Is this real? The article is a year old.
http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSN2041220220080221
I'm sure the academic requirements are unbelievable.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yes, its real.
There are Ivies doing something similar. If family income is between 100-250K the cost is 10% of the income. Those under 100K are free.
The reality is any school with great endowments charge little for accepted students. Of course the investments they make drive the endowments and in todays economy things change fast. When my son went to Notre Dame it only cost me 4000 in tuition, between his academic and athletic money which all comes from the schools endowment fund. The moral is get the grades and be a well rounded person, you will only end up paying what you can afford where ever you go.
17 BILLION endowment..WOW! 
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
17 BILLION endowment..WOW!
Not sure about now, because the last number I saw was pre crash, but I thought Harvard's was 34 Billion.
Does this mean then that scholarships as we know them are unnecessary at schools like Stanford?
Does this give a school like Stanford a huge advantage over other schools when recruiting baseball players
OR
are their academic standards so high (won't take a dummy no matter how good he is at ball) that there is no difference?
Being new to this, this news is amazing to me and I'm having trouble getting my arms around how it works.
Somewhat related, I hear there are states such as Georgia that don't charge tuition to in-state students. How does this affect their sports recruiting? Good or bad or indifferent?
Does this give a school like Stanford a huge advantage over other schools when recruiting baseball players
OR
are their academic standards so high (won't take a dummy no matter how good he is at ball) that there is no difference?
Being new to this, this news is amazing to me and I'm having trouble getting my arms around how it works.
Somewhat related, I hear there are states such as Georgia that don't charge tuition to in-state students. How does this affect their sports recruiting? Good or bad or indifferent?
Here's a view of the endowment horizon (from a thread we had going here last March).
They won't take a dummy no matter what. The reality is all schools are being forced by NCAA to get their players on course to graduate on time. The new APR rules and the percent of scholarship rules are getting tougher all the time. I believe the NCAA last year implemented a scholarship rule where 25% of the scholarship must come from academics to be eligible for baseball money.
biggerpapi - I think if you hunt around Stanford's main website you'll find more details on all of this. I've seen it but haven't looked for it lately.
Included in the data accessible on the website is a very detailed profile of each incoming class. Its clear from that data that ballplayers have to be very good students in HS too.
Can they recruit differently because of this? I don't know...I really don't. Advantage? I think the real advantage is that a lot of kids want to go there...but as far as "real cost," I doubt they have an advantage on average. Surely some athletes are on need-aid such as this. They offer no academic money (neither do the Ivies I believe). Its all need-based, athletic or outside academic.
I was at a talk today by a D1 coach on the West Coast...a smaller private school. They do offer academic money and he laid out a scenario for a good student where the coast would be pretty minor overall...very competitive with a big state school in other words.
He also cautioned not to eliminate private schools from your recruiting list because many have ways to make things work outside of the athletic money.
I think there's some potentially really useful information about this on any college's website or with a little research...or as this coach said, don't ever hesitate to ask.
He also stressed just how terribly important it is now, more than ever, to do well academically in HS. He very clearly said that with the updated APRs and other accountability...and compressed schedule...that coaches were looking for good students more than ever.
Included in the data accessible on the website is a very detailed profile of each incoming class. Its clear from that data that ballplayers have to be very good students in HS too.
Can they recruit differently because of this? I don't know...I really don't. Advantage? I think the real advantage is that a lot of kids want to go there...but as far as "real cost," I doubt they have an advantage on average. Surely some athletes are on need-aid such as this. They offer no academic money (neither do the Ivies I believe). Its all need-based, athletic or outside academic.
I was at a talk today by a D1 coach on the West Coast...a smaller private school. They do offer academic money and he laid out a scenario for a good student where the coast would be pretty minor overall...very competitive with a big state school in other words.
He also cautioned not to eliminate private schools from your recruiting list because many have ways to make things work outside of the athletic money.
I think there's some potentially really useful information about this on any college's website or with a little research...or as this coach said, don't ever hesitate to ask.
He also stressed just how terribly important it is now, more than ever, to do well academically in HS. He very clearly said that with the updated APRs and other accountability...and compressed schedule...that coaches were looking for good students more than ever.
Ozone,
The new rule implemented last year says that if a baseball player gets any athletic (actually "countable") money, then the countable money must be at least 25% of a full ride.
All,
Need-based aid from the college is countable, so it figures into the 11.7 equivalencies. However, if a player has 1200 on SATs or a 3.5 GPA, or is in the top 10% of his HS class, all institutional aid can be exempt. I suppose that many Stanford athletes meet one of those criteria.
Aid from sources outside a college which is awarded on a basis completely removed from athletics is also not countable.
The new rule implemented last year says that if a baseball player gets any athletic (actually "countable") money, then the countable money must be at least 25% of a full ride.
All,
Need-based aid from the college is countable, so it figures into the 11.7 equivalencies. However, if a player has 1200 on SATs or a 3.5 GPA, or is in the top 10% of his HS class, all institutional aid can be exempt. I suppose that many Stanford athletes meet one of those criteria.
Aid from sources outside a college which is awarded on a basis completely removed from athletics is also not countable.
Harvard has a staff of 400 to manage its money. They managed to lose $12 billion in 2008, about a third of its endowment.
quote:Originally posted by Dad04:
They managed to lose ... about a third...
Pikers. I could give lessons.
3Finger ...thanks for the clarification. I do know from talking to coaches, they are putting heavy emphasis on the academic first approach. It used to be they would put less of a academic burden on the talented ballplayers. Now they are looking for kids that exceed school requirements. Aside from the elite athlete there are plenty of choices for a coach, and since kids and parents are so proactive the coaches are aware of many more than in the past. With APR rules and other factors kids better be putting in as much time academically as they do athletically.
I have found at least 10 schools that have this need based system.
The 8 Ivies and MIT and Stanford.
In a nutshell, if your family income is below $60K/yr. they pay for everything. If your under $100K they pay tuition, leaving you with room and board and other expenses. There are typically some income levels that trigger various levels of aid in between.
I'm pretty sure I heard that they do not offer athletic scholarships with these need-based schools.
These schools will only go so low in academics when considering who to accept. And some of this is quite recent, so stories of a Harvard student recruited to play baseball with a terrible SAT score doesn't mean much today. You have to know what they are doing today, not years ago. Remember that a change that occured in recruiting two years ago, is just now affecting the incoming class of college players.
MIT baseball stated in an e-mail to my son that they recruit players that get 700's out of 800's on the math and critical thinking sections of the SAT. They want top 5% of the class (or better) and they expect to see a very tough, college prep high school schedule. That means at least a couple AP type classes per year. The GPA is less important, but it probably needs to be in the 3.8-4.0 range unweighted.
The Ivies have the academic index, but the minimum academic standards are more for the football and basketball players. Baseball players had better have all three of the stats pointed to in an earlier post; 3.5 GPA (unweighted), 1200 out 1600 on the math and critical reading sections of the SAT, and top 10% of the class. In addition, a challenging high school schedule is a must. This is more important than many realize. These schools tend to look more at extra-curriculars as well. I've noticed the rosters have a high percentage of multi-sport athletes or baseball players that were heavily involved in other activities in high school. These are minimums and only apply to players that are hot commodities.
Stanford follows pretty closely with what the ivies are doing, but I don't think they use the same academic index. They stress that their recruits must be taking a difficult schedule in high school to be considered.
Remember that the competition for admittance to these schools for non-athletes is incredible. Kids with a perfect SAT score and straight A's can be rejected. In our school (considered a strong public HS), the top student was rejected by Stanford.
The 8 Ivies and MIT and Stanford.
In a nutshell, if your family income is below $60K/yr. they pay for everything. If your under $100K they pay tuition, leaving you with room and board and other expenses. There are typically some income levels that trigger various levels of aid in between.
I'm pretty sure I heard that they do not offer athletic scholarships with these need-based schools.
These schools will only go so low in academics when considering who to accept. And some of this is quite recent, so stories of a Harvard student recruited to play baseball with a terrible SAT score doesn't mean much today. You have to know what they are doing today, not years ago. Remember that a change that occured in recruiting two years ago, is just now affecting the incoming class of college players.
MIT baseball stated in an e-mail to my son that they recruit players that get 700's out of 800's on the math and critical thinking sections of the SAT. They want top 5% of the class (or better) and they expect to see a very tough, college prep high school schedule. That means at least a couple AP type classes per year. The GPA is less important, but it probably needs to be in the 3.8-4.0 range unweighted.
The Ivies have the academic index, but the minimum academic standards are more for the football and basketball players. Baseball players had better have all three of the stats pointed to in an earlier post; 3.5 GPA (unweighted), 1200 out 1600 on the math and critical reading sections of the SAT, and top 10% of the class. In addition, a challenging high school schedule is a must. This is more important than many realize. These schools tend to look more at extra-curriculars as well. I've noticed the rosters have a high percentage of multi-sport athletes or baseball players that were heavily involved in other activities in high school. These are minimums and only apply to players that are hot commodities.
Stanford follows pretty closely with what the ivies are doing, but I don't think they use the same academic index. They stress that their recruits must be taking a difficult schedule in high school to be considered.
Remember that the competition for admittance to these schools for non-athletes is incredible. Kids with a perfect SAT score and straight A's can be rejected. In our school (considered a strong public HS), the top student was rejected by Stanford.
Blprkfrnks - You've got a lot of accurate information...but a few guesses(?) in which I believe you are incorrect. So, I'm sorry to dissect a little...but just for accuracy sakes...
Stanford does. Thats a fact.
I believe this to be mostly true, but not an absolute at Stanford. I think in an athletes case with slightly less qualifications than this...or in cases with more qualifications than this...that the teacher/principal/counselor recommendations and the essays become very important.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here...but Stanford stresses much, MUCH more than taking a difficult schedule in HS...you gotta do very well with that difficult schedule too.
The "secret formula" is an unknown to all but the admissions office as far as I can tell. The coaches do not get every recruit in that they want...therefore I have to assume that it is a moving target from year-to-year.
quote:I'm pretty sure I heard that they do not offer athletic scholarships with these need-based schools.
Stanford does. Thats a fact.
quote:Baseball players had better have all three of the stats pointed to in an earlier post; 3.5 GPA (unweighted), 1200 out 1600 on the math and critical reading sections of the SAT, and top 10% of the class.
I believe this to be mostly true, but not an absolute at Stanford. I think in an athletes case with slightly less qualifications than this...or in cases with more qualifications than this...that the teacher/principal/counselor recommendations and the essays become very important.
quote:Stanford follows pretty closely with what the ivies are doing, but I don't think they use the same academic index. They stress that their recruits must be taking a difficult schedule in high school to be considered.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here...but Stanford stresses much, MUCH more than taking a difficult schedule in HS...you gotta do very well with that difficult schedule too.
The "secret formula" is an unknown to all but the admissions office as far as I can tell. The coaches do not get every recruit in that they want...therefore I have to assume that it is a moving target from year-to-year.
JBB-
I am completely fine with your dissections. There are some educated guesses in there and I would rather have the accuracy if you can provide it.
I am going to see if I can find where I read or heard about no athletic scholarships. I thought it was something from Stanford (a recent change). If I find it I will post it, but I realize that you have more knowledge about the Stanford rules than nearly anyone.
I am basing much of what I have learned on current recruiting of my son and others close to him. I do think that an off-the-charts recruit might break some of the stated academic barriers listed. And I didn't mean that strength of schedule is the main academic factor, but more that good grades and SAT's without a challenging coarse load probably won't cut it.
I am completely fine with your dissections. There are some educated guesses in there and I would rather have the accuracy if you can provide it.
I am going to see if I can find where I read or heard about no athletic scholarships. I thought it was something from Stanford (a recent change). If I find it I will post it, but I realize that you have more knowledge about the Stanford rules than nearly anyone.
I am basing much of what I have learned on current recruiting of my son and others close to him. I do think that an off-the-charts recruit might break some of the stated academic barriers listed. And I didn't mean that strength of schedule is the main academic factor, but more that good grades and SAT's without a challenging coarse load probably won't cut it.
From what I know...
Stanford works like the Ivies here, you must get in first. Jbb is correct, probably is a "moving target", and I believe it is strength of schedule combined with how you do in that strength, plus standardized test scores. I also believe there is emphasis on the essays.
With regard to money, yep - they do give both. They will look to "need based" academic money first, I think. And they will ask for a prequal on it - at least they did last year when this was introduced.
As for the Ivy "academic index", the Ivies will obtain your scholastic information - and each school is slightly different in their recruiting - some will know how many spots they can get in, some may not - some will prequalify you on the index, some may not. The best way to know how each does it is to attend a camp at an Ivy where other Ivy coaches will be working, and listen to the talk they give to the campers.
Stanford works like the Ivies here, you must get in first. Jbb is correct, probably is a "moving target", and I believe it is strength of schedule combined with how you do in that strength, plus standardized test scores. I also believe there is emphasis on the essays.
With regard to money, yep - they do give both. They will look to "need based" academic money first, I think. And they will ask for a prequal on it - at least they did last year when this was introduced.
As for the Ivy "academic index", the Ivies will obtain your scholastic information - and each school is slightly different in their recruiting - some will know how many spots they can get in, some may not - some will prequalify you on the index, some may not. The best way to know how each does it is to attend a camp at an Ivy where other Ivy coaches will be working, and listen to the talk they give to the campers.
On the Stanford website, I read that "all financial aid is need based".
As I dug deeper into their website it states that all financial aid "except athletic" is need based.
I'm pretty sure I originally read the first statement and took it as an absolute fact.
As I dug deeper into their website it states that all financial aid "except athletic" is need based.
I'm pretty sure I originally read the first statement and took it as an absolute fact.