<p>So local newspaper article about a HS senioe who signed with Stanford…to play softball…the “college” part is a total afterthought!!</p>
<p>terminology and presentation mean alot and it is like she signed with a pro team, not that she was accepted to Stanford and will play Softball…</p>
<p>Not about admission, not about applying, just signing with the team…</p>
<p>What are you trying to say? There isn’t anyone imaginable; especially an athlete who has been busting their butt in high in the hopes of getting recruited; that doesn’t understand they are going their for an education. Of all the athletes that play high school varsity sports, a very small percentage will ever have the opportunity to play at the college level. Even less will go beyond that into any type of professional sporting career. These athletes know this better than the non-athletes do. </p>
<p>Most of these kids are not only athletes, but they actually do quite well in their academics. It is an old wive’s tale to believe that because someone is an athlete that they are a “Dumb Jock”. The majority are not. I know of quite a few that do very well academically. One happens to be a 4.0gpa with a class ranking of #1. He’s also a football player and has been recruited to play in college. He’s also not the minority. Our highschool soccer team last year graduated 13 seniors. All 13 went on to college. 9 got ACADEMIC scholarships. 2 got athletic scholarships. 2 went to the junior college. There is nothing wrong with a student using their athletic abililities to help pay for going to college. While most kids can usually find in-state assistance for their state U; going to a college out of state is very expensive. It’s great to get merit and other scholarships to go to some of these expensive out of state schools; but there is absolutely nothing wrong with also using athletic abilities to help.</p>
<p>Athletics are very important to most colleges. The athletic department brings in a lot of money as well as alumni support. Believe what you want, but the local community and national networks prefer to see a college football, basketball, softball, baseball, etc… game instead of a lecture on midevil superstition or the debate team. The fact that they were recruited to the team is news. They’ve got 40,000 students doing the academic thing. I just don’t think that anyone in their right mind would think that education wasn’t a part of going to college. Even if all that was mentioned was the athletic side. Most of these kids have excellent grades and that is why they are going to these schools. To get an education. There may be a few who have aspirations of going pro, but not most. Unfortunately, tv and news only shows pictures of the inner city kid who is doing bad in all his classes, but they pass him because he can play ball. This in fact is the minority. </p>
<p>For those who think that athletes can’t also be good academically, there are programs like the “Play it Smart sports” which is heavily sponsored by the NFF and such who’s goal is to ensure that athletes are excelling academically. You might check out some of these programs.</p>
<p>cgm.</p>
<p>If you haven’t caught on yet, sports are a big part of our culture. One thing to consider about the tone you present here. When I was college age, this article never would have been written… because girls weren’t allowed to play sports and even hope to get an atheletic scholarship. </p>
<p>So please, before you comdem, realize what’s worse, a society that as little as 30 years ago didn’t believe women could compete in anything or a newspaper that celebrates a girl today who can? </p>
<p>When I see an article about a girl getting to play sports in college on a scholarship… it makes my day. Go title 9!!!</p>
<p>There is nothing unusual or wrong about saying that an athlete “signed” with a university. It’s just refers to the signing of the official Letter of Intent. It’s all a normal part of the NCAA process and has been used for many decades in schools all across the country. You can read about it here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/eligibility-recruiting/faqs/nli_financial_aid.html[/url]”>http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/eligibility-recruiting/faqs/nli_financial_aid.html</a></p>
<p>Oh I get it, its just interesting that there isn’t much of a facade anymore that its about college for many athletes…male or female…doesn’t matters</p>
<p>its business, and its professional, at least they are not pretending its about the education</p>
<p>No, you don’t get it. Re-read #4.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is that it is unlikely that a student would be the subject of a newspaper story just for getting into Stanford. How many do they take per year, 1,700 or so? On the other hand, being selected to Stanford’s softball team is a much more elite accomplishment, I’m guessing less than 10 per year have that honor - so that part of the story is more newsworthy.</p>
<p>Let’s not start a WW3 over this. As the parent of two athletes, I know that a lot of athletes bust their tails both on the playing field and in the classroom. However, there are plenty of them that don’t:</p>
<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/victoryandruins/[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/victoryandruins/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I too think that the wording “signed” should be reserved for professional athletes. Students should be “admitted”.</p>
<p>And what if she was primarily an athlete, and a Stanford student only marginally? Forget “exceptional student” - it would be just fine if she was a mediocre one.</p>
<p>She might end up as an athletic trainer at a swanky health club. She might end up eventually owning the place. This is one of the real growth industries in the country. She might end up with a degree in “exercise physiology” and work in a hospital doing cardio-rehab (I have three trainers who meet her exact profile). She might become a high school coach, and instill a sense of discipline in students who would otherwise be on the edge of dropping out. She might bring softball to girls in Africa along with a sense of pride in who they are.</p>
<p>For many students, even at Stanford, academics are WAY overrated.</p>
<p>I say good luck to her, and hope she makes the most of the opportunity.</p>
<p>It’s not even that it is more newsworthy. IT IS THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE. The article was not written under the guise of, Stanford gives everyone a great education, or reasons to consider Stanford…even for athletes. The story is about how a young woman signed an NLI to play softball for Stanford University. Not only is she an exceptional student (1700 kids who get accepted at Stanford every year are) she is also an exceptional athlete. That means she excelled in school while also putting countless hours into playing softball. Good for her, and good that women now have these opportunities!</p>
<p>cgm…this stance gets old and it is just very inaccurate. I say kudos to that young woman. She not only was sought by the college for her athleticism but she had what it takes to get into an elite college. I get real tired of the assumption that someone who plays sports in college got in for that alone, as well as is there for sports and isn’t up to par academically. </p>
<p>I can’t speak for all athletes. But I do have a daughter who is an athlete. Let me first say that she was NOT a recruited athlete. Nonetheless, she has been on a varsity sport team at an elite university for four years. She didn’t get in because she is an athlete. For one thing, she was competitive academically (valedictorian, yadda yadda). But she also does sports (among other ECs). It is not like she is a slouch academically. In college, she has maintained a stellar record academically at this very challenging university. Among her teammates, many are pre-med. Some are pre-law. My D is an applicant to highly competitive professional schools at present. These girls do it all. I just came from an entire weekend watching their events. They have to go away all weekend every weekend. They do this while keeping up with courses like Organic Chemistry and so forth. Many on the team, including my own daughter, ALSO are in other ECs at the college, often in leadership positions, on top of the huge commitment for their sport, and getting great grades academically. I know someone recruited at Stanford for sailing. These kids are GREAT students. Schools like Stanford do not need to stoop low academically to get athletes like the girl you mention. There are LOTS of very very talented athletes who are also high achievers academically. Such are the type typically accepted to schools the likes of Stanford. </p>
<p>Why does an article need to mention her education? It is implied. She isn’t going to Stanford JUST to play softball!! What is newsworthy is that she signed her intent to play for that school, among what likely was several offers if she was a very good student and top athlete both. My D picked her college for many reasons and most were academic BUT ONE factor that was important in picking her schools was to be able to continue her passion for her sport while in college. She wanted to keep doing it and so looked at schools that had teams in her sport. It has been a very meaningful part of her college experience and we will be sad to see it end for her (a lifetime of competing in this sport is coming to a close). It is not like the sport is what they are going for in and of itself. It is not my kid’s career and I bet it isn’t the other young lady’s career. But it is part of their college experience, along with the academic cravings and achievements. From personal experience, I can tell you that there are many young adults who are high achievers both in academics and in athletics. I really tire of the assumption that their sports are more important and in particular, that they are lesser students academically and got into college due to their athleticism. I venture to say that schools like Stanford take someone like the girl you mentioned because she excels BOTH academically AND in an extracurricular such as softball. Young women like her who happen to excel at a sport should not be labeled as getting into college only because of their sport nor attending college only to do their sport. As well, top colleges are challenging academically and a poor student would not last. They would be better off at an easier college and playing their sport. In order to play for an elite college, they need to be up to the academic challenge. If anything, the challenge is greater given their huge time commitments for their sports. They are to be commended and lauded.</p>
<p>BunsenBurner…while I believe such stories as the one you posted…and in all due respect to Univ. of Washington…it is not Stanford. I don’t think a school like Stanford is willing to lower the academic expectations and standards a lot to accept students not within the range of stats/profile for the school. They really do not have to. There are plenty of athletes who ALSO are good students.</p>
<p>By the way, on my D’s team at an Ivy, most of the girls have been named Academic All Americans.</p>
<p>And what if she only got it ONLY because she excelled in the sport? I don’t see anything wrong in that at all. So she may not be pre-med, or pre-law, or a future engineer, or an academic. She might even be in the bottom quarter of the graduating class (hey, there’s a full 25% down there, even at Harvard, even at Brown!) What if she IS only going in for the sport, given that college women’s softball is the only place she can play after high school? So what? (and yes, I don’t know of a single elite college that won’t go out of their way to accept a truly elite athlete only for their athletic ability.) She still can excel in her sport, with help pass all her classes (or maybe wake up and decide that she is truly academically oriented after all), and end up with a good degree, and a very good career in something that is sports/kinesiology/sports business-related. These are people entering careers that we as a society truly need, and I think it is quite unfair (and rather snooty ;)) to devalue them.</p>
<p>I think we should take pleasure in athletes who succeed who AREN’T Academic All-Americans.</p>
<p>I agree that such careers are just as valued (to me at least). </p>
<p>I don’t think the most selective schools tend to dip low academically when they take athletes, as much as another school might. Also, there are no athletic scholarships. For example, on my D’s team, I think the coach is only allowed two recruits (though more can join the team…as I said, my own kid is on the team and was NOT a recruit). One of the teams that my D’s team competes against every weekend is one of the best in her sport but a VERY VERY easy college to get into. I was talking to a parent on that team as I noticed how many new freshmen (many very talented) they had this year and she told me that their coach recruited nine girls. Well, my D’s coach could NEVER be allowed to recruit nine girls due to being a much more selective college. She said her D’s school would take anyone. Not so at my D’s school. The girls on my D’s school team are admissable to the college on academics alone and are excellent students. Very different admissions processes, as well as recruiting. </p>
<p>By the way, my D competes against your D’s school (mini) every week. Just today, I was talking to the mom of a girl on your D’s college’s team (my D is friendly with girls on the other teams and in fact, met up with this girl from your D’s school in Switzerland this past summer) and this girl, for example, went to one of the most elite prep schools in the country. I can’t vouch for her academics but I doubt she’s a slouch. A girl from our high school was admitted to your D’s college and was going to be on this team and she was also one of the top students in the class at our HS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mini, do you know that “elite” D1 schools (Satnford included) require certain academic credentials from the prospective athletes? Of course, athletes in the revenue-pulling sports might get some slack. A girl from D’s school, a national level athlete in an Olympic sport, missed the Yale cut off (min ACT 30).</p>
<p>While I don’t agree with cgm, Stanford DOES lower its academic standards for athletes in some cases. Unlike the Ivies, Stanford does give athletic scholarships and is not bound by any rules regarding the extent to which athletes can deviate from the median GPA/test scores of admitted students. There’s a reason why Stanford, Duke, et al. have better sports teams than the Ivies. </p>
<p>While there are many Stanford athletes who are true scholars, there are others who are not. John McEnroe, Tiger Woods, Dominque Dawes and others are extraordinary athletes and intelligent people, but they got into Stanford to play sports.</p>
<p>I stand corrected on athletic scholarships to Stanford. There are none at my D’s school. The kids I have met on my daughter’s team appear to be scholars who met the criteria for academic admission.</p>
<p>I have known athletes admitted to Stanford in the past 5 years with sub-1000 SATs (old SAT). I knew of at least one similar at Princeton, and at Yale. But given that I don’t know many students admitted to any of these schools these days, my sample is small. I can tell you though, that with one exception, from my neck-of-the-woods, there hasn’t been a non-athlete admitted to HYP in five years, and the vast majority of those admitted to Stanford are athletes.</p>
<p>And I say more power to them. In fact, I think that ACADEMICALLY it is a far greater feat for a student recruited solely for their athletic prowess to successfully make it through these places than those likely to be Academic All-Americans. They are likely to go far, and many cases far further than those with the high SAT scores who can perform academically without barely breaking a sweat.</p>
<p>(By the way, I do know of one at Brown - though I don’t have details on her academic record. But she dropped out, seemingly for academic reasons. Another way to say that is that she wanted to pursue her sport to an extent that academic requirements at Brown made impossible for her.)</p>
<p>Indeed, as Mini wrote, there are students at Stanford who have scored below 500 scores. What is, however, not know if their scores were skewed or not. This said, the number is extremely low:</p>
<p>From the CDS of 2007-2008 at Stanford</p>
<p>SAT … CR Math Wri
700-800 1000 1105 987
600-699 517 461 535
500-599 117 74 114
400-499 10 4 8</p>
<p>We have a friend who graduated from a major ACC school, and an outstanding soccer player, a couple of years ago. She was around throughout D1’s college search, application process, interviews, etc. She told me about her college “search” process, which was quite a different experience. As she was recruited, she said that there was VERY minimal time spent on applications, etc.–in some cases, she provided some very basic information and didn’t fill out a single form. She was bright and had respectable test scores, so it wasn’t a matter of getting a automatic “bye”, but she agreed that hers was a much different process than most people have to go through. </p>
<p>I don’t have a link to post, but I always read the articles that have the graduation rates of major NCAA football powers. For the large percentage of those players who will NOT go onto future NFL careers, sometimes you wonder if those kids are exploited in the name of the revenue that they add to the university for 4 years…</p>