|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Feb 22, 2023 17:25:35 GMT -5
Here is a video of Charlotte. Not sure she is the raw athlete that Gray or Miner are but she is pretty athletic. As a lefty she can really attack the ball. Not sure I have seen anyone else with that kind of attacking ability. What is going to limit her is her hands are good but not great. That could improve so we will see. Reminds me of Cary Wendell who was left handed and fooled many a blocker by going over on two. One of my all time favorites. She was so key, so clutch as a freshman in that '92 championship match. To ruin UCLA's perfect season, was the perfect Christmas gift.
|
|
|
Post by paloalto on Feb 26, 2023 15:26:45 GMT -5
Prepdigs.com just released its 2024 National Player Rankings. Avery Jackson is #3 but she accepted a scholarship to play on the Stanford beach team so she won't be playing indoors. I think the beach team will be good next year. prepdig.com/national/rankings/2024-rankings/
|
|
|
Post by paloalto on Feb 28, 2023 22:52:44 GMT -5
One of the challenges Hambly has to battle in recruiting: Article from today's Stanford Daily: stanforddaily.com/2023/02/28/acceptance-rate-drops-to-3-68-majority-women-and-non-white-students/Stanford’s undergraduate Class of 2026 acceptance rate dropped to a historic low of 3.68%...I know some of the WBB players are getting pretty good NIL and some women's golf team players are getting big NIL. I don't about WVB players. I hope the coaching staff can deliver Stanford an elite MB for 2024
|
|
|
Post by CompSci87 on Mar 2, 2023 13:05:26 GMT -5
The lower acceptance rate basically just means more students are applying. It doesn't necessarily imply it will be harder to get student athletes admitted.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Mar 2, 2023 15:48:08 GMT -5
The lower acceptance rate basically just means more students are applying. It doesn't necessarily imply it will be harder to get student athletes admitted. In the past a typical Stanford student would need a SAT score of approximately 1540 to gain admission. OTOH, for scholarship athletes the minimum was in the 1350-1400 range. I believe Stanford Admissions was applying the "One Standard Deviation Rule" for coveted recruits. That is, they didn't want to admit anyone who was academically one SD weaker from the norm, fearing that the accepted athletes would struggle against their stronger non-athlete counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Mar 2, 2023 15:56:08 GMT -5
The lower acceptance rate basically just means more students are applying. It doesn't necessarily imply it will be harder to get student athletes admitted. ive talked with a couple of coaches from highly accredited academic universities, and its definitely a whole different game for athletes. It's exponentially easier for scholarship athletes to get into ivys, stanford, vandy, etc than a regular student application. You don't have to be a super dedicated student with all these tough AP courses and 4.0, if they want you... they'll likely be able get you in as long as you have 'good' grades lol. Yes you have to be on the smarter side but many of these athletes would not be getting into these schools if they weren't recruited for their sport
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Mar 2, 2023 16:17:50 GMT -5
The lower acceptance rate basically just means more students are applying. It doesn't necessarily imply it will be harder to get student athletes admitted. ive talked with a couple of coaches from highly accredited academic universities, and its definitely a whole different game for athletes. It's exponentially easier for scholarship athletes to get into ivys, stanford, vandy, etc than a regular student application. You don't have to be a super dedicated student with all these tough AP courses and 4.0, if they want you... they'll likely be able get you in as long as you have 'good' grades lol. Yes you have to be on the smarter side but many of these athletes would not be getting into these schools if they weren't recruited for their sport Interesting. I work with coaches from those schools on a regular basis, in volleyball specifically, and nearly none of what you just said is correct. I mean, there are no athletic scholarships in the Ivy's, so you started off on the wrong foot and it went downhill from there....
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Mar 3, 2023 1:43:44 GMT -5
ive talked with a couple of coaches from highly accredited academic universities, and its definitely a whole different game for athletes. It's exponentially easier for scholarship athletes to get into ivys, stanford, vandy, etc than a regular student application. You don't have to be a super dedicated student with all these tough AP courses and 4.0, if they want you... they'll likely be able get you in as long as you have 'good' grades lol. Yes you have to be on the smarter side but many of these athletes would not be getting into these schools if they weren't recruited for their sport Interesting. I work with coaches from those schools on a regular basis, in volleyball specifically, and nearly none of what you just said is correct. I mean, there are no athletic scholarships in the Ivy's, so you started off on the wrong foot and it went downhill from there.... Oops, I meant just scholarships in general. the exact conversation I had with the Princeton coach was "You dont need a super high gpa to play here and and we will find the money if we wanted you" at a usa camp when I was 14 and asked him straight up "how do you have such a good team if you can't give scholarships and its so hard to get in there?" because I was genuinely curious how they found that many guys who were that good and also very high achieving students (which is what the average ivy student would be viewed as in highschool) So maybe he was lying then... idk. But I do know that it is easier for athletes to get in to these schools, thats a widely known thing that is not hidden at all. You think every Ivy League athlete would've gotten in to their school on their own? please. buddy of mine plays on an Ivy League football team... 29 on his ACT... thats not getting u into any ivy if ur not good at ur sport
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Mar 3, 2023 11:19:33 GMT -5
Interesting. I work with coaches from those schools on a regular basis, in volleyball specifically, and nearly none of what you just said is correct. I mean, there are no athletic scholarships in the Ivy's, so you started off on the wrong foot and it went downhill from there.... Oops, I meant just scholarships in general. the exact conversation I had with the Princeton coach was "You dont need a super high gpa to play here and and we will find the money if we wanted you" at a usa camp when I was 14 and asked him straight up "how do you have such a good team if you can't give scholarships and its so hard to get in there?" because I was genuinely curious how they found that many guys who were that good and also very high achieving students (which is what the average ivy student would be viewed as in highschool) So maybe he was lying then... idk. But I do know that it is easier for athletes to get in to these schools, thats a widely known thing that is not hidden at all. You think every Ivy League athlete would've gotten in to their school on their own? please. buddy of mine plays on an Ivy League football team... 29 on his ACT... thats not getting u into any ivy if ur not good at ur sport Uh, none of the Ivy's offer any scholarships, outside of institution-specific endowed scholarships, which are few and far between and those don't go to athletes unless they meet the parameters. All grants and aid are need-based and determined by the financial aid office. Athletics has absolutely no say in how that is granted. I don't know how long ago you were 14, but I am guessing it was a LONG time ago. There is absolutely ZERO chance those words came out of Sam, Pat, or Lindsey's mouthes. The Ivy League follows an Academic Indexing system (with some variability). The entire league agrees to a floor, at which, anyone below that threshold cannot compete in athletics. So, no, you can't just show up and play if you don't at least qualify by that standard. For most sports, the individual schools require the average for the individual incoming classes to be within one standard deviation of the project AI of the incoming general class. To a varying degree, other high-academic schools use the AI for benchmark purposes, banding, etc to help with the recruitment process and provide some transparency in academic requirements for admissions. You don't KNOW anything about how this process works, and your comments make that quite obvious. It may seem like athletes have an "easier" time getting through this process, but that is only because admissions has reviewed their information, and if they won't pass the admissions process, they are told that before finalizing applications and commitments. It's more about the timing of the admissions decision, not the quality of the applicant. Additionally, if after they are reviewed by admissions, there is any change in academic performance, their admissions can be rescinded (and that does happen). Admissions selectivity is a product of admitted students vs total # of applicants, the standards of those applicants are determined after (not before). Obviously, there is historical data to back up likely admits, but every kid with a 1600 on their SATs and a 4.0 is still not going to be admitted. The high academic institutions are generally on the smaller side and whomever they admit will have a direct impact on their campus community. All of those schools are incredibly open about the fact that, while yes, they AVERAGE test score/GPA/# of extracurricular are XYZ, it is at the discretion of the admissions office to build a community. I sat in on an admissions presentation from the Stanford admissions rep a few years ago and they were very open about the fact that being "perfect" wasn't the key to admissions; bringing something interesting to the community was. If they only admitted the perfect kids, their campus would be the most boring place on earth. Athletes bring something to the community (especially given they are some of the more visible student representatives), so do the arts, music programs, and a variety of other on-campus programs that have some say in their selected students' admissions process. The holistic read process for admission is incredibly important. But, the key is: those students still need to be in line with the general standards to pass the admissions review. Just because the historical data says the average is XYZ, that means there are students above and below that, but all have been vetted by the admissions office for what they can bring to the community. These schools are under no obligation to admit kids with those standards and can literally take anyone they want. Averages tell some of the story, but certainly not all of it. I get incredibly annoyed when people who clearly have no clue what they are talking about say things like "it's so much easier for an athlete to get into a high academic school". It really isn't. And that denigrates the hard work those athletes are doing, on the court, in the classroom, and building their resume with extracurriculars, volunteer work, etc, while balancing playing their sport at an incredibly high level, to make themselves excellent candidates for these schools. I've worked in high academic admissions and athletics, both from the college side and as a college counselor for almost 20 years. So, you'll have to pardon me if I don't see your two ad hominem (and likely fabricated/embellished) stories as insight into the actual process. TL;DR You're wrong
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Mar 3, 2023 12:23:51 GMT -5
Oops, I meant just scholarships in general. the exact conversation I had with the Princeton coach was "You dont need a super high gpa to play here and and we will find the money if we wanted you" at a usa camp when I was 14 and asked him straight up "how do you have such a good team if you can't give scholarships and its so hard to get in there?" because I was genuinely curious how they found that many guys who were that good and also very high achieving students (which is what the average ivy student would be viewed as in highschool) So maybe he was lying then... idk. But I do know that it is easier for athletes to get in to these schools, thats a widely known thing that is not hidden at all. You think every Ivy League athlete would've gotten in to their school on their own? please. buddy of mine plays on an Ivy League football team... 29 on his ACT... thats not getting u into any ivy if ur not good at ur sport Uh, none of the Ivy's offer any scholarships, outside of institution-specific endowed scholarships, which are few and far between and those don't go to athletes unless they meet the parameters. All grants and aid are need-based and determined by the financial aid office. Athletics has absolutely no say in how that is granted. I don't know how long ago you were 14, but I am guessing it was a LONG time ago. There is absolutely ZERO chance those words came out of Sam Schweisky's mouth. The Ivy League follows an Academic Indexing system (with some variability). The entire league agrees to a floor, at which, anyone below that threshold cannot compete in athletics. So, no, you can't just show up and play if you don't at least qualify by that standard. For most sports, the individual schools require the average for the individual incoming classes to be within one standard deviation of the project AI of the incoming general class. To a varying degree, other high-academic schools use the AI for benchmark purposes, banding, etc to help with the recruitment process and provide some transparency in academic requirements for admissions. You don't KNOW anything about how this process works, and your comments make that quite obvious. It may seem like athletes have an "easier" time getting through this process, but that is only because admissions has reviewed their information, and if they won't pass the admissions process, they are told that before finalizing applications and commitments. It's more about the timing of the admissions decision, not the quality of the applicant. Additionally, if after they are reviewed by admissions, there is any change in academic performance, their admissions can be rescinded (and that does happen). Admissions selectivity is a product of admitted students vs total # of applicants, the standards of those applicants are determined after (not before). Obviously, there is historical data to back up likely admits, but every kid with a 1600 on their SATs and a 4.0 is still not going to be admitted. The high academic institutions are generally on the smaller side and whomever they admit will have a direct impact on their campus community. All of those schools are incredibly open about the fact that, while yes, they AVERAGE test score/GPA/# of extracurricular are XYZ, it is at the discretion of the admissions office to build a community. I sat in on an admissions presentation from the Stanford admissions rep a few years ago and they were very open about the fact that being "perfect" wasn't the key to admissions; bringing something interesting to the community was. If they only admitted the perfect kids, their campus would be the most boring place on earth. Athletes bring something to the community (especially given they are some of the more visible student representatives), so do the arts, music programs, and a variety of other on-campus programs that have some say in their selected students' admissions process. The holistic read process for admission is incredibly important. But, the key is: those students still need to be in line with the general standards to pass the admissions review. Just because the historical data says the average is XYZ, that means there are students above and below that, but all have been vetted by the admissions office for what they can bring to the community. These schools are under no obligation to admit kids with those standards and can literally take anyone they want. Averages tell some of the story, but certainly not all of it. I get incredibly annoyed when people who clearly have no clue what they are talking about say things like "it's so much easier for an athlete to get into a high academic school". It really isn't. And that denigrates the hard work those athletes are doing, on the court, in the classroom, and building their resume with extracurriculars, volunteer work, etc, while balancing playing their sport at an incredibly high level, to make themselves excellent candidates for these schools. I've worked in high academic admissions and athletics, both from the college side and as a college counselor for almost 20 years. So, you'll have to pardon me if I don't see your two ad hominem (and likely fabricated/embellished) stories as insight into the actual process. TL;DR You're wrong I am not sure what you are talking about. As a Stanford graduate who knows both the athletic and general admissions process it is just factually true that athletes get admitted all of the time with grades and test scores that would have no chance in the general admissions pool. As a parent, I know multiple ivy recruited athletes and I can tell you the exact same thing is true for the ivys.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Mar 3, 2023 12:54:57 GMT -5
Uh, none of the Ivy's offer any scholarships, outside of institution-specific endowed scholarships, which are few and far between and those don't go to athletes unless they meet the parameters. All grants and aid are need-based and determined by the financial aid office. Athletics has absolutely no say in how that is granted. I don't know how long ago you were 14, but I am guessing it was a LONG time ago. There is absolutely ZERO chance those words came out of Sam Schweisky's mouth. The Ivy League follows an Academic Indexing system (with some variability). The entire league agrees to a floor, at which, anyone below that threshold cannot compete in athletics. So, no, you can't just show up and play if you don't at least qualify by that standard. For most sports, the individual schools require the average for the individual incoming classes to be within one standard deviation of the project AI of the incoming general class. To a varying degree, other high-academic schools use the AI for benchmark purposes, banding, etc to help with the recruitment process and provide some transparency in academic requirements for admissions. You don't KNOW anything about how this process works, and your comments make that quite obvious. It may seem like athletes have an "easier" time getting through this process, but that is only because admissions has reviewed their information, and if they won't pass the admissions process, they are told that before finalizing applications and commitments. It's more about the timing of the admissions decision, not the quality of the applicant. Additionally, if after they are reviewed by admissions, there is any change in academic performance, their admissions can be rescinded (and that does happen). Admissions selectivity is a product of admitted students vs total # of applicants, the standards of those applicants are determined after (not before). Obviously, there is historical data to back up likely admits, but every kid with a 1600 on their SATs and a 4.0 is still not going to be admitted. The high academic institutions are generally on the smaller side and whomever they admit will have a direct impact on their campus community. All of those schools are incredibly open about the fact that, while yes, they AVERAGE test score/GPA/# of extracurricular are XYZ, it is at the discretion of the admissions office to build a community. I sat in on an admissions presentation from the Stanford admissions rep a few years ago and they were very open about the fact that being "perfect" wasn't the key to admissions; bringing something interesting to the community was. If they only admitted the perfect kids, their campus would be the most boring place on earth. Athletes bring something to the community (especially given they are some of the more visible student representatives), so do the arts, music programs, and a variety of other on-campus programs that have some say in their selected students' admissions process. The holistic read process for admission is incredibly important. But, the key is: those students still need to be in line with the general standards to pass the admissions review. Just because the historical data says the average is XYZ, that means there are students above and below that, but all have been vetted by the admissions office for what they can bring to the community. These schools are under no obligation to admit kids with those standards and can literally take anyone they want. Averages tell some of the story, but certainly not all of it. I get incredibly annoyed when people who clearly have no clue what they are talking about say things like "it's so much easier for an athlete to get into a high academic school". It really isn't. And that denigrates the hard work those athletes are doing, on the court, in the classroom, and building their resume with extracurriculars, volunteer work, etc, while balancing playing their sport at an incredibly high level, to make themselves excellent candidates for these schools. I've worked in high academic admissions and athletics, both from the college side and as a college counselor for almost 20 years. So, you'll have to pardon me if I don't see your two ad hominem (and likely fabricated/embellished) stories as insight into the actual process. TL;DR You're wrong I am not sure what you are talking about. As a Stanford graduate who knows both the athletic and general admissions process it is just factually true that athletes get admitted all of the time with grades and test scores that would have no chance in the general admissions pool. As a parent, I know multiple ivy recruited athletes and I can tell you the exact same thing is true for the ivys. Then think of it this way: Coaches serve as the first line of admission. They aren't presenting kids to the admissions committee that don't have a chance of being admitted. And a lot of work goes into vetting athletes before they ever get to that stage. Admissions gives incredibly specific parameters to the coaches. In the general pool, admissions counselors throw out 95% of applicants before they take the final 5% to committee, and admit, in Stanford's case, 3.68%. Once they make the cut from that original pool, they have a pretty high likelihood of being admitted. Coaches are tasked with doing the same thing and weeding out the initial 95%, with the added caveat of factoring athletic talent. Even in the general admissions pool, there is a broad spectrum of what is admitted. You all only see final averages, not the "Why" behind the admissions decision. It is a lot more art than science. All you guys seem to see is this one person is below what the historical data average is, not the entire incoming recruiting class as a whole or even how/why that athlete cleared the process. And you'll never get that information because it is between the coaching staff, the academic/athletic liaison, and the admissions committee.
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Mar 3, 2023 13:18:10 GMT -5
I am not sure what you are talking about. As a Stanford graduate who knows both the athletic and general admissions process it is just factually true that athletes get admitted all of the time with grades and test scores that would have no chance in the general admissions pool. As a parent, I know multiple ivy recruited athletes and I can tell you the exact same thing is true for the ivys. Then think of it this way: Coaches serve as the first line of admission. They aren't presenting kids to the admissions committee that don't have a chance of being admitted. And a lot of work goes into vetting athletes before they ever get to that stage. Admissions gives incredibly specific parameters to the coaches. In the general pool, admissions counselors throw out 95% of applicants before they take the final 5% to committee, and admit, in Stanford's case, 3.68%. Once they make the cut from that original pool, they have a pretty high likelihood of being admitted. Coaches are tasked with doing the same thing and weeding out the initial 95%, with the added caveat of factoring athletic talent. Even in the general admissions pool, there is a broad spectrum of what is admitted. You all only see final averages, not the "Why" behind the admissions decision. It is a lot more art than science. All you guys seem to see is this one person is below what the historical data average is, not the entire incoming recruiting class as a whole or even how/why that athlete cleared the process. And you'll never get that information because it is between the coaching staff, the academic/athletic liaison, and the admissions committee. In my high school class, our valedictorian got waitlisted at Stanford with a 36, 4.0 unweighted and a ton of APs. She would’ve made an excellent Stanford student. The 14th ranked girl in our class had a 3.65 and got admitted bc she was good at field hockey. A few years later, a kid who had a 3.77 and was #9 got blanket rejected to every top school he applied to, but got into Stanford. His dad was an alum and a big donor. This was like 14-17 years ago. I know you may not like the narrative, but if 3% of the highly qualified applicants get in each year, yet 3-4 of the top 20 volleyball players in the country qualify for Stanford each year, it just isn’t a statistical anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Mar 3, 2023 13:49:53 GMT -5
Then think of it this way: Coaches serve as the first line of admission. They aren't presenting kids to the admissions committee that don't have a chance of being admitted. And a lot of work goes into vetting athletes before they ever get to that stage. Admissions gives incredibly specific parameters to the coaches. In the general pool, admissions counselors throw out 95% of applicants before they take the final 5% to committee, and admit, in Stanford's case, 3.68%. Once they make the cut from that original pool, they have a pretty high likelihood of being admitted. Coaches are tasked with doing the same thing and weeding out the initial 95%, with the added caveat of factoring athletic talent. Even in the general admissions pool, there is a broad spectrum of what is admitted. You all only see final averages, not the "Why" behind the admissions decision. It is a lot more art than science. All you guys seem to see is this one person is below what the historical data average is, not the entire incoming recruiting class as a whole or even how/why that athlete cleared the process. And you'll never get that information because it is between the coaching staff, the academic/athletic liaison, and the admissions committee. In my high school class, our valedictorian got waitlisted at Stanford with a 36, 4.0 unweighted and a ton of APs. She would’ve made an excellent Stanford student. The 14th ranked girl in our class had a 3.65 and got admitted bc she was good at field hockey. A few years later, a kid who had a 3.77 and was #9 got blanket rejected to every top school he applied to, but got into Stanford. His dad was an alum and a big donor. This was like 14-17 years ago. I know you may not like the narrative, but if 3% of the highly qualified applicants get in each year, yet 3-4 of the top 20 volleyball players in the country qualify for Stanford each year, it just isn’t a statistical anomaly. Again, anecdotal evidence of exceptions to the rule are just that: exceptions. And athletic talent is seen as a value-add to the campus community (and so is your parents/family giving a crap-ton of money), hence why there is variance in who is admitted and their criteria and the weight placed on athletic talent vs other things the athlete brings to the community. Just being an athlete and a small academic snapshot does not show the entire picture. We had a kid who was #1 in her class, valedictorian, etc etc at one of the top high schools in the entire country get rejected by every single school she applied. Just being the top of your class is not enough to be admitted to top schools, they are looking for more breadth and depth, variety in their incoming student body, and uniqueness. None of these schools have ever claimed to be a numbers-based meritocracy. It's only people on the outside that seem to have some level of righteous indignation when schools make admissions decisions they somehow don't think are "good" enough. But I mean, what do I know? I just coached in the Ivy League, worked in high academic admissions, and help students navigate the high academic admissions and athletics recruiting process for a living (and am incredibly successful at it, might I add).
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Mar 3, 2023 13:58:13 GMT -5
In my high school class, our valedictorian got waitlisted at Stanford with a 36, 4.0 unweighted and a ton of APs. She would’ve made an excellent Stanford student. The 14th ranked girl in our class had a 3.65 and got admitted bc she was good at field hockey. A few years later, a kid who had a 3.77 and was #9 got blanket rejected to every top school he applied to, but got into Stanford. His dad was an alum and a big donor. This was like 14-17 years ago. I know you may not like the narrative, but if 3% of the highly qualified applicants get in each year, yet 3-4 of the top 20 volleyball players in the country qualify for Stanford each year, it just isn’t a statistical anomaly. Again, anecdotal evidence of exceptions to the rule are just that: exceptions. And athletic talent is seen as a value-add to the campus community (and so if your parents/family giving a crap-ton of money), hence why there is variance in who is admitted and their criteria and the weight placed on athletic talent vs other things the athlete brings to the community. Just being an athlete and a small academic snapshot does not show the entire picture. We had a kid who was #1 in her class, valedictorian, etc etc at one of the top high schools in the entire country get rejected by every single school she applied. Just being the top of your class is not enough to be admitted to top schools, they are looking for more breadth and depth, variety in their incoming student body, and uniqueness. None of these schools have ever claimed to be a numbers-based meritocracy. It's only people on the outside that seem to have some level of righteous indignation when schools make admissions decisions they somehow don't think are "good" enough. But I mean, what do I know? I just coached in the Ivy League, worked in high academic admissions, and help students navigate the high academic admissions and athletics recruiting process for a living (and am incredibly successful at it, might I add). ok
|
|
|
Post by kukae on Mar 3, 2023 14:10:17 GMT -5
Then think of it this way: Coaches serve as the first line of admission. They aren't presenting kids to the admissions committee that don't have a chance of being admitted. And a lot of work goes into vetting athletes before they ever get to that stage. Admissions gives incredibly specific parameters to the coaches. In the general pool, admissions counselors throw out 95% of applicants before they take the final 5% to committee, and admit, in Stanford's case, 3.68%. Once they make the cut from that original pool, they have a pretty high likelihood of being admitted. Coaches are tasked with doing the same thing and weeding out the initial 95%, with the added caveat of factoring athletic talent. Even in the general admissions pool, there is a broad spectrum of what is admitted. You all only see final averages, not the "Why" behind the admissions decision. It is a lot more art than science. All you guys seem to see is this one person is below what the historical data average is, not the entire incoming recruiting class as a whole or even how/why that athlete cleared the process. And you'll never get that information because it is between the coaching staff, the academic/athletic liaison, and the admissions committee. In my high school class, our valedictorian got waitlisted at Stanford with a 36, 4.0 unweighted and a ton of APs. She would’ve made an excellent Stanford student. The 14th ranked girl in our class had a 3.65 and got admitted bc she was good at field hockey. A few years later, a kid who had a 3.77 and was #9 got blanket rejected to every top school he applied to, but got into Stanford. His dad was an alum and a big donor. This was like 14-17 years ago. I know you may not like the narrative, but if 3% of the highly qualified applicants get in each year, yet 3-4 of the top 20 volleyball players in the country qualify for Stanford each year, it just isn’t a statistical anomaly. You folks are all talking past one another without really listening to what is being said. With a very low acceptance rate, there are ALWAYS going to be many highly qualified applicants who don't get in. BUT, what you don't hear about are all the applicants with much lower stats who DO get in. There are MANY non-athletes who received acceptances who were not academically near perfect. Was it "easier" for them to get in? Did admissions somehow lower their standard and make an exception? Of course not. Those applicants proved themselves exceptional in some other way besides academics. Do we belittle that exceptionalism just because it wasn't academics. No, in fact, we are often amazed by their accomplishments, their creativity or perseverance, their dedication. Those applicants didn't have an "easier" time getting in. Having to demonstrate exceptionalism in spite of not being academically perfect is arguably even more difficult. Why do we then diminish demonstrated exceptionalism in athletics as less legitimate, or "easier"? I don't consider spending thousands of hours dedicated to athletic exceptionalism "easy". If your only measure of difficulty in acceptance is academic scores, then you GROSSLY misunderstand the acceptance process.
|
|