, at least in the one sport that I am very familiar with. Regarding coaches pull with admissions, I echo momof2010.</p>
<p>You also need to have serious erg times to go there. Stanford doesn’t mess around.</p>
<p>Rowing might be one thing - but in football you’re not going to win the Orange Bowl without letting a few meatheads through the door</p>
<p>Know of one rower, 6’ 5", 200 lbs, 6:20 erg, 3.75 UW in hardest classes possible, 2180, who was offered a half-scholarship if he would apply ED. He was not their top recruit initially but became their top recruit when numbers 1 and 2 committed elsewhere. BIG shift in coach’s attitude when the SATs topped 2100.</p>
<p>The best answer to this question will come from the coach because (a) it depends on how much s/he wants you and (b) s/he knows what admission looks at. This is determined by your athletic performance and potential, how good the respective team is (e.g. Stanford women OW rowing is ‘better’ than Columbia, so expectations are higher), grades, scores, and behavior during OV.
P.S. I’m surprised that a 200 lb rower with a 6:20 would become their top recruit. Is that this year?</p>
<p>beenthere2, a couple of years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I presume that you are talking specifically about crew. For other sports, the picture is a bit different. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> vs. Duke basketball: The difference in admissions standards | College Hotline](<a href=“http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/05/stanford-vs-duke-basketball-the-difference-in-admissions-standards/]Stanford”>Stanford vs. Duke basketball: The difference in admissions standards - College Hotline)</p>
<p>Football and basketball are quite different from the Olympic sports, swimming, crew, fencing, track & field. Ball sport athletes are given much more leeway at most schools, not just Stanford, whilethe Olympic sport athletes are expected to be on parr with the student body as a whole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I realize that I am tilting at windmills, but here goes. The statement above sounds good initially, but it starts to wilt under a bit of scrutiny. First, when the comparison group is the entire student body, it obviously includes all the athletes, legacies and URMs. Try the comparison versus just the unhooked students and you would get a very different picture. Second, even if the comparison were valid, it would not apply to each and every athlete. At best, it would apply to the athletes in aggregate. In other words, there could be large concessions made to individuals as long as the averages were maintained. (Check the Ivy regulations.) In the sports I am most familiar with, the demographics are seriously skewed toward families with higher income and higher education. Thus, you can find lots of kids who are good athletes and who have high test scores. Kids like that make it easy for others with low scores to get in because of concessions. A sport like soccer costs $5,000 per year if you are on a top club team. Who can pay that? Well-to-do and well-educated parents. So, a Stanford can find one player with a 2300 and another with a 1900. The latter would never have gotten in but for his athletic prowess. I am not saying that is wrong, but it does happen. Just yesterday our D was expressing (correctly in my view) how fortunate she is that she plays a sport at a high level. She has seen the admissions outcomes of some of her older friends and realizes how much easier it will be for her because of her sport.</p>
<p>agree that recruited athletes go to the very front of the line. way better odds than the regular admissions kids. and your d like others on here didn’t get there because it was easy! they work harder than most of the other kids, at least in our HS the athletes worked harder.</p>
<p>and I’d say price to play my daughters sport is closer to 10k if the parents are going to travel as well to see some competitions. although I met a recruited sailor girl at admitted student day, wow her mom was telling me what that sport cost.</p>
<p>I knew things were rather different when my daughter announced Columbia was her for sure safety school. what a strange world college admissions can be for an athlete. And how cool is it that woman athletes are jetted around and wined (ok diet coke) and dined like football stars on their OV’s</p>
<p>it’s totally awesome.</p>