03-13-2015, 07:41 AM
I'm sure that's the admissions office party line, but I personally met a number of people at Stanford who were exceptional in non-academic areas but I felt were well below the average in the classroom in the areas I specifically cited. Maybe my judgment was off and these classmates had exceptional high school transcripts and test scores, but that's how I saw it. (Of course, there were also many exceptional musicians, artists, activists, etc. who were also exceptional in the classroom, just as there are exceptional athletes who are exceptional in the classroom.) But I thought these people contributed positively to the Stanford community, despite their lack of academic spark.
It is certainly debatable the number of seats in the class that should be held for students who are exceptional outside of the classroom and how many of those should be given to athletes vs. students from other disciplines. I think Stanford has probably erred on the side of fielding the most competitive athletic program in the country rather than having the best Symphony, for example. The few athletes I met who were clearly not qualified to contribute in the classroom made me question this most strongly. But in general, I think the balance is healthy and I personally greatly value the contribution made by student athletes.
It is certainly debatable the number of seats in the class that should be held for students who are exceptional outside of the classroom and how many of those should be given to athletes vs. students from other disciplines. I think Stanford has probably erred on the side of fielding the most competitive athletic program in the country rather than having the best Symphony, for example. The few athletes I met who were clearly not qualified to contribute in the classroom made me question this most strongly. But in general, I think the balance is healthy and I personally greatly value the contribution made by student athletes.