[Snorlax94]

27/52 of our offered recruits last year who went elsewhere enrolled early. That's incredibly significant. I know for a fact we've lost out on studs for this reason.

And I've been ok with that.  Changing a policy because "we've lost out on studs for this reason" is not a good reason to change the policy.

I think we are going to face a reckoning in the next ten years about Stanford's identity.

BC

if they are going to allow early enrollment it should be open to all not just athletes.

I would argue that each type of student can have unique needs, and Stanford often creates accommodations so students can pursue their passions and realize their dreams.

For example, members of Latter Day Saints can defer enrollment for two years if they are going on missions. I don’t think this accommodation compromisea the university — it’s thoughtful and helps all different kinds of people join the Stanford community.

In order to realize their dreams, it’s gotten to the point that football student athletes may need to start early. I think that’s fine. It doesn’t mean Stanford needs to offer this to absolutely everyone (in fact I think it’d be a mess and would favor the wealthy). I don’t think anyone can defer for two years if they are not going on a mission, but I imagine if people had a unique need they could petition.

The key issue is that this accommodation is made to help student athletes pursue their field of interest and possibly enhance their chances at a professional career. The key is that the intention is NOT to create a separate class of student. That is what I’d be opposed to, and this is I think a major difference between Stanford student-athletes and athletes at many other colleges. The great thing about Stanford student athletes is that they understand they are coming to be “just one of the students” and they want that, and I don’t think early enrollment — when needed — necessarily compromises or alters that.

[Snorlax94]

27/52 of our offered recruits last year who went elsewhere enrolled early. That's incredibly significant. I know for a fact we've lost out on studs for this reason.

And I've been ok with that.  Changing a policy because "we've lost out on studs for this reason" is not a good reason to change the policy.

I think we are going to face a reckoning in the next ten years about Stanford's identity.

BC

if they are going to allow early enrollment it should be open to all not just athletes.

I would argue that each type of student can have unique needs, and Stanford often creates accommodations so students can pursue their passions and realize their dreams.

For example, members of Latter Day Saints can defer enrollment for two years if they are going on missions. I don’t think this accommodation compromisea the university — it’s thoughtful and helps all different kinds of people join the Stanford community.

In order to realize their dreams, it’s gotten to the point that football student athletes may need to start early. I think that’s fine. It doesn’t mean Stanford needs to offer this to absolutely everyone (in fact I think it’d be a mess and would favor the wealthy). I don’t think anyone can defer for two years if they are not going on a mission, but I imagine if people had a unique need they could petition.

The key issue is that this accommodation is made to help student athletes pursue their field of interest and possibly enhance their chances at a professional career. The key is that the intention is NOT to create a separate class of student. That is what I’d be opposed to, and this is I think a major difference between Stanford student-athletes and athletes at many other colleges. The great thing about Stanford student athletes is that they understand they are coming to be “just one of the students” and they want that, and I don’t think early enrollment — when needed — necessarily compromises or alters that.