Vanderbilt, Stanford, Northwestern, Rice, Notre Dame and Duke are the only schools with a full slate of D1 (top-level D1…) sports programs that made that top 22 list last year. The big-money sports – football and basketball – probably pull down the stats the most. They probably try to get as many high-stat jocks as possible, but given their commitment to winning at the D1 level, sometimes they have to take low-stat kids. Stanford hasn’t been terribly good in men’s basketball recently, but they’re pretty good in just about everything else.
Stanford, Duke and other D1 private elites could take only 1400+ SAT football and basketball players if they wanted to, but then they would win very few games, which would mean fewer televised games, no bowl games, no NCAA tourney appearances, lower merch sales, and fewer fannies in seats… which would seriously hurt the bottom line.
They have chosen this path, and I doubt they’re sweating the 5-10 points shaved off their SAT averages due to low-stat football and basketball players.
The Ivies and D3 elites have higher standards for their student-athletes, but they can afford to: they stand to lose less $$$ if they don’t clobber their competitors. (that doesn’t mean their teams don’t play hard, of course – I would like to see a Yale/Harvard football game or maybe Penn/Princeton someday…)
Ultimately, schools choose whether to be D1, 1AA, 2, 3, whatever. You reap what you sow. (pro and con)
@CU123 If you read my post, that IS what I am saying. I specifically state in my post: “It just goes to show you you shouldn’t make a decision based one or two people you meet from certain schools.” The point I am trying to make is that not all students or professors at great universities are great or vice-versa. So I am in agreement with you. I met many smart people from West Virginia and other state schools. And I met many not so smart people from Cornell and other Ivies.
The fact is there are many super smart kids who go to state schools on full ride scholarships even though they could have attended one of the HYPSM. That alone should indicate that there are many smart students and professors in every college.
As an example, one of the smartest student in my kid’s high school has decided to attend a good state university on a full ride scholarship. That student got denied from Stanford, but I am being honest (not humble) when I say that particular student has done better academically (specifically gpa wise) than my own kid in the same high school. The other kid got A+s and As while my kid got As and A-s and one or two Bs. In addition, the other kid is a very nice kid imo. I am pretty certain the other kid will do very, very well at the state school, and that kid is every bit as smart as most HYPSM students imo. Also, the smartest student (arguably) at my kid’s HS is going to Johns Hopkins, and didn’t even apply to HYPSM.
Obviously, some of the top level public universities also have top level sports programs (UNC, Michigan, UCLA, etc.) but those are much larger schools, so varsity athletes are only ~1-2% of all students.
I am using this as a counter-example to say that ivies do similar things, just don’t know how high is their academic bar. I don’t see the difference between a 24 ACT and a 25 ACT, especially the minor difference for the new SAT. For the math section, the new SAT means (S)tupid (A)lgebra (T)est, to me.
Stanford pays some of the academic students to help those athletes. My son did one semester. I don’t see anything wrong with it.
“I think the average football player at Stanford scored approximately 1000 on the SAT. Christian McCaffrey scored a whopping 24 on the ACT. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids taking any classes with football players at Stanford. I would hope kids go to college for academic reasons. The Ivy league sets academic standards for athletes which is truly refreshing.”
I have come to the conclusion that you are a troller and post offensive untrue statements either out of pure meanness or willful ignorance.
football players score low at all colleges including ivies (i might add hockey too).
Stanford competes at the highest level of athletic competition in the most competitive conference in the US.
Stanford has won more individual and national championships than any college in the US with a Student body 1/5 the size of its athletic peers USC, UCLA, Berkeley, Texas
Stanford athletes racked up 27 medals 14 gold at the Rio Olympics (it’s Gold haul was more than many countries including Australia!)
Whereas sports may be a hook at less competitive athletic colleges… it’s actually much harder to get into Stanford as an athlete considering the higher level of athletic achievement necessary as well as the academic hurdles an applicant will have to deal with.
I think we should laud Stanford for maintaining a good balance of academics and athletic accomplishments. If my kid had to participate in a team sport in high school, he would be so tired that he would fall asleep at 9 PM and have no time to do homework properly or lead school clubs. I give big props to athletes who managed to excel in sports while doing decently in academics. My kid participate in team sport for one year where he unexpectedly was very good, and he gained a greater respect for kids who participated in athletics all four years. I played several sports in high school, so I know the energy, time and commitment that even one sport takes. You can’t really appreciate what others have to go through unless you are in the same situation. We all need to respect people who try hard and excel in different areas. If that’s what Stanford is all about, I am all for it.
My son gets home at 6pm from track practice, and every week has a meet either on a Tuesday or Saturday, if not both. My other son practices squash 2 hours a day, and the tournaments are often out of town by plane flight. My nephew at Dartmouth have three a day workouts in XC skiing.
The commitment of these kids is incredible, and they make academics a priority as well.
Wall Street loves athletes because a. they have proven that they can focus and commit; and b. have great team skills.
I tend to think that even though my high school gpa was 3.0, because I played lots of sport, I developed a sense of “never giving up” attitude when the going gets tough and working for your team attitude. I knew I could turn it on in the real world. Man, when my un-athletic kid participated in school sports for one year, he was wiped out and falling asleep at 8 pm. lol It was very tough on him physically because he was unused to it that he gave up after one year. Good thing he did too because freed up time allowed him to pursue many outside school activities and school leadership positions.
Funny thing is he became very good in that sport so that his coach was very disappointed to see him leave, but when I asked him how come he wants to quit when he is good in that sport, he told me “Dad, I am not really good but I tried super hard because I didn’t want to let my teammates down.” Even though he quit after first year, I am really glad that he gave it a try because it gave him a sense of appreciation for kids who pursue different areas.
Same thing with debate activities. It takes a lot of time and commitment. I am hoping my kid finds a kid who will make him run or jog every day at Stanford. I really believe in the “healthy body, healthy mind” philosophy. All the fame and money in the world matters not when your body is hurting, not healthy or in pain. Add the spiritual/religious health also. I say this even though I am an agnostic.
Tell your kid to walk/run The Dish, I believe it’s about a 4-mile trek around and it’s gorgeous. Hugely popular path at the western edge of campus. And joggers and bicyclists are everywhere.
If you are going to hike the dish be sure to bring a hat. Also, you have to be in fairly good shape because the hills are fairly steep. It’s really nice though!
Division one sports cost Stanford 67 million dollars per year. This would provide full financial aid for 1000 kids
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/
"Based on university statistics, this puts the football median comfortably in the bottom quartile and likely somewhere in the bottom 10 percent in terms of test scores. Stanford football players are quite smart, but the data suggests they place near the bottom of Stanford’s admits. "
The odds of Stanford football players being in a certain major “17 of them are majoring in “science, technology, and society,” an interdisciplinary major at Stanford.The odds of this happening by chance are about 1 in 600,000,000,000 (six-hundred billion), roughly equivalent to flipping heads 40 times in row, and far less likely than winning the California State Lottery jackpot” https://www.theplayerstribune.com/math-meets-football-one-in-600-billion/
This article was by John Urschel an NFL player who is working on his PHD at MIT
I put my 2 cents in here, my middle daughter was a recruited athlete and when I asked her if she really wanted to play her sport in college she told me that “she wasn’t really sure”. My response, good, no need to play then, that isn’t what you’re there for.
Caveat: I understand that this is the only way some will get admitted or afford college. I actually feel sorry for those athletes that don’t have a real choice.
@arbitrary99 – don’t even try. That poster must have been stuffed in a locker as a kid in HS by jocks and has issues. If McCaffery got a 24 on the ACT then he was well ahead of the national average ACT of 20. Actually, his ACT is inline with the average reported for my D18’s well-regarded public HS.
getting into Stanford as an athlete is an order of magnitude harder to achieve than at non FBS schools.
Stanford athletes are some of the best in the world and they got there because of god given talents and a dedication to be the best in their sport. No small feat.
it’s not one of 150 EC activities they put on their resume as a hook.
