|
Post by stanfordvb on Mar 3, 2023 14:43:42 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. 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. \ but the answer is YES if you are a really good volleyball player, you will likely not have to meet the same standard academically as the majority of non-athlete accepted students. You can call it adding value to the community or whatever you want, but at the end of the day its easier for athletes. And no one is up in arms or angry about this by the way, but to try to beat around or deny it is just silly. I know players on the mens AND women's team who were just really good players in highschool... they weren't musically gifted or some prodigy photographers or volunteering at non profits of any sort to give them an extra resume boost, they played a whole bunch of volleyball all the time and were good highschool students. that was it. they got in because they're exceptionally good at volleyball, and its okay to admit that.
|
|
|
Post by kukae on Mar 3, 2023 15:58:37 GMT -5
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. \ but the answer is YES if you are a really good volleyball player, you will likely not have to meet the same standard academically as the majority of non-athlete accepted students. You can call it adding value to the community or whatever you want, but at the end of the day its easier for athletes. And no one is up in arms or angry about this by the way, but to try to beat around or deny it is just silly. I know players on the mens AND women's team who were just really good players in highschool... they weren't musically gifted or some prodigy photographers or volunteering at non profits of any sort to give them an extra resume boost, they played a whole bunch of volleyball all the time and were good highschool students. that was it. they got in because they're exceptionally good at volleyball, and its okay to admit that. I think the issue that gets to some of us is the use of the word "easier" or some similar implication. This completely mischaracterizes the admission process, as if they use academic scores as their main criteria. Academic scores are merely a baseline, because they want academically capable students. But, half the acceptances are below the average and a MUCH higher number than people think are well below the average. This is because academic exceptionalism is not the main criteria for acceptance. The vast majority of acceptances at Stanford are NOT based on academic exceptionalism. Athletes are not some anomaly among the student population, who had lowered standards. They are, like most students, admitted for their character and demonstrated exceptionalism at SOMETHING, something that makes them stand out against the other applicants. Why do we characterize accepted athletes as having it "easier" when we don't use that term for all of the other students who weren't academically exceptional?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Mar 3, 2023 19:56:53 GMT -5
but the answer is YES if you are a really good volleyball player, you will likely not have to meet the same standard academically as the majority of non-athlete accepted students. You can call it adding value to the community or whatever you want, but at the end of the day its easier for athletes. And no one is up in arms or angry about this by the way, but to try to beat around or deny it is just silly. I know players on the mens AND women's team who were just really good players in highschool... they weren't musically gifted or some prodigy photographers or volunteering at non profits of any sort to give them an extra resume boost, they played a whole bunch of volleyball all the time and were good highschool students. that was it. they got in because they're exceptionally good at volleyball, and its okay to admit that. I think the issue that gets to some of us is the use of the word "easier" or some similar implication. This completely mischaracterizes the admission process, as if they use academic scores as their main criteria. Academic scores are merely a baseline, because they want academically capable students. But, half the acceptances are below the average and a MUCH higher number than people think are well below the average. This is because academic exceptionalism is not the main criteria for acceptance. The vast majority of acceptances at Stanford are NOT based on academic exceptionalism. Athletes are not some anomaly among the student population, who had lowered standards. They are, like most students, admitted for their character and demonstrated exceptionalism at SOMETHING, something that makes them stand out against the other applicants. Why do we characterize accepted athletes as having it "easier" when we don't use that term for all of the other students who weren't academically exceptional? With all due respect this is nonsense. The vast majority of Stanford admits have both academic exceptionalism and something that makes them stand out. Athletes don't have to be academically exceptional. There are a couple of other categories that don't either. That is just a fact. And FWIW, I choose Stanford because I loved the sports and most of my friends were athletes. So I am not against this policy. But if you sat in a classroom at Stanford it is not hard to figure out who the athletes are....
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 3, 2023 20:10:19 GMT -5
So one way to look at it is to compare athletes to the Stanford general body. Another way to look at it is to compare Stanford athletes in terms of how they compete academically with their peers in the sport.
Is there any question Stanford has the hardest academic standards for athletes among P-5 schools? Certainly among P-5 schools that compete at the top of their sport.
To be honest, I’m shocked Stanford is able to maintain as much academic integrity as they do and still be as competitive as they are. To me the school and athletic department is a unicorn.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Mar 3, 2023 20:31:46 GMT -5
Do I have a chance at getting into Stanford if my GPA is 3.1 but I have a 1600 SAT and a few international achievements for ECs? Or will I be instantly threw into the bin because of my sub par grades? As I have explained in the past, admission to Stanford is done in stages. The first stage is to separate the legacies, single-choice-early-action, and recruited athletes from all others. All these applications will be read and a committee will determine whether they are good enough to be Stanford students.
The rest go through a number of hurdles. The first hurdle is the SAT score because it is a national test with a single number. At least a third will be set aside (not tossed into a bin, but assigned a lower priority) solely on the SAT score (remember selecting about 2,000 applicants out of at least 40,000 applications is VERY time consuming, so using the SAT score is efficient). You will probably make it through that hurdle. At this point there are 1,500 slots for 25,000 applicants.
The next hurdle is the GPA. This requires the reviewer to evaluate your transcript. Some schools are tougher than others. Some courses are more difficult. So the GPA as a number is not as comparable as a number as is the SAT score. There is no magic cut off, but I would say you need at least an unweighted GPA of 3.8 to get through this hurdle (this GPA number can be higher or lower depending on the competition). The goal is to set aside 15,000 applicants. (Set aside implies that your application is not given priority, not that it has been rejected, that will take place at the end of the process.)
The third hurdle is your letters of recommendation. There is no magic number here. Any negative information will get you set aside. We are now down to 6–8,000 applicants for 1,500 places.
The next hurdle is evaluating your essay and extra curricular activities. This is VERY time consuming! After this there are about 3,000 applications or so. This is when the « Stanford family » is called in to interview the applicants in every part of the world. All Stanford alums are expected to cooperate. Depending on the review, your application then is reviewed by a committee to determine if you are an appropriate addition to the incoming portfolio of students. Can you play a musical instrument and are you likely to contribute to the infamous band? Walk on to any sports teams? Perform some magic in a laboratory? Etc…
Finally, along with the legacy, single-choice-early-action, and athletic non-rejects, an algorithm is used to determine how many acceptance letters to send out and how many applicants to put on the waitlist.
This is a VERY labor intensive process and it would be great to treat each applicant as a unique individual, but there are an ever increasing number of applicants (there were 42,000 for the class of 2022 with 1900 admits) requiring an ever increasing objectification of applications.
FYI, I was rejected by Stanford and ended up teaching there for 26 years. So, if you are rejected, keep applying at every stage! One of the things Stanford likes is people who don’t quit. Keep trying and some day you might be living or working on the Farm!
Geoffrey Rothewell: former senior lecturer and director of honors programs stanford university
|
|
|
Post by kukae on Mar 4, 2023 19:28:36 GMT -5
I think the issue that gets to some of us is the use of the word "easier" or some similar implication. This completely mischaracterizes the admission process, as if they use academic scores as their main criteria. Academic scores are merely a baseline, because they want academically capable students. But, half the acceptances are below the average and a MUCH higher number than people think are well below the average. This is because academic exceptionalism is not the main criteria for acceptance. The vast majority of acceptances at Stanford are NOT based on academic exceptionalism. Athletes are not some anomaly among the student population, who had lowered standards. They are, like most students, admitted for their character and demonstrated exceptionalism at SOMETHING, something that makes them stand out against the other applicants. Why do we characterize accepted athletes as having it "easier" when we don't use that term for all of the other students who weren't academically exceptional? With all due respect this is nonsense. The vast majority of Stanford admits have both academic exceptionalism and something that makes them stand out. Athletes don't have to be academically exceptional. There are a couple of other categories that don't either. That is just a fact. And FWIW, I choose Stanford because I loved the sports and most of my friends were athletes. So I am not against this policy. But if you sat in a classroom at Stanford it is not hard to figure out who the athletes are.... Clearly, your understanding of the word exceptional differs from mine. To me, to be exceptional at something means you CLEARLY stand out against your peers, and those in the know are highly impressed and recognize your distinction. If you were to place the typical Stanford student in another university, they are not going to impress their professors with their exceptionalism, they are not going to garner instant recognition and appreciation. While they may succeed as one of the better students, they are not going to standout as distinct from the others. I don't find that exceptional. But, I did say all the admittances at Stanford are academically capable, meaning they have the ability to succeed in their coursework. If you are saying there are two obvious and distinct categories of students, the scholarship athletes and every everyone else, then you had a vastly different experience than myself. There were plenty of my fellow students who struggled and studied their asses off, and much more so than many of the athletes I knew. I can even look at myself as an example. I had a 520 on one of my SAT's. I had ZERO AP classes. I was not recruited as an athlete. My reading speed was under 100 wpm. My GPA did not put me at the top of my high school class at a surfer school that was pretty underwhelming, academically. I absolutely struggled in some types of classes and even gladly received some C's. And yet, I considered myself one of the better students among my peers at Stanford, I just had different priorities and expectations. I had a less than stellar GPA as an undergraduate there and yet still got accepted to a Stanford engineering masters program. Since SAT's and GPA's are capped, it is impossible to stand out based on those metrics. Nearly all of the applications show top tier academics. If academic exceptionalism was the main criteria for selecting an applicant, how is that being demonstrated by all the acceptances compared to the rejections? How does one account for all the perfect SAT and GPA who get rejected? The reality is that beyond a certain threshold those metrics are meaningless. The context is missing. With the tens of thousands of applications, how can one stand out and be memorable? It is very difficult to do so through an academic metric, or the number of clubs, etc. One has to be able to set themselves apart in some way, some way in which multiple application readers recognize and take notice. Stanford wants people who are passionate and exceptional, people with a certain type of character, people who are likely to succeed at their pursuits. There just aren't that many applicants who inspire awe, academically. And yet being highly passionate and exceptional at something other than academics does get noticed by the readers. And so, if you don't paper out to be the best, academically, and yet have proven another kind of exceptional, you are much more likely to be accepted than someone with perfect academics. There are many types of exceptional that are not traditionally academic, including athletics. Thus, there are PLENTY of students at Stanford besides the scholarship athletes who don't have the absolute best academic history. Admissions does NOT judge all the regular applicants by an entirely academic analysis and the recruited athletes by a completely different metric. Everyone is judged by their ability to stand out, to show some level of passion and exceptionalism, whether academic, or not. The dean of admissions, at a presentation, stated that ALL applications are given at least one reading. Everyone, regardless of SAT or GPA, is given the chance to demonstrate character, passion and exceptionalism. And if you do stand out as exceptional in some aspect they value, then you don't need super stellar academics, you just have to satisfy to them that you are academically capable. While scholarship athletes might not be competing as the top academic standouts at Stanford, they also are not distinctly the academic bottom. Measured purely on their success as students, they don't stand out, they aren't atypical, they aren't remarkable for their failures. I think you'd be hard pressed to look through random academic records and pick out which were the scholarship athletes.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Mar 4, 2023 20:22:37 GMT -5
Sorry to change the topic, but.... Does any one have a recording of the full Arizona State at Stanford match (Nov, 2022)? I have not been able to find it on youtube. TIA
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Mar 4, 2023 22:20:15 GMT -5
Thank you for changing the topic.
|
|
|
Post by tnp101 on Mar 4, 2023 23:55:47 GMT -5
Thank you for changing the topic. Thinking the same thing. Off-season blue...😴
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Mar 5, 2023 0:33:27 GMT -5
Jordyn Harvey and her sister Taylor just won the Utah 5A state basketball championship. Pretty good athletes.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 5, 2023 4:38:13 GMT -5
With all due respect this is nonsense. The vast majority of Stanford admits have both academic exceptionalism and something that makes them stand out. Athletes don't have to be academically exceptional. There are a couple of other categories that don't either. That is just a fact. And FWIW, I choose Stanford because I loved the sports and most of my friends were athletes. So I am not against this policy. But if you sat in a classroom at Stanford it is not hard to figure out who the athletes are.... Clearly, your understanding of the word exceptional differs from mine. To me, to be exceptional at something means you CLEARLY stand out against your peers, and those in the know are highly impressed and recognize your distinction. If you were to place the typical Stanford student in another university, they are not going to impress their professors with their exceptionalism, they are not going to garner instant recognition and appreciation. While they may succeed as one of the better students, they are not going to standout as distinct from the others. I don't find that exceptional. But, I did say all the admittances at Stanford are academically capable, meaning they have the ability to succeed in their coursework. If you are saying there are two obvious and distinct categories of students, the scholarship athletes and every everyone else, then you had a vastly different experience than myself. There were plenty of my fellow students who struggled and studied their asses off, and much more so than many of the athletes I knew. I can even look at myself as an example. I had a 520 on one of my SAT's. I had ZERO AP classes. I was not recruited as an athlete. My reading speed was under 100 wpm. My GPA did not put me at the top of my high school class at a surfer school that was pretty underwhelming, academically. I absolutely struggled in some types of classes and even gladly received some C's. And yet, I considered myself one of the better students among my peers at Stanford, I just had different priorities and expectations. I had a less than stellar GPA as an undergraduate there and yet still got accepted to a Stanford engineering masters program. Since SAT's and GPA's are capped, it is impossible to stand out based on those metrics. Nearly all of the applications show top tier academics. If academic exceptionalism was the main criteria for selecting an applicant, how is that being demonstrated by all the acceptances compared to the rejections? How does one account for all the perfect SAT and GPA who get rejected? The reality is that beyond a certain threshold those metrics are meaningless. The context is missing. With the tens of thousands of applications, how can one stand out and be memorable? It is very difficult to do so through an academic metric, or the number of clubs, etc. One has to be able to set themselves apart in some way, some way in which multiple application readers recognize and take notice. Stanford wants people who are passionate and exceptional, people with a certain type of character, people who are likely to succeed at their pursuits. There just aren't that many applicants who inspire awe, academically. And yet being highly passionate and exceptional at something other than academics does get noticed by the readers. And so, if you don't paper out to be the best, academically, and yet have proven another kind of exceptional, you are much more likely to be accepted than someone with perfect academics. There are many types of exceptional that are not traditionally academic, including athletics. Thus, there are PLENTY of students at Stanford besides the scholarship athletes who don't have the absolute best academic history. Admissions does NOT judge all the regular applicants by an entirely academic analysis and the recruited athletes by a completely different metric. Everyone is judged by their ability to stand out, to show some level of passion and exceptionalism, whether academic, or not. The dean of admissions, at a presentation, stated that ALL applications are given at least one reading. Everyone, regardless of SAT or GPA, is given the chance to demonstrate character, passion and exceptionalism. And if you do stand out as exceptional in some aspect they value, then you don't need super stellar academics, you just have to satisfy to them that you are academically capable. While scholarship athletes might not be competing as the top academic standouts at Stanford, they also are not distinctly the academic bottom. Measured purely on their success as students, they don't stand out, they aren't atypical, they aren't remarkable for their failures. I think you'd be hard pressed to look through random academic records and pick out which were the scholarship athletes. Apparently others have grown tired of the conversation, but I wanted to tell you I enjoyed reading that. I don’t have a dog in the fight, but your authenticity, passion, and articulation were impressive. Thank you for the read.
|
|
|
Post by tnp101 on Mar 10, 2023 4:13:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stanfankev on Mar 12, 2023 17:34:40 GMT -5
I can never keep it all straight with all the different tiers of the US Women's National Team (all the different camps, training blocks, tryouts, invite-only opportunities, etc). But according to the USWNT thread, for a training camp this summer with Karch and Co., Miner, Kipp, Oglivie, and Baird will be playing. Not sure who all got invited or how selections were made. Just excited for them. Hopefully this gets streamed in some capacity.
|
|
|
Post by vbfan999 on Mar 14, 2023 23:11:37 GMT -5
Didn’t realize Stanford was interested in Zoë Gillen-Malveaux
Does that mean they’ll have two MB’s for the class of 2025 including Taylor Harvey?
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Mar 15, 2023 2:00:05 GMT -5
Didn’t realize Stanford was interested in Zoë Gillen-Malveaux Does that mean they’ll have two MB’s for the class of 2025 including Taylor Harvey? She's very talented, I'd love to have them both.
|
|