[TheFarm07]

She definitely was the odd woman out with Kaylee nailing down a starting role most of the season and Brittany logging important minutes off the bench.  Rooks almost always came in during the waning minutes of the game, but most of the time freshmen usually don't log in that many minutes unless they are needed to fill a gap or they are a superstar.

Maybe she felt that she wouldn't get a lot of minutes moving forward with McPhee, Karlie and Alanna Smith in the 3-4 spots.  With her gone, that does free up a scholarship for her remaining 3 years and another spot potentially in the Class of 2016, though with only Picknell and Camp (?) leaving, we don't lose too much after next year's graduations.

[TheFarm07]

She definitely was the odd woman out with Kaylee nailing down a starting role most of the season and Brittany logging important minutes off the bench.  Rooks almost always came in during the waning minutes of the game, but most of the time freshmen usually don't log in that many minutes unless they are needed to fill a gap or they are a superstar.

Maybe she felt that she wouldn't get a lot of minutes moving forward with McPhee, Karlie and Alanna Smith in the 3-4 spots.  With her gone, that does free up a scholarship for her remaining 3 years and another spot potentially in the Class of 2016, though with only Picknell and Camp (?) leaving, we don't lose too much after next year's graduations.

[BobK]

Camp graduated.  Green is back but has an ACL    We have 4 openings for 2016.    5 graduated 4 coming in plus Green Picknell and Rooks

[BobK]

Camp graduated.  Green is back but has an ACL    We have 4 openings for 2016.    5 graduated 4 coming in plus Green Picknell and Rooks

[81alum]

At some point during one of the chalk talks early last fall, Tempie commented on all the frosh.  Tempie is always positive about everyone, but as I recall she said something about everyone arriving at different stages of being ready for the college game, and it was clear that Rooks was simply behind in that regard.  I got the impression that much of the issue was physical--I wish I could replay that talk in my head, but it was something like "Taylor is coming along, she just needs to adjust to the faster, more physical style of the college game."  She and McPhee came in as highly touted wings, but all the attention was on McPhee even though she had to overcome an injury and missed much of fall training before she could get on the court.  Think about it...McPhee missed seven weeks with an injury and still was the first of the two to get significant playing time.  The coaches decided early on that Rooks was going to be a longer term project.

Even so, I think this is a shame.  Not all of our best players have four successful years--many of them take several years to develop.  Taylor Greenfield took 3 1/2 years, unfortunately.  Ruef did not excel until she was a redshirt junior.  There is no reason to doubt that Rooks would have followed in their footsteps and eventually developed into an important contributor. 

Good wings are not easy to come by.  We graduated Bonnie and Greenfield and there would have been a lot more playing time for the two genuine wings that we have left--McPhee and Rooks.  None of the 2015 class is a wing--they are too tall (Coffee or Smith) or too short (Romano or Sniezek.)  Karlie is a 6' sharpshooter and will probably anchor the 3 provided she is healthy, but there would have been many more opportunities this year than last.  The three is now owned by Karlie and Brittany, provided they stay healthy.

What that means is that it is critical to recruit a wing or two in the 2016 class.  Natalie Chou is a 6'1" guard, and would seem to be the perfect choice. 

[81alum]

At some point during one of the chalk talks early last fall, Tempie commented on all the frosh.  Tempie is always positive about everyone, but as I recall she said something about everyone arriving at different stages of being ready for the college game, and it was clear that Rooks was simply behind in that regard.  I got the impression that much of the issue was physical--I wish I could replay that talk in my head, but it was something like "Taylor is coming along, she just needs to adjust to the faster, more physical style of the college game."  She and McPhee came in as highly touted wings, but all the attention was on McPhee even though she had to overcome an injury and missed much of fall training before she could get on the court.  Think about it...McPhee missed seven weeks with an injury and still was the first of the two to get significant playing time.  The coaches decided early on that Rooks was going to be a longer term project.

Even so, I think this is a shame.  Not all of our best players have four successful years--many of them take several years to develop.  Taylor Greenfield took 3 1/2 years, unfortunately.  Ruef did not excel until she was a redshirt junior.  There is no reason to doubt that Rooks would have followed in their footsteps and eventually developed into an important contributor. 

Good wings are not easy to come by.  We graduated Bonnie and Greenfield and there would have been a lot more playing time for the two genuine wings that we have left--McPhee and Rooks.  None of the 2015 class is a wing--they are too tall (Coffee or Smith) or too short (Romano or Sniezek.)  Karlie is a 6' sharpshooter and will probably anchor the 3 provided she is healthy, but there would have been many more opportunities this year than last.  The three is now owned by Karlie and Brittany, provided they stay healthy.

What that means is that it is critical to recruit a wing or two in the 2016 class.  Natalie Chou is a 6'1" guard, and would seem to be the perfect choice. 

[TheFarm07]

There was a recent article on ESPN.com relaying how Stanford's strict academic admissions standards have become an asset in football recruiting.  We talked about the difficulty of getting top prospects in women's bball; why isn't it more of a big deal here?

For all of Shaw's (and Harbaugh's) successes, the football team has only returned to prominence in the last 6-7 years, yet Stanford's popularity among HS recruits has seem to grown rapidly in that time period and it's become a destination school for those who want the mix of top level academics and great football performance.

But Tara has had a 25+ year history of elite success only matched by a handful of programs and offers a degree at the end that can't be beat by other successful womens bball schools.  Plus the financial incentives of a NFL career is much greater than a WNBA career or even playing overseas, so that should all play into our favor to target and develop elite level high school bball prospects in their freshman or sophomore years, so that by junior or senior year, they will have taken the AP classes and gotten high ACT or SAT scores to get into Stanford.

Yet, in the last few years, it seems maybe 1 or 2 of the top-5 or top-10 recruits have even expressed interest in Stanford as one of their final schools, much less chosen the Farm.  Is there a disconnect here somewhere?

[TheFarm07]

There was a recent article on ESPN.com relaying how Stanford's strict academic admissions standards have become an asset in football recruiting.  We talked about the difficulty of getting top prospects in women's bball; why isn't it more of a big deal here?

For all of Shaw's (and Harbaugh's) successes, the football team has only returned to prominence in the last 6-7 years, yet Stanford's popularity among HS recruits has seem to grown rapidly in that time period and it's become a destination school for those who want the mix of top level academics and great football performance.

But Tara has had a 25+ year history of elite success only matched by a handful of programs and offers a degree at the end that can't be beat by other successful womens bball schools.  Plus the financial incentives of a NFL career is much greater than a WNBA career or even playing overseas, so that should all play into our favor to target and develop elite level high school bball prospects in their freshman or sophomore years, so that by junior or senior year, they will have taken the AP classes and gotten high ACT or SAT scores to get into Stanford.

Yet, in the last few years, it seems maybe 1 or 2 of the top-5 or top-10 recruits have even expressed interest in Stanford as one of their final schools, much less chosen the Farm.  Is there a disconnect here somewhere?

[Jskass]

correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that football (and men's basketball) have easier admission standards than WBB. I read that an ACT of 28 does it for them but I'd be SHOCKED if that suffices for WBB. I understand that for football you need to field a team of 50+ players so can't possibly have the same standards. I think that's a big difference here.

Also, I'm not on the inside but my mosaic theory indicates that we're a feeder to Duke for smart WBB kids who can't get into Stanford so attend Duke because they are more admissions flexible for this sport....please tell me I'm wrong here too.

[Jskass]

correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that football (and men's basketball) have easier admission standards than WBB. I read that an ACT of 28 does it for them but I'd be SHOCKED if that suffices for WBB. I understand that for football you need to field a team of 50+ players so can't possibly have the same standards. I think that's a big difference here.

Also, I'm not on the inside but my mosaic theory indicates that we're a feeder to Duke for smart WBB kids who can't get into Stanford so attend Duke because they are more admissions flexible for this sport....please tell me I'm wrong here too.

[BobK]

Well outside of on the high ACT side you aren't wrong. 


Boley went to ND and she might have been the best player, certainly highest ranked, top 5, who had mentioned Stanford. 

[BobK]

Well outside of on the high ACT side you aren't wrong. 


Boley went to ND and she might have been the best player, certainly highest ranked, top 5, who had mentioned Stanford. 

[BostonCard]

Also, there is a question with small numbers for basketball compared to football, and a much steeper drop-off in talent generally.  A single top player can generally carry a basketball team as long as they have a decent supporting cast.  But you aren't going to get a superstar every year (or even most years) unless you are someone like Connecticut or an equivalent program, and, even under the best of circumstances, never at Stanford because of admissions.  I think under the best of circumstances we get a top target every other year or so.  If you have bad luck with admissions, or you have an admitable who for whatever reason decides to go elsewhere, you can easily have a four or year gap or longer between superstars.  And that's where we are.  The good news is that it we have done ok maintaining a stable of good supporting players; we just need to get an Ogwumike-caliber player and we will likely be back among the top-10 teams for three or so years.

Football doesn't depend on having a single top player; it is important to have quality across positions rather than a single superstar.  You can have a really good team without any top-50 recruits.  Moreover, rankings are less predictive in football than basketball, probably because the skills in the former take longer to fine tune and most players don't reach their peak physical maturity until well into college, whereas the skills and athleticism for top basketball players are usually evident earlier in their career.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, there is a question with small numbers for basketball compared to football, and a much steeper drop-off in talent generally.  A single top player can generally carry a basketball team as long as they have a decent supporting cast.  But you aren't going to get a superstar every year (or even most years) unless you are someone like Connecticut or an equivalent program, and, even under the best of circumstances, never at Stanford because of admissions.  I think under the best of circumstances we get a top target every other year or so.  If you have bad luck with admissions, or you have an admitable who for whatever reason decides to go elsewhere, you can easily have a four or year gap or longer between superstars.  And that's where we are.  The good news is that it we have done ok maintaining a stable of good supporting players; we just need to get an Ogwumike-caliber player and we will likely be back among the top-10 teams for three or so years.

Football doesn't depend on having a single top player; it is important to have quality across positions rather than a single superstar.  You can have a really good team without any top-50 recruits.  Moreover, rankings are less predictive in football than basketball, probably because the skills in the former take longer to fine tune and most players don't reach their peak physical maturity until well into college, whereas the skills and athleticism for top basketball players are usually evident earlier in their career.

BC

[BobK]

The 28 ACT is high for FB low for WBB.  There is no comparison. 

[BobK]

The 28 ACT is high for FB low for WBB.  There is no comparison. 

[TheFarm07]

Thanks for the replies.

I understand that football admissions standards are lower than other sports or for the general student body, but even so, it's still tougher for a high school football player to get into Stanford than to any other school and they would have to work harder than their peers academically to be admitted.

My point in making the comparison was not that, but just that it seems Stanford has gotten to be more popular lately (even though it's still only a sliver of the HS football recruits) that more HS football players see Stanford as a destination school, rather than just the SEC or Big Ten.  A goal that they start working hard to get into when they start high school and my pondering was why Stanford isn't seen as a goal by more elite womens high school basketball players when they enter high school as a goal to get into when they reach their senior year?

After all, a professional basketball career for women is not as lucrative as a NFL career, so that degree they get should even be more important.  Add to that a very successful program helmed by a Hall of Fame coach and it seemed like we should have a wider pool to work with (even given our very tough admissions standards) as more young players entering high school would see Stanford as a combination of both an excellent degree that will propel them in any post collegiate career they may have and playing for a winning program that regularly wins conference titles and goes far in the NCAA tournament and work during those four years (high grades, excellent test scores, extracurriculars, etc.) of high school to have a better chance of being recruited and admitted.

Boston Card's explanation about going years between superstar players seems about right.  I only started following womens bball closely when I was at Stanford in the mid-2000s, but it seemed like we had Nicole Powell for a while and then Candice Wiggins and then got really lucky to have Jayne Appel, Kayla Pedersen, Jeanette Pohlen and the Ogwumike sisters bunched together and now the pendulum has swung the other way.

[TheFarm07]

Thanks for the replies.

I understand that football admissions standards are lower than other sports or for the general student body, but even so, it's still tougher for a high school football player to get into Stanford than to any other school and they would have to work harder than their peers academically to be admitted.

My point in making the comparison was not that, but just that it seems Stanford has gotten to be more popular lately (even though it's still only a sliver of the HS football recruits) that more HS football players see Stanford as a destination school, rather than just the SEC or Big Ten.  A goal that they start working hard to get into when they start high school and my pondering was why Stanford isn't seen as a goal by more elite womens high school basketball players when they enter high school as a goal to get into when they reach their senior year?

After all, a professional basketball career for women is not as lucrative as a NFL career, so that degree they get should even be more important.  Add to that a very successful program helmed by a Hall of Fame coach and it seemed like we should have a wider pool to work with (even given our very tough admissions standards) as more young players entering high school would see Stanford as a combination of both an excellent degree that will propel them in any post collegiate career they may have and playing for a winning program that regularly wins conference titles and goes far in the NCAA tournament and work during those four years (high grades, excellent test scores, extracurriculars, etc.) of high school to have a better chance of being recruited and admitted.

Boston Card's explanation about going years between superstar players seems about right.  I only started following womens bball closely when I was at Stanford in the mid-2000s, but it seemed like we had Nicole Powell for a while and then Candice Wiggins and then got really lucky to have Jayne Appel, Kayla Pedersen, Jeanette Pohlen and the Ogwumike sisters bunched together and now the pendulum has swung the other way.

[CTcard]

If I understand the conversion tables, an ACT of 28 is equal to an SAT score of 1250 to 1280. I'd be shocked if that's below the floor for women's basketball; I'd be shocked if that's below the floor for the general student body. And I'd be shocked if we don't have football players with scores lower than that.

While none of this is exactly public information, my impression matches Bobbk that 28 ACT is high for football (well, more likely comfortable than high) and low for women's BB - but certainly not below the floor on either.

For the entire student body, Stanford does have to report some related information in the common data set.

For the incoming class of 2014*:

25th percentile composite ACT = 31
88% had a composite ACT of 30+
11% had an ACT from 24-29
1% had an ACT 18-23 

25th percentile SAT = 680 (reading), 700 (Math), 690 (Writing)

So, a 28 ACT may not be below the floor for the general student body, but it is nearing that floor.


* These are percentages of those students who reported the various scores to Stanford. 39% reported ACT scores, 86% reported SAT scores. Apparently about 25% reported both.

[CTcard]

If I understand the conversion tables, an ACT of 28 is equal to an SAT score of 1250 to 1280. I'd be shocked if that's below the floor for women's basketball; I'd be shocked if that's below the floor for the general student body. And I'd be shocked if we don't have football players with scores lower than that.

While none of this is exactly public information, my impression matches Bobbk that 28 ACT is high for football (well, more likely comfortable than high) and low for women's BB - but certainly not below the floor on either.

For the entire student body, Stanford does have to report some related information in the common data set.

For the incoming class of 2014*:

25th percentile composite ACT = 31
88% had a composite ACT of 30+
11% had an ACT from 24-29
1% had an ACT 18-23 

25th percentile SAT = 680 (reading), 700 (Math), 690 (Writing)

So, a 28 ACT may not be below the floor for the general student body, but it is nearing that floor.


* These are percentages of those students who reported the various scores to Stanford. 39% reported ACT scores, 86% reported SAT scores. Apparently about 25% reported both.

[81alum]

I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  Sure, the number of scholarships and opportunities are now regulated by Title IX, but apparently admissions standards can be quite unequal.  Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there--maybe it is because they were in general much more academically qualified than their male counterparts when they were admitted in the first place.  It seems that because of football and MBB, some significant number of Stanford male athletes meet lower standards for admissions than all female athletes.

I love Stanford football and am overjoyed by its recent success.  However, unequal admissions criteria based on gender does trouble me.  And if the argument is that it is not based on gender but rather on marketability of the sport, then why shouldn't WBB at Stanford have the same consideration as MBB at Stanford?  Or has every MBB recruit among the last 15 also had a 4.0 in high school?

[81alum]

I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  Sure, the number of scholarships and opportunities are now regulated by Title IX, but apparently admissions standards can be quite unequal.  Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there--maybe it is because they were in general much more academically qualified than their male counterparts when they were admitted in the first place.  It seems that because of football and MBB, some significant number of Stanford male athletes meet lower standards for admissions than all female athletes.

I love Stanford football and am overjoyed by its recent success.  However, unequal admissions criteria based on gender does trouble me.  And if the argument is that it is not based on gender but rather on marketability of the sport, then why shouldn't WBB at Stanford have the same consideration as MBB at Stanford?  Or has every MBB recruit among the last 15 also had a 4.0 in high school?

[CTcard]

I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  ... Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there ...

So, which side is being discriminated against?

[CTcard]

I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  ... Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there ...

So, which side is being discriminated against?

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=11153.msg121254#msg121254 date=1435156576]
I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  ... Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there ...

So, which side is being discriminated against?
[/quote]
We just had the conversation about the Bamboo curtain, that Asian Americans were perhaps held to higher admissions standards than others.  I'm not sure I am convinced by that argument, but isn't this in principle the same issue?  Women are held to higher standards for admission than men?  At least women basketball players are held to higher standards than male basketball players? 

It is an honest question.  I'm sure athletics has thought about this before. 

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=11153.msg121254#msg121254 date=1435156576]
I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  ... Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there ...

So, which side is being discriminated against?
[/quote]
We just had the conversation about the Bamboo curtain, that Asian Americans were perhaps held to higher admissions standards than others.  I'm not sure I am convinced by that argument, but isn't this in principle the same issue?  Women are held to higher standards for admission than men?  At least women basketball players are held to higher standards than male basketball players? 

It is an honest question.  I'm sure athletics has thought about this before. 

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11153.msg121256#msg121256 date=1435157410]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=11153.msg121254#msg121254 date=1435156576]
I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  ... Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there ...

So, which side is being discriminated against?
[/quote]
Women are held to higher standards for admission than men?  At least women basketball players are held to higher standards than male basketball players? 

It is an honest question.  I'm sure athletics has thought about this before.
[/quote]

Well, I was mostly trying to be funny.
But, there is a point in thinking carefully about who is getting what kind of preference over whom.

In this case, prospective female students are not being turned away in preference to male students. Female basketball playing students are being turned away in preference to other female basketball playing students with better academic records and presumably lesser basketball skills.

By itself, showing preference to those with better academic records does not seem out of line with what a university should be doing. But you can think about these things enough to tie yourself in knots.
Is there some kind of right to a spot at Stanford if a coach values your athletic skills more than the next person in line?
Does that right become stronger if the coaches' preference for male basketball skills carries more weight with admissions?
Is it a Title IX concern if preference is swapped from one woman to another?

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11153.msg121256#msg121256 date=1435157410]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=11153.msg121254#msg121254 date=1435156576]
I keep wondering about gender equity issues, not just at Stanford but at many schools.  ... Female athletes in general have higher GPAs, higher graduation rates, and higher retention rates than male athletes at most schools once they get there ...

So, which side is being discriminated against?
[/quote]
Women are held to higher standards for admission than men?  At least women basketball players are held to higher standards than male basketball players? 

It is an honest question.  I'm sure athletics has thought about this before.
[/quote]

Well, I was mostly trying to be funny.
But, there is a point in thinking carefully about who is getting what kind of preference over whom.

In this case, prospective female students are not being turned away in preference to male students. Female basketball playing students are being turned away in preference to other female basketball playing students with better academic records and presumably lesser basketball skills.

By itself, showing preference to those with better academic records does not seem out of line with what a university should be doing. But you can think about these things enough to tie yourself in knots.
Is there some kind of right to a spot at Stanford if a coach values your athletic skills more than the next person in line?
Does that right become stronger if the coaches' preference for male basketball skills carries more weight with admissions?
Is it a Title IX concern if preference is swapped from one woman to another?

[81alum]

Well, we are relatively confident that there have been women who wanted to come but couldn't get past admissions, with GPAs more in the 3.7 range than the 4.0 range.  Now admittedly GPA is not by any means the sum total of Stanford admissions--but it is the only public information we often have.  Maybe there was something else--but the fact that the last 15 WBB recruits that we know about have all been 4.0, and we have lost out on some kids who were good students who were slightly less than that, makes me wonder how much flexibility Tara actually has.  It seems to be a closely guarded trade secret.

The question is whether the last 15 MBB recruits have also all been 4.0 students?  Have we lost some MBB recruits who were excellent students but had slight less than 4.0 high school gpas?

[81alum]

Well, we are relatively confident that there have been women who wanted to come but couldn't get past admissions, with GPAs more in the 3.7 range than the 4.0 range.  Now admittedly GPA is not by any means the sum total of Stanford admissions--but it is the only public information we often have.  Maybe there was something else--but the fact that the last 15 WBB recruits that we know about have all been 4.0, and we have lost out on some kids who were good students who were slightly less than that, makes me wonder how much flexibility Tara actually has.  It seems to be a closely guarded trade secret.

The question is whether the last 15 MBB recruits have also all been 4.0 students?  Have we lost some MBB recruits who were excellent students but had slight less than 4.0 high school gpas?

[Jskass]

just think of the recent students we (may) have lost due to admissions. I know nothing but wonder if it may have been a factor - think how interested Turner was in '2014, Lambert '15 (whose nickname was Stanford) and Boley '16 were and can you imagine if we had players LIKE them (even if not exactly them)?

[Jskass]

just think of the recent students we (may) have lost due to admissions. I know nothing but wonder if it may have been a factor - think how interested Turner was in '2014, Lambert '15 (whose nickname was Stanford) and Boley '16 were and can you imagine if we had players LIKE them (even if not exactly them)?

[CTcard]

Well, we are relatively confident that there have been women who wanted to come but couldn't get past admissions, with GPAs more in the 3.7 range than the 4.0 range.  Now admittedly GPA is not by any means the sum total of Stanford admissions--but it is the only public information we often have. 

Perhaps it's a little tangential to the topic, but public information about GPA is not very useful or reliable. First of all, everybody shades when asked. Secondly, Stanford typically does not pay any attention to how individual schools calculate GPA and will recalculate applicants' GPA based upon Stanford's own consideration of what constitutes a core course and what the numerical point system for different grades should be. Applicants generally don't know what Stanford thinks their GPA is. Thirdly, between simple grade inflation and all the extra points given for A+s, honors courses, AP courses etc - 3.7 at some high schools is actually a rather poor GPA.

Maybe there was something else-- ... [it] makes me wonder how much flexibility Tara actually has.  It seems to be a closely guarded trade secret.

Most everything about admissions is a closely guarded trade secret. This is partially because Stanford explicitly claims that admissions is a subjective enterprise - and you cannot be explicit about subjective admissions decisions. It is also partly because the more you actually say about admissions criteria the more you get people mad one way or the other.

Have we lost some MBB recruits who were excellent students but had slight less than 4.0 high school gpas?

Nobody knows. "excellent student" is rather in the eye of the beholder, even if you know the records.
---------


There's that closely guarded trade secret thing again, but it certainly appears that football and men's basketball are on one level as far academic-admissions criteria,* WBB is along with some other sports at the next level, with others behind that. Whether any of this is right or wrong is a big fat target that won't find much agreement.



* or rather, how strongly athletic prowess is weighted within the myriad of factors in an admissions profile.

[CTcard]

Well, we are relatively confident that there have been women who wanted to come but couldn't get past admissions, with GPAs more in the 3.7 range than the 4.0 range.  Now admittedly GPA is not by any means the sum total of Stanford admissions--but it is the only public information we often have. 

Perhaps it's a little tangential to the topic, but public information about GPA is not very useful or reliable. First of all, everybody shades when asked. Secondly, Stanford typically does not pay any attention to how individual schools calculate GPA and will recalculate applicants' GPA based upon Stanford's own consideration of what constitutes a core course and what the numerical point system for different grades should be. Applicants generally don't know what Stanford thinks their GPA is. Thirdly, between simple grade inflation and all the extra points given for A+s, honors courses, AP courses etc - 3.7 at some high schools is actually a rather poor GPA.

Maybe there was something else-- ... [it] makes me wonder how much flexibility Tara actually has.  It seems to be a closely guarded trade secret.

Most everything about admissions is a closely guarded trade secret. This is partially because Stanford explicitly claims that admissions is a subjective enterprise - and you cannot be explicit about subjective admissions decisions. It is also partly because the more you actually say about admissions criteria the more you get people mad one way or the other.

Have we lost some MBB recruits who were excellent students but had slight less than 4.0 high school gpas?

Nobody knows. "excellent student" is rather in the eye of the beholder, even if you know the records.
---------


There's that closely guarded trade secret thing again, but it certainly appears that football and men's basketball are on one level as far academic-admissions criteria,* WBB is along with some other sports at the next level, with others behind that. Whether any of this is right or wrong is a big fat target that won't find much agreement.



* or rather, how strongly athletic prowess is weighted within the myriad of factors in an admissions profile.

[BobK]

Still a 4.0 means all A's.  Doesn't matter if Stanford doesn't count a couple of those classes, it's all A's. 


We just need some outstanding student athletes to come our way, and by that 4.0 and top 10.  :D

[BobK]

Still a 4.0 means all A's.  Doesn't matter if Stanford doesn't count a couple of those classes, it's all A's. 


We just need some outstanding student athletes to come our way, and by that 4.0 and top 10.  :D

[BostonCard]

No, a 4.0 can mean some (even all) B's if the school gives an extra point for honors/AP classes, and that's the point people have made.

BC

[BostonCard]

No, a 4.0 can mean some (even all) B's if the school gives an extra point for honors/AP classes, and that's the point people have made.

BC

[BobK]

Well given I have kids past HS none could have taken an honors class to begin with with a 3.0.  So not a valid point.    Plus we are talking WBB not FB, LOL  A difference in presentation of one's GPA. 

[BobK]

Well given I have kids past HS none could have taken an honors class to begin with with a 3.0.  So not a valid point.    Plus we are talking WBB not FB, LOL  A difference in presentation of one's GPA.