[Mick]

My understanding is that Stanford has moved in the direction of seeking applicants with “two excellences.”  That’s consistent with the data showing higher acceptance rates for athletes. The question in my mind is whether that admissions philosophy is a “good” one, whatever that means. I probably could put together an argument that athlete applicants are more likely to have successful careers, everything else equal.

In a 2016 NCAA survey, student athletes were asked what topics coaches and administrators should discuss more frequently. The single most popular topic was "academic success and preparing to get a job after college."

A study in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies indicated that former athletes earned 5% to 15% more than non-athletes. They tend to display significantly more leadership, self-confidence and self-respect than non-athletes. 50% of female executives surveyed competed in college sports. A separate EY study (in conjunction with ESPN) surveyed more than 400 female executives in five countries (only 20% were from U.S.). More than half competed in collegiate sports and only 3% never competed in sports at all. The study pointed out that three of four C-Suite women reported that athletic participation influenced their hiring decisions because athletes have intangibles like motivating others and bringing projects to completion, which are not necessarily character traits taught in the classroom.

It was found that a professional workplace is very similar to a team environment, and the skills developed by being on a team helps the former athletes seamlessly adapt to the workplace. There are coaches, mentors, rules, teammates, goals, wins and losses. The former athletes recovered from failure more easily and more completely. They are more "coach-able." They have a stronger tendency to focus on factors that are entirely within their control than non-athletes. Their work ethic and ability to work hard are more pronounced. They have leadership qualities and a focus on team success versus individual achievement.

A separate, 75,000-response Gallup study found similar results, that athletes tended to fare better across the board; in academic, personal and professional lives both during and after graduation. They had a greater propensity to thrive in health, relationships, community engagement and job-satisfaction. They also noted that the findings were consistent across all ethnicities. Athletes tended to earn their bachelor's degrees in less than five years at a higher rate than non-athletes.

NCAA Student-Athlete Outcomes 2020 (gallup.com)

In 2019, the Hechinger Report held that athletes have better odds at being employed full-time and engaged in the workplace. In fact, the HR strongly suggested that career placement counselors were less effective that athletic coaches in preparing individuals for the job market. And some schools -- like UC-Davis -- have a mandatory system to prepare student-athletes for postgraduate success. They have found that connecting student athletes with employment helps drive advancement efforts for school athletics. Athletic departments also collaborate with "Last MIle" training programs designed to bridge the gap to entry level employment.

I used to have an article that listed 13 reasons why athletes outperform non-athletes after graduation. I gave my only hard copy to my boss when my son was admitted to college in part because of his athletic prowess. She was adamantly against athletics in college (she was an excellent athlete herself), but the article turned her attitude around.

[Mick]

My understanding is that Stanford has moved in the direction of seeking applicants with “two excellences.”  That’s consistent with the data showing higher acceptance rates for athletes. The question in my mind is whether that admissions philosophy is a “good” one, whatever that means. I probably could put together an argument that athlete applicants are more likely to have successful careers, everything else equal.

In a 2016 NCAA survey, student athletes were asked what topics coaches and administrators should discuss more frequently. The single most popular topic was "academic success and preparing to get a job after college."

A study in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies indicated that former athletes earned 5% to 15% more than non-athletes. They tend to display significantly more leadership, self-confidence and self-respect than non-athletes. 50% of female executives surveyed competed in college sports. A separate EY study (in conjunction with ESPN) surveyed more than 400 female executives in five countries (only 20% were from U.S.). More than half competed in collegiate sports and only 3% never competed in sports at all. The study pointed out that three of four C-Suite women reported that athletic participation influenced their hiring decisions because athletes have intangibles like motivating others and bringing projects to completion, which are not necessarily character traits taught in the classroom.

It was found that a professional workplace is very similar to a team environment, and the skills developed by being on a team helps the former athletes seamlessly adapt to the workplace. There are coaches, mentors, rules, teammates, goals, wins and losses. The former athletes recovered from failure more easily and more completely. They are more "coach-able." They have a stronger tendency to focus on factors that are entirely within their control than non-athletes. Their work ethic and ability to work hard are more pronounced. They have leadership qualities and a focus on team success versus individual achievement.

A separate, 75,000-response Gallup study found similar results, that athletes tended to fare better across the board; in academic, personal and professional lives both during and after graduation. They had a greater propensity to thrive in health, relationships, community engagement and job-satisfaction. They also noted that the findings were consistent across all ethnicities. Athletes tended to earn their bachelor's degrees in less than five years at a higher rate than non-athletes.

NCAA Student-Athlete Outcomes 2020 (gallup.com)

In 2019, the Hechinger Report held that athletes have better odds at being employed full-time and engaged in the workplace. In fact, the HR strongly suggested that career placement counselors were less effective that athletic coaches in preparing individuals for the job market. And some schools -- like UC-Davis -- have a mandatory system to prepare student-athletes for postgraduate success. They have found that connecting student athletes with employment helps drive advancement efforts for school athletics. Athletic departments also collaborate with "Last MIle" training programs designed to bridge the gap to entry level employment.

I used to have an article that listed 13 reasons why athletes outperform non-athletes after graduation. I gave my only hard copy to my boss when my son was admitted to college in part because of his athletic prowess. She was adamantly against athletics in college (she was an excellent athlete herself), but the article turned her attitude around.