I haven't read this entire thread, but I'd like to say THANK YOU JENNYX. A lot of people here (for lack of a better word) are haters. Stanford saw something special in you past your grades and SATs which aren't everything. The people on here who say she doesn't deserve it because she didn't work as hard are foolish. CLEARLY she's a athlete. What about the millions of athletes across the nation who wake up at 7am to practice before school then again for 3 hours after school, then again at home, and THEN go do their hw and ECs, etc. Are they lazy because their SATs aren't 2400? NO. Jennyx is a hard worker - just in a different way.
Jennyx you've given me hope and inspired a lot of us...so don't let HATERS make you feel bad.
Location: North California->North Carolina (Duke '14)
Posts: 466
Coming from an athlete with close to a 4.0 and a 2300 SAT, I can easily say that athletics are way harder than academics. I don't know, maybe im just naturally horrible at sports (track), but I actually admire athletic recruits for their steadfast determination. I dont know why some of you posters think that athletes are less deserving than you. They push themselves twice as hard physically and experience actual pain while you guys are whining about mental stress. I can't think of an athlete that has gone through their high school career without straining a muscle. Stanford usually recruits top athletes (meaning the athletes are prolly top 10 in the nation). If you were within the top 10 in the nation at a particular event, i dont see why you shouldn't be admitted to a top 10 university. Universities are designed to help people in all disciplines succeed, so if the OP is capable of becoming an olympic athlete, why stop her? What makes Stanford so great is that they admit these kinds of people. If you disagree with their admissions policies (which they have practiced for many years) i doubt you'll be happy attending the institution. Considering the fact that the OP is an athlete admitted to Stanford, she must be absolutely amazing as sports (stanford has a bunch of olympic medalists). congrats jennyx.
Hello Im new here and I really like your blog and it has helped me a lot..i am also a sophomore this year in high school and my GPA is 3.5 and I really feel hopeless because its a little to low for me. I really want to get into Stanford but i feel like i don't stand a chance because I'm really not that smart. Your SAT scores are really high and i have taken the practice SAT but i really failed that test. Can you give me some advice?
hi im falling in love with stanford i have a 3.8 gpa and am involed in alot am a very passionate person (animal rights, singing and dance ) but im not the best at showing any of these things.im going to be a exchange student in France mainly because i want to learn french to go study animals in Africa. tell me what i need to up my chances a bit more
I can easily say that athletics are way harder than academics. If you were within the top 10 in the nation at a particular event, i dont see why you shouldn't be admitted to a top 10 university.
I don't think people on CC are begrudging athletes at all, and most don't have a problem with the hook that comes along with being a top athlete............. URM on the other hand............. not so much.
But I really don't agree with your statement that athletics are more difficult than academics. I know you're just generalizing but being top 10 academically is extremely difficult just like being a top 10 athletic recruit. Athletics and academics are two different disciplines. Can you honestly say its harder to become the best football star than the most renowned microbiologist? I play many sports and it definitely takes determination and a lot of strength, but I also think that success in sports is more correlated to outside factors such as how much money a person has, how physically tall, big, or fast they are, the support a person gets from their family etc..... However, many people succeed in academics without the need for a lot of money or any physical wonders.
So I'd completely disagree athletics are definitelynot harder than academics.
Disagree. Do you know how many poor kids from broken families make it into the NFL, NBA, and MLB? Their parents aren't saying 'go for your dreams!' instead of 'drop out of hs and go get a job'. It's equally difficult to become a great athlete. Some genetic factors may come into play for athletics, but genetics can also play a role in intelligence. Anyway, there are also short NBA players... they definitely have everything going against them since it's pretty important to be tall in NBA. Money isn't a need for being a top athlete, neither is genes, it's about HARD WORK. The same hard work that the top microbiologists put in.
^^ I didn't say that academics are harder than athletics!!!! I'm saying that you really can't compare the two. Genetics play a large role in some sports. There are short NBA players but you don't see 5'2 players, do you???? It depends on what sport you are talking about, but do you know how much money it takes to become an Olympic figure skater? First of all you have to have parents that are willing to find world-class coaches and the money for outfits, new skates, and rink time. Sports like bball and football you don't need money, but golf clubs and time at the country club don't come cheap. Genes can also play a big role in sports. No matter how much HARD WORK I put into running the 200 M in track, I will NEVER be faster than Usain Bolt. Why is that?? Genes!! It doesn't matter if I started training since I began walking and practiced 8 hours a day, I will never be fast enough.
I don't think a comparison between athletics and academics is fair enough to say one is harder than another. I know it takes a lot of hard work to become a top athlete, and I never said it didn't, but you honestly cannot disregard the other factors that can lead to success in both athletics and academics.
I thank the Thread Creator with giving me hope. I now see that stats don't make a person, and that colleges want "people". Of course they have to admit some people with High stats, but I as a person have to come into terms with who I want to be, and follow the path I want to have.
@TS:
I agree with you, even though i didn't get accepted (was deferred during EA).
My stats are nothing special, probably below the norm for Stanford applicants and I really think my essays made an impact on the decisions I received from all the universities I applied to.
There has to be an honesty in your voice that the admissions officers want to hear, and as long as that is there I think you have a chance - with the grades/test scores/ECs to back em up, of course.
I might as well bump this thread up. This gave me hope as well as a load of information, and I'm sure everyone else could make good use of it as well. Thanks Jennyx
since when is a 2200 a bad SAT score. Do you not realize that is 91%. I may not know much about it with me being in 8th grade but if that is a bad score I am pretty scared. And the way you guys talk i cant help but wonder is 3.75 a bad gpa when it comes to getting into Stanford because that is what im at now and if its bad I need to bring it up for next year. A little help please?
Younggoalsetter, 3.75 GPA is pretty low when everyone who applies basically has 4.0's and above. AP classes will enable you to get about 4.0, to a maximum of 5.0 if you take all AP's and pass all of them with an A. Test scores are pretty big as well; a lot of the people applying to schools such as Stanford and Harvard have scores around 2300.
But then again, it's not just all about the test scores. It's much more than that.
