[jacketree]

Athletic admission is separate from the general pool so there will be no effect. There are slots for athletes and there are slots for everybody else. Alternatively Stanford could disband its athletic program.

Stanford's absurdly low admit rate is a simple matter of the college-age denominator; which itself is a function of easier access to college applications with fees waived if need be or even to encourage more applications, and the volume of applications to all colleges and universities. I bet the typical number of college applications per kid these days is between 10 and 20.  My own anomalous daughter was accepted so early she stopped at three.  My son sent in 13 because it was a baker's dozen and didn't cost a dime.  His inbox had hundreds of invitations from schools from the obscure to famous (including UC Hicago, where he had no business going) offering "express" applications for free. Twelve of those applications were painfully easy.  Control C, Control V and Control F.  The application to his ultimate destination was literally painful, involving MRI scans, rehabilitation and a lot of antacid.  And that was after he had been given his Letter of Assurance.  We did pay on the back end to secure slots at an alternate ROTC unit in Boston and a "best civilian scholarship offer" university in Washington D.C. in case something happened.  For about a minute in a hotel room the night before Induction Day, we thought it might.

Anyway, back to the subject, this is a great little circle of increased prestige without any real change in educational quality.  There are more kids.  You don't see a thousand new universities established each year.  More kids apply everywhere, admit rates decline everywhere, so more kids apply everywhere, so admit rates decline....

Is Stanford twice as good than it was when the admit rate was 9 percent?  No.

[jacketree]

Athletic admission is separate from the general pool so there will be no effect. There are slots for athletes and there are slots for everybody else. Alternatively Stanford could disband its athletic program.

Stanford's absurdly low admit rate is a simple matter of the college-age denominator; which itself is a function of easier access to college applications with fees waived if need be or even to encourage more applications, and the volume of applications to all colleges and universities. I bet the typical number of college applications per kid these days is between 10 and 20.  My own anomalous daughter was accepted so early she stopped at three.  My son sent in 13 because it was a baker's dozen and didn't cost a dime.  His inbox had hundreds of invitations from schools from the obscure to famous (including UC Hicago, where he had no business going) offering "express" applications for free. Twelve of those applications were painfully easy.  Control C, Control V and Control F.  The application to his ultimate destination was literally painful, involving MRI scans, rehabilitation and a lot of antacid.  And that was after he had been given his Letter of Assurance.  We did pay on the back end to secure slots at an alternate ROTC unit in Boston and a "best civilian scholarship offer" university in Washington D.C. in case something happened.  For about a minute in a hotel room the night before Induction Day, we thought it might.

Anyway, back to the subject, this is a great little circle of increased prestige without any real change in educational quality.  There are more kids.  You don't see a thousand new universities established each year.  More kids apply everywhere, admit rates decline everywhere, so more kids apply everywhere, so admit rates decline....

Is Stanford twice as good than it was when the admit rate was 9 percent?  No.