[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.