<p>
</p>
<p>LMAO. The Athletes here get in with much lower qualifications, and a much, much higher acceptance rate. I doubt any of them would make it to any school inside the USNews top 50 (let alone Stanford) if it wasn’t for their athletic ability. That said, that’s what makes Stanford better than all other academically focused schools. We actually have decent sports teams. :)</p>
<p>^ PrincetonDreams, it’d probably be best for you not to proclaim knowledge of every single athlete, especially considering you haven’t met any of them.</p>
<p>I can’t find the article at the moment, but I’ll look again later and link it to you. In it the director of admissions explicitly states that the acceptance rate for recruited athletes is under 10%. Other admissions officers have stated this as well to those being recruited.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please rid yourself of this absurd notion before you start Stanford in the fall. You’re flat-out wrong on that, and continuing to believe that will only make you unjustifiably disdain those you will be attending school with for 4 years. In the meantime, you might look at this:</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> Football Recruits Corner the ‘Smart’ Market - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html]Stanford”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html)</p>
<p>And that’s just football. Remember that the overwhelming majority of student-athletes play for sports that are too unimportant to give any admissions preference for, like fencing, water polo, synchronized swimming, squash, etc. Consider also that because Stanford has the best athletic program and the strongest academic programs, it attracts the best student-athletes: the ones who are amazing students (who would likely get in anywhere regardless of athletic ability) but who are also great athletes. </p>
<p>If after thinking about this you still have contempt for the many amazing student-athletes that Stanford enrolls, do tell me how it feels next fall when many of them outperform you in classes. Just because you went to Eton does not mean you can disdain everyone who went to public schools (as you’ve done in another thread) or those who are better than you at sports despite also being equal academically (as you seem to do here).</p>
<p>Wow phantas, so are you saying that the athletes here receive no boost in the admissions process?!! That, in academics, they’re comparable to the rest of the undergraduate student body? If so, why do they receive a list of easy classes every quarter, while the rest of us who are ‘bad at sports’ don’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just not true. There’s a boost in chances from every recruited sport.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was a joke. And, stalk much? :/</p>
<p>Anyways, I absolutely love Stanford and don’t have a bad thing to say about it (pre-frosh school pride :)). But, the truth is, athletes do receive a boost in admissions, and get in not primarily on academics, but on athletic ability. I am perfectly fine with that. No “disdain” I promise. 
Everyone at S got in based on one of their talents. While the vast majority were accepted based on academics (including me, I guess, since I really don’t have any other achievements lol), others are accepted for other talents that they bring to the campus. And that’s what I love about Stanford. Everyone’s talented in their own way.</p>
<p>PD:</p>
<p>Do you really think Stanford has trouble finding 20+ football players a year with absolutely top notch academic scores to recruit? Especially when these students are considering the much less competitive Ivy conference? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt but baseline academic talent is a given when when there is a 92% rejection rate. It would be an extraordinary exception for someone to get into Stanford with national sports recognition who would not get into a top 50 USNWR school with typical EC’s not including sports. You could count those on one hand but they are certainly not typical of the vast number of student athletes or even the recruited ones. There are surely more non-athletes in your class afforded that status (multi-million dollar development admits, children of national politicians or heads of industry, celebrities) than B student jocks. No school that has 10% of its students doing varsity athletics (not my figure) is using sports as a litmus test for admission.</p>
<p>To the OP:</p>
<p>I would suggest you not apply to Brown ED. That lingering “what if?” feeling you have reported is very real and not worth a forced commitment so early in the process.</p>
<p>The consensus here seems to go with Brown. I agree. Also, leaving your comfort zone of California and going to school on the East Coast will be good for you and probably make you a much more interesting person. Can you play your sport at Brown?
Jackuk</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I’m not. I’ve implied or stated the opposite several times in my posts, above and elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general, they are. There are some edge cases, of course, but the overwhelming majority are comparable to the rest of the student body. There’s a reason that they have very nearly the same graduation rate. If they weren’t doing well, Stanford would change its admissions standards. And were it not for their athletic gear, you would usually be unable to distinguish them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You obviously read the news hype without talking to students. For one, that list has always been available to everyone, and it had even circulated on email lists (but of course anyone could get a physical copy). For another, the athletics department offers tons of resources to help athletes in any way - they have specialized academic advisers, get lots of useless ‘balancing your time tips’ sheets, etc. because committing 20-30 hours a week to a sport while also taking a full course load will inevitably be difficult. In addition, everyone agrees that many of the courses on that list are hard; most were on there for their meeting times, since athletes often have difficulty taking afternoon classes. And finally, athletes and students alike find these lists useless, since everyone is able to find ‘easy’ classes by looking at CourseRank (which has grade distributions), past course evaluations (which everyone is required to fill out), and ExploreCourses (which allows you to sort classes by meeting time, GER, etc.).</p>
<p>FWIW, the article that ‘broke’ that news was a class project on investigative reporting in which the students attempted to make a big deal out of nothing, misquoted professors and students (who demanded a retraction), and were criticized for poor reporting even by their own professor. It’s really insignificant to the student body, so don’t worry, you won’t be at a disadvantage because you don’t have such a list. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not stalking - I was posting in the same thread as you when you derided public school students for not thinking much of Eton. (I agreed with you that Eton was prestigious, but explicitly said I wasn’t defending your statements, because they were really elitist and in poor taste.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just not true. Most would likely get in regardless of their athletic ability, since they’re stellar students to begin with. That’s largely because the high-price sports for which recruitment should affect admissions (i.e. it leads to a noticeable difference in team quality) are few in number, and thus the recruits from them are comparatively few. There just isn’t much incentive to recruit for them. That’s also why a large portion of Stanford’s varsity athletes are walk-ons - people who may or may not have played the sport before, but get into Stanford without recruitment, and then decide they want to play. You’ll find tons of such students when you get here.</p>
<p>YaleGradandDad:</p>
<p>I think I may heed your advice and opt for Stanford, despite the overwhelming consensus. </p>
<p>JackUK:</p>
<p>I can play my sport at Brown, so that’s luckily not an issue. But although I absolutely LOVE Brown and would really enjoy spending 4 years there, I’m afraid my mind will change. I know moving to the east coast would probably do fantastic things for me and my character…but I guess it’s hard for me to distance myself from what is familiar.</p>
<p>I think I will wait a few more months and visit a few more schools to be sure…who knows, by August maybe my opinion about this whole situation will completely change.</p>
<p>I think that if you’re not sure, then you should not apply to a binding ED program like Brown. FWIW, Brown says that ED applicants do not get an admissions boost. Other than finding out sooner, there’s likely no downside to simply applying RD once you decide.</p>
<p>Brownford (btw, I like the name 
) : I suggest that you consider all your options. You have some time, and if you still feel that brown is your top choice, apply ED. Otherwise, you can always apply RD (even if you get into stanford).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s telling that the article posts athletes wtih 4.0 GPAs, but no test scores. As all of us know, GPAs alone are kind of worthless (4.0 GPA in non-honors basketweaving for wide receivers, or “independent study” folding towels in the locker room). Without seeing these athletes test scores, the article about “smart” athletes and Stanford is really vapid, as it sets no baseline.</p>
<p>Athletes do very well in the admissions process at Stanford. I doubt anyone at Stanford was at the National Geography Bee last week; however, I’ll bet the coaches line up and watch the 8th graders at Stanford football summer camp. It’s just the way it is. If you really want an admissions boost, ditch the violin and get really good at a sport.</p>
<p>@PrincetonDreams my friend was recruited by Harvard for running. He has a 4.0 UW (very very rigorous classes), 2400 SAT and took the AIME 2x, did well in some math competitions, was in USAPHO and created a company for programming. I’m probably forgetting some things here. Some athletes are qualified.</p>