[oldalum]

Stanford admits football players with transcripts, GPAs, and test scores that wouldn't get them admitted if they weren't playing sports, so the 5% acceptance is a bit of a canard, isn't it?

I look at it this way: athletic ability and achievement is the primary attribute or talent that football players possess on their applications and that they are bringing to the university, apart from general academic excellence. This skill/attribute is not substantively different from the horn player that the music department needs or the history buff that the history department needs, etc.; it is part of creating a diverse entering class. These days, just being a very intelligent person in general is not enough to get you admitted, there are too many of those. If you take away football from the football applicant's application, his chance of acceptance would be less than 5%, but same for the horn player or the history buff if you took away their primary attribute/ability. 

Another response is that if the top 25% academically of the nation's 3-to-5 star football recruits, or 4-to-5 star recruits, applied to Stanford, the acceptance rate would be far less than 5%. It is very difficult to get in, even as a good football player.

Bottom line is that I don't view the 5% acceptance rate as a canard. The admissions standards are a big barrier to recruiting players who we'd like based purely on football ability.

[oldalum]

Stanford admits football players with transcripts, GPAs, and test scores that wouldn't get them admitted if they weren't playing sports, so the 5% acceptance is a bit of a canard, isn't it?

I look at it this way: athletic ability and achievement is the primary attribute or talent that football players possess on their applications and that they are bringing to the university, apart from general academic excellence. This skill/attribute is not substantively different from the horn player that the music department needs or the history buff that the history department needs, etc.; it is part of creating a diverse entering class. These days, just being a very intelligent person in general is not enough to get you admitted, there are too many of those. If you take away football from the football applicant's application, his chance of acceptance would be less than 5%, but same for the horn player or the history buff if you took away their primary attribute/ability. 

Another response is that if the top 25% academically of the nation's 3-to-5 star football recruits, or 4-to-5 star recruits, applied to Stanford, the acceptance rate would be far less than 5%. It is very difficult to get in, even as a good football player.

Bottom line is that I don't view the 5% acceptance rate as a canard. The admissions standards are a big barrier to recruiting players who we'd like based purely on football ability.