<p>Well, Stanford does meet 100% of the demonstrated needs, at least that's what it's said officially. I am actually not sure what kind of initiatives HYP have that further help out low-income students. </p>
<p>Also, just because HYP have started those initiative recently doesn't mean they are saints and much more noble than Stanford all of a sudden. Does that mean before those initiatives, HYP were inferior than they are now??</p>
<p>Or that Ivy league and divisions 3 schools do not provide more financial aid to certain targeted students, i.e. athletes.</p>
<p>As an occasional reader of the HYP&S message boards, I have an impression that the Stanford board is notably free of the insecure-sounding "why we're better than Harvard" threads that infect the Y and P sites, and the inexhaustable supply of "why we're best" threads on the Harvard boards. Methinks these ladies protest too much! Stanford, take USNWR rankings with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>1) Big-time D-I athletics are a part of the culture at Stanford. The merits of that approach can be debated, but it's not likely to change.</p>
<p>2) Your snide remarks about "paid performers" aren't particularly helpful for promoting a constructive discussion. The more important question is whether Stanford's student-athletes constitute a separate population from the vast majority of the student body. My personal impression is that many athletes <em>are</em> "typical" students, although others are not. FWIW, in comparing the Stanford student-athletes with ones from Harvard, my own impression is that there's not much difference with two notable exceptions: (a) Ones from Stanford are much better athletes, and (b) The big-time athletes at Stanford (in $$ sports) aren't as serious about academics as their counterparts at Harvard.</p>
<p>3) As far as the impact on US News, one would think that many of their unusual criteria (% graduation in 5 years, % in top 10% of HS class, average SAT scores) would <em>significantly</em> bias against a place like Stanford given the above. Of course the folks at Stanford know this, and I suspect they don't really care about US News. </p>
<p>4) Like you, I doubt too many non-athlete students are applying to Stanford primarily because of their sports teams (probably unlike Duke basketball, etc).</p>
<p>don't worry. Byerly lacks creditibility in the "other" forum also.</p>
<p>im sorry but i refuse to believe Penn is better than stanford.</p>
<p>Byerly has credibility. He posts links to excellent articles and is generally helpful. It is just that he is a bit overzealous in his promotion of Harvard and its associated policies, i.e. no merit scholarships of any kind.</p>
<p>For what its worth, I respect Harvard immensely. But I should point out that I know a handful of recruited athletes at Harvard who aren't bright at all. I know such people at a number of different ivies. The only athlete I knew who was recruited at Stanford seemed qualified to me. These are only a few examples, though.</p>
<p>"Byerly has credibility" only among Harvardian types.</p>
<p>When you are uncomfortable with the message, attack the messenger, right Zepher?</p>
<p>George Hagstrom,</p>
<p>Many Stanford's athletes are indeed pretty bright. The Women Athlete of the Year (2005), Oganna Nnamani, was a valedictorian in HS. I want to point out that many Stanford athletes are among the top athletes in the country. In 1992 Olympics, Stanford athletes won 16 golds! In volleyball, tennis, baseball, and swimming..etc, many of them are near (or already at) the caliber of making the national teams or becoming pros. Even if they have lower SAT average than the rest of student body, I'd argue their athletic talent is a strong hook just like a state/national award in piano performance being a strong hook. We are talking about athletes having 1200s SAT, not 900s like most other D-I schools'. Stanford has also consistently rejected prized recruits because of academic reason.</p>
<p>"Stanford has also consistently rejected prized recruits because of academic reason."</p>
<p>They better stop rejecting prized recruits if they ever want to see the axe again.</p>
<p>That wasn't an attack.</p>
<p>Ethos pathos logos!</p>
<p>Mr. Hagstrom, your statistically significant evidence is simply overwhelming. With a sample size of 1, You have proven that even at the 99.9999 percent level that Stanford athletes reign supreme over HPY athletes. Who needs outliers right? Who values cognitive dissonance? No, those are farcical half-blown concepts here.</p>
<p>All,</p>
<p>Athletics is used as a hook at all the Ivy League schools However, they have pretty strict recruiting guidelines. Who they can recruit is determined by the Academic Index (AI) and how closely a particular recruit is to their average student. Each of the coaches is allowed to take a certain amount of students out side of their typical student but it is limited.</p>
<p>The AI, which is refered to on the main CC web-page is a number generated from SAT II, SAT I and class rank. I suspect that many of the Ivy league coaches encourage their recruits to take the SATs as many times as required to move them closer to the school average so they do not ahve to use their exceptions.</p>
<p>Regardless, I view athletics as one of the areas where the schools want to provide/enable a hook/tip to the candidate. Similar to musical talent that does not show up in the standardized test scores.</p>
<p>yay go korean cars~!</p>
<p>Sorry, I guess my post wasn't direct enough. The use of athletic scholarships by itself should have no effect on the academic qualifications of the incoming class.
The admission standards for athletes are more important. What I originally said does not support any theory that Stanford's athletes are smarter than atheletes at Ivy league schools. The examples only show how much Ivy league schools are willing to suspend their academic standards for certain recruits. I think it would be difficult for them to admit someone academically worse
than those recruits who could survive four years at an Ivy league school.
Is it really that much easier to graduate from Stanford than to graduate from
an Ivy? I think Stanford has the same minimum standard for its athletes. </p>
<p>I do not know what the average athletes are like. As Eagle79 pointed out, the
Ivy league schools have some restrictions. I always thought that the
restrictions applied at the team level, and that the teams as units could not
be too far below the average for the institution. This leads to teams picking
up some athletes solely for the purpose of increasing the team average. </p>
<p>I do not know if Stanford has a similar system. I would imagine that they do.
Anyways, I hope that makes more sense.</p>
<p>All,</p>
<p>For those of you interested in Ivy League recruiting here is an interesting article on the process. The question I have is how will the Academic Index change with the advent of the SAT I with Writing:</p>
<p>I find it interesting that they rely so much on testing. Further, just because the Ivy league does something does not mean that all the other schools should follow suit. Because of their position they are often the least experimental in their approach to change. For example, Harvard is just now enabling and encouraging study abroad. Something most schools have done for years.</p>
<p>PS Though I am not a Harvardite Byerly has credability with me most of the time. Primarily when he posts actual statistics and information.</p>
<p>He has credibility most of the time. But he assumes Stanford athletics program, like other schools', use university money to pay for coaches/athletic scholarships...etc and he was wrong. That assumption is correct for virtually all other Div-I programs so I don't blame him.</p>
<p>SamLee,</p>
<p>I wonder if we could find this inforamtion out for all Division 1 schools and determine which ones had the most efficient system, i.e. non-use of institutional funds.</p>
<p>Note, I also disagree with Byerly about merit scholarships after 100% of a student's financial need has been met. However, 100% of need is defined, which is a pet peeve of mine, i.e. 100% at Stanford may not be 100% at USC, etc.</p>