| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/14/15 11:48 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
What assertions are you talking about? What "standards" are supposedly never breached?
What I am saying is that within Stanford's normal range of admissions criteria there is more than enough room to accept most or all of the same people that Duke and Northwestern and Notre Dame are taking.
Is Stanford taking people with 340 on each SAT component or in the bottom half of their high school class? No. It's not. Neither are any of those other schools. Are there good players who simply can't get in at all? Absolutely. Just as there are at those other schools. Is Stanford more selective than most? Absolutely, probably the most restrictive of the bunch. But is it taking people with 610 on each SAT component. Absolutely. A lot of them. Is it taking people with 450 on their SAT sections? Yes, not many, but a few.
If you're claiming that athletics plays no role in the decision to accept any of those marginal applicants, then it's encumbent upon you to prove it. If you're claiming no one is ever admitted with less than 750 on each SAT component, that is simply untrue.
And Stanford FANS have long made those assertions about "no exceptions". If Stanford itself has ever said that athletics plays no role in admission decisions and that it ignores completely athletics when judging applications, I'd like to see it. I don't think Stanford is lying. I don't think Stanford's ever said it.
Like every other school, Stanford doesn't have rigid "standards" or minimums, it accepts students with a wide range of test scores and grades, and like at every other school other factors influence admission decisions. It could be racial or geographic diversity, who your parents are, or proficiency with a flute, software code, or a basketball. And those characteristics can enable a person to be admitted who otherwise would never be admitted. That Stanford is highly selective doesn't mean that it doesn't take athletes because they're athletes who it would otherwise reject.
This isn't shocking news. The stunning part is that any fans would deny it.
Stanford publishes all their admission stats. You can read them all right here:
http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2014
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's all in the dissemination. Yes athletes get in on scores, GPAs etc that otherwise a normal student without any extracurricular wouldn't. Doesn't mean that standard isn't high. But to say that a student with NO extracurricular would get into Stanford with X SAT and Y GPA would be an inaccurate statement.
I don't like the excuse, I think it is bogus. For example we have a top 10 player who got in and most think she is the dumbest player, so having academics or being ranked doesn't mean you have a high basketball IQ. Too many look at an athlete in high school and not at how they really play the game.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11166
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| But is it taking people with 610 on each SAT component. Absolutely. A lot of them. Is it taking people with 450 on their SAT sections? Yes, not many, but a few. |
Very interesting. And what's your source for this?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 1:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But is it taking people with 610 on each SAT component. Absolutely. A lot of them. Is it taking people with 450 on their SAT sections? Yes, not many, but a few. |
Very interesting. And what's your source for this? |
Did you bother to look at the link? It's right there. For each year going back to 1999.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3517
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 7:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| That would be very few. Based on the tables in that link, only 2-4 students with SAT's in the 400's enrolled as freshmen last year. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that Stanford isn't stocking up its women's basketball team with a bunch of lousy students.
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 7:12 pm ::: Sorry Art, you are wrong |
Reply |
|
I am sure you are wrong. I can (but I won't because it is not fair to the players) write a very long list of very smart Stanford WBB recruits with good but not great grades and test scores that either did not get admitted or were never given an application at all because Admissions said no. There are no spots saved on any roster for recruits the coaches want but who would not get in.
Is it easier for a top athlete to get admitted than "just" a "regular" student? Yes, because being really great at a sport is like being really great at dance or music or whatever. However, Admissions requires test scores, grades, AP classes, etc. that they feel indicate that a student will thrive academically. And those standards are higher than ND or Duke or whoever else you want to name.
I'm not going to argue or explain how I know so surely, so you can take this or leave it. There really are kids out there with 3.5+ GPAs and decent to good SAT scores that do not get in no matter how badly a coach may want him or her. Even football, the cash cow with the huge roster, has recruits they really, really want get dinged by Admissions. Happens all the time. Again, we are talking recruits with good academics, just not quite where Admissions wants.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 7:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
| That would be very few. Based on the tables in that link, only 2-4 students with SAT's in the 400's enrolled as freshmen last year. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that Stanford isn't stocking up its women's basketball team with a bunch of lousy students. |
Nobody said they are. Thise numbers you're looking at occur every year. Plus there's what, 60-80 who scored in the 500s? And 20-25% of the class is scoring in the 600s. Not everyone has straight 800s.
The only point is that it's a total myth created by fans that Stanford's not taking anyone who doesn't have perfect grades and SATs. Nobody's claiming that the entire WBB team is a bunch of dummies. They're obviously not. But if it's taking one player in that bottom 5% of entering freshmen evey couple years, then it has the flexibility to recruit a pretty wide swath of top players and can take basically all the same players that Duke and ND are taking.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 7:37 pm ::: Re: Sorry Art, you are wrong |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
I am sure you are wrong. I can (but I won't because it is not fair to the players) write a very long list of very smart Stanford WBB recruits with good but not great grades and test scores that either did not get admitted or were never given an application at all because Admissions said no. There are no spots saved on any roster for recruits the coaches want but who would not get in.
Is it easier for a top athlete to get admitted than "just" a "regular" student? Yes, because being really great at a sport is like being really great at dance or music or whatever. However, Admissions requires test scores, grades, AP classes, etc. that they feel indicate that a student will thrive academically. And those standards are higher than ND or Duke or whoever else you want to name.
I'm not going to argue or explain how I know so surely, so you can take this or leave it. There really are kids out there with 3.5+ GPAs and decent to good SAT scores that do not get in no matter how badly a coach may want him or her. Even football, the cash cow with the huge roster, has recruits they really, really want get dinged by Admissions. Happens all the time. Again, we are talking recruits with good academics, just not quite where Admissions wants. |
I think you should definitely call up Stanford and tell them that the data they are publishing is obviously incorrect. 
I find it interesting how shocked some people seem to be that the real data doesn't seem to match their preconceptions.
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 8:06 pm ::: Re: Sorry Art, you are wrong |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| insidewinder wrote: |
I am sure you are wrong. I can (but I won't because it is not fair to the players) write a very long list of very smart Stanford WBB recruits with good but not great grades and test scores that either did not get admitted or were never given an application at all because Admissions said no. There are no spots saved on any roster for recruits the coaches want but who would not get in.
Is it easier for a top athlete to get admitted than "just" a "regular" student? Yes, because being really great at a sport is like being really great at dance or music or whatever. However, Admissions requires test scores, grades, AP classes, etc. that they feel indicate that a student will thrive academically. And those standards are higher than ND or Duke or whoever else you want to name.
I'm not going to argue or explain how I know so surely, so you can take this or leave it. There really are kids out there with 3.5+ GPAs and decent to good SAT scores that do not get in no matter how badly a coach may want him or her. Even football, the cash cow with the huge roster, has recruits they really, really want get dinged by Admissions. Happens all the time. Again, we are talking recruits with good academics, just not quite where Admissions wants. |
I think you should definitely call up Stanford and tell them that the data they are publishing is obviously incorrect.
I find it interesting how shocked some people seem to be that the real data doesn't seem to match their preconceptions. |
I find it interesting that you think the data you posted shows anything about admissions of athletes. So between 2% and 5% of freshmen score between 500-599 on one portion of their SATs. That tells you what about recruited athletes? Someone who scores off the charts in math but middling in Verbal could (and probably does) account for much of that. They could be a gifted artist or whatever. Could some of those be athletes? Well sure, but you don't know that and it doesn't mean that person doesn't have a 4.0 or more with a heavy load of AP classes or whatever. The point is there are admission standards that other places don't hold to, not that there is zero variation and everyone who gets in has perfect SATs.
0.2 percent of freshmen score between 400-499? So like 2 or 3 freshmen? Who may not be athletes? About 10% of undergraduates at Stanford are varsity athletes I believe, which is about 700 not 3. You have shown nothing. Again, take it or leave it but really, there are no special get in free cards for athletes. They have to apply and Admissions has to say yes, we feel you fit in academically, can do the work, will be able to handle school and athletics, a difficult combo.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 8:53 pm ::: Re: Sorry Art, you are wrong |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
| Again, take it or leave it but really, there are no special get in free cards for athletes. They have to apply and Admissions has to say yes, we feel you fit in academically, can do the work, will be able to handle school and athletics, a difficult combo. |
This isn't unique. Same thing happens at Notre Dame. And Northwestern. And UVA. And I assume a number of other places. Same process. Same assessment. Same "have to be approved by admissions." Same assessment of "can you do the work and succeed here 'cause we expect you to graduate in four years or less and we don't have a phys ed program where we can hide you."
If you've bothered reading the thread you'd know that the only point is that the range of people being admitted every year is a hell of a lot broader than Stanford fans want to pretend. The data is right there for all to see.
Heck, I don't expect anyone to open their eyes. Applying the old "she couldn't get in" to everyone who chooses somewhere else is so much more comforting.
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/14/15 9:46 pm ::: Re: Sorry Art, you are wrong |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| insidewinder wrote: |
| Again, take it or leave it but really, there are no special get in free cards for athletes. They have to apply and Admissions has to say yes, we feel you fit in academically, can do the work, will be able to handle school and athletics, a difficult combo. |
This isn't unique. Same thing happens at Notre Dame. And Northwestern. And UVA. And I assume a number of other places. Same process. Same assessment. Same "have to be approved by admissions." Same assessment of "can you do the work and succeed here 'cause we expect you to graduate in four years or less and we don't have a phys ed program where we can hide you."
If you've bothered reading the thread you'd know that the only point is that the range of people being admitted every year is a hell of a lot broader than Stanford fans want to pretend. The data is right there for all to see.
Heck, I don't expect anyone to open their eyes. Applying the old "she couldn't get in" to everyone who chooses somewhere else is so much more comforting. |
I don't know of anyone who applies "she couldn't get in" to everyone who chooses to go somewhere else. Big straw man you just tossed up with that. The point is that Stanford's admissions standards for athletes are more stringent than other places. The stats you rolled out don't say otherwise. Why don't you roll out the same stats for ND, just for kicks. I would not call the range of admissions broader than expected because they let in two or three kids with a low score on one portion of the SATs. You mean to say that .2% scoring below 500 on a portion of their SATs or 3% scoring below 600 on one portion is a lot broader than you expected? That is fairly ridiculous. I'll let you figure out why.
You don't want to take the word of people who have seen firsthand the recruiting process for many years and know how it goes. Simple fact is that Stanford cannot recruit many that every other team can due to admissions. Of course that does not mean that everyone who goes elsewhere could not have gotten in. That was never the point.
You can believe whatever you want. You are just wrong, sorry. But go on believing what you want. It makes no difference. I'm done. I know how you like to keep on regardless of what anyone tells you. I'm done playing.
|
|
22
Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 102
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 4:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Penina Davidson, now at Cal, was a Stanford recruit that didn't get in (as publicly confirmed by Davidson & both coaches).... I don't think she qualifies as an elite recruit, but the fact that she and the staff got caught by surprise is telling.
Obviously admissions is not an exact science (not that anyone's presented sufficient evidence here anyway), but if overall acceptance rate can be used as a general proxy, Stanford's admission standards seem to make it harder to get into than Duke or ND - as rigorous as their own standards may be.
Even if the difference is small, I would think for recruiting purposes -- where the pool of truly elite players is small to begin with -- any difference at the margins would have a noticeable impact (not that that would rule out other issues for their recent recruiting as well).
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11166
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 9:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I can't get the link to open, Art ... but obviously others have ...
But here's the difference, I think, though I could be wrong: Most athletic programs have a certain number of kids they can get in for their teams pretty much regardless of grades (they have to qualify per the NCAA standards, but that's it). So Duke can get two women's basketball players in every year, as long as they meet the minimal NCAA standards.
Stanford does not have those automatic exclusions and must compete with more important sports (football and men's basketball) for the apparently very few spots available for low qualifiers.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 10:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I can't get the link to open, Art ... but obviously others have ...
But here's the difference, I think, though I could be wrong: Most athletic programs have a certain number of kids they can get in for their teams pretty much regardless of grades (they have to qualify per the NCAA standards, but that's it). So Duke can get two women's basketball players in every year, as long as they meet the minimal NCAA standards.
Stanford does not have those automatic exclusions and must compete with more important sports (football and men's basketball) for the apparently very few spots available for low qualifiers. |
I'm not convinced Duke does that for anything other than Men's BB. I know ND, UVA, Georgetown and Northwestern don't do it. I don't think Vandy or Wake do either. And they don't have a phys ed dept where they can stash athletes. They all require significantly higher than NCAA minimums. They all have a significantly reduced pool of potential recruits. Yes, they take athletes who otherwise would never have a chance of admission, but so does Stanford. And, as I've said, I believe that Stanford is tougher on athletic admissions than any of the others, but not by much, and not by enough to explain the gap in WBB recruiting.
This isn't like football where academics may eliminate 80% or more of the potential top recruits from being recruited by some of these schools. Academic records tend to be higher for women basketball recruits, and the number of people being recruited is so much smaller. I don't buy the notion that admission standards prevent success by any school. It may mean they have to work harder at recruiting the smaller pool.
Most of these places also have decent communications between coaching staffs and admission staffs so that they can get a good sense of the likelihood of admission early on in the process and not waste their time. They're not always right, but they have a pretty good idea from day 1. The most disfunctional place I've seen has been UVA which had several instances in football a few years ago of handing out offers and having them accepted only to have admissions turn the players down very late in the process. It was like the coaches and admissions people never spoke to one another.
Georgetown gave John Thompson pretty much carte blanche on admissions in MBB for a few years in the Patrick Ewing era, until after a few embarassments like Alan Iverson and Victor Page the good fathers said enough is enough and reimposed much higher requirements, which led to Thompson choosing to retire.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 11:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Why are you using Duke as an example? Just curious how Salvadores got admitted when she basically doesn't speak english?
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 11:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| Why are you using Duke as an example? Just curious how Salvadores got admitted when she basically doesn't speak english? |
Do you have any idea what her academic background is?
Every one of these schools admits foreign students for whom English is not their first language.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 12:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Errrr do you notice the ?s in my post!
There is english not the main language but I have heard her being interviewed by an english reporter and she could not answer anything in english and had to have everything translated, which is why I assumed Hernando Planells was the reason she came to Duke. Not sure, but would think that there is some english proficiency writing course in order to get a degree, even at Duke.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/15/15 10:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I notice the ESPNW article on Lauren Cox today says she has a 3.8 GPA. Another article I saw today says Erin Boley has a 4.0. Other reports say that Destiny Slocum has a 3.8. , Jackie Young a 3.9, Natalie Chou a 3.9. Leaonna Odom a 3.7. Etc. There are quite a few top players with academic credentials like that. I don't think anyone can blame admissions if their favorite school doesn't land those elite players. They could go anywhere.
Interestingly, Marta Sniezek, a freshman this year at Stanford, went to an outstanding school in DC (National Cathedral School) but by numerous published accounts only had a 3.0 GPA.
|
|
LegoMyEggo
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 284
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/15 8:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| If you would've put your peepers on a certain former Duke guard's transcript, who played at Riverdale Baptist HS, you may change your opinion.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7860
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/15 9:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
Errrr do you notice the ?s in my post!
There is english not the main language but I have heard her being interviewed by an english reporter and she could not answer anything in english and had to have everything translated, which is why I assumed Hernando Planells was the reason she came to Duke. Not sure, but would think that there is some english proficiency writing course in order to get a degree, even at Duke. |
There are people (I am one) who do well in written renderings of a language, Spanish in my case, but not so well in spoken variations, especially if it's very fast or colloquial. If I'm given time to think about it, which I'm usually not, I can formulate a reply, but otherwise, yikes! This could be Salvadores' problem with interviews. Just suggesting.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/15 9:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Let me go one further, the coaches I talked to said there was no way they could recruit her due to her NONE english, I wasn't being facetious just asking how this would work?
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/15 12:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Evidently she had to pass an English exam in order to be admitted, according to a post here from readyaimfire53 earlier this year and to this article:
http://europa.eu/youth/es/article/67/23770_en
"Angela Salvadores is going to the prestigious and tough American university of Duke, in the city of Durham, next year. There, she is studying Economics.
But, before that, she needs to get a good grade in her English exam And, right now, that is her priority. Its an extra effort in addition to her own studies, but she does it willingly, because she was the one who chose to go to Duke, and she already knew what that meant. She is sure that graduating there will be very important for her."
I expect it's the same test as this referenced on Stanford's website - "The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), although not required, is strongly recommended for non-native speakers of English."
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
|
Oldfandepot2
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/04/15 6:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ionescu, she is goood! That would be one hell of get for Rueck.
_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
|
|
|
|
