Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Northwestern, other Ivies What Does It Take ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

The schools really should think about cutting some of those sports that don't have regular attendance or create any sense of community. They are also expensive to operate. Stanford tried to cut multiple sports and the alums went crazy and are now privately funding a number of them.

Ivy League football attendance isn't great but it is still far better than any other regular campus activity I can think of. Yale and Harvard both averaged over 10,000 in 2021 and Princeton, Columbia, and Dartmouth all averaged over 5,000 https://herosports.com/2021-fcs-attendance-leaders-bzbz/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

Yeah they are all low level athletes at ivies unless you consider rowing a sporr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

My kid was admitted to Harvard RD. She did not want to ED anywhere and would have been satisfied with any of the schools on her well-balanced list which included ASU w/ Barrett Honors College as her likely. It’s a matter of fit. Did not apply to Princeton as she did not like the sound of the eating clubs. Was rejected from Stanford REA. She applied there REA as they do not defer most applicants like Harvard and other schools do. She took the L and moved on. Harvard was her first choice all along — just never thought she’d get in. Was admitted to U-M EA and a few others as well, but she just did not have a favorite school that offered ED.

Awesome to see this great result despite the Stanford rejection. You just can't predict what will happen. Why didn't she apply REA to Harvard given your full top choice comment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

Yeah they are all low level athletes at ivies unless you consider rowing a sporr

Yeah, they even let me play D1. Definitely low level.

Stanford gives athletic scholarships. They take sports seriously.

[Anonymous]

Stellar stats are enough if you go to an elite high school and are at the very top of the class.

NCS has sent the last 2 valedictorians to Stanford.
STA has sent the last 5 boys to Yale 2, Princeton 2, Stanford.
Sidwell is the same.

Easier said then done to get the top spot at these schools but these kids did not commonly have anything on their resumes besides the standard school clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

Yeah they are all low level athletes at ivies unless you consider rowing a sporr

Becoming a "low level" Ivy athlete or maybe just an even lower level D3 athlete (MIT, Hopkins, Chicago, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc.) can't be too hard for most multitalented kids, right? With the hook it provides, maybe this is what our kids should focus on for the next year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stellar stats are enough if you go to an elite high school and are at the very top of the class.

NCS has sent the last 2 valedictorians to Stanford.
STA has sent the last 5 boys to Yale 2, Princeton 2, Stanford.
Sidwell is the same.

Easier said then done to get the top spot at these schools but these kids did not commonly have anything on their resumes besides the standard school clubs.

Any legacy connections in there that you know of? Not that they'd be needed (they'd help though).
Also, know if any applied REA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

Yeah they are all low level athletes at ivies unless you consider rowing a sporr

Wrong. Check out all the boys tennis recruits in recent years. All wanting to go to ivies and all are top ranked. One just won junior Wimbledon going to Columbia,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

Yeah they are all low level athletes at ivies unless you consider rowing a sporr

Wrong. Check out all the boys tennis recruits in recent years. All wanting to go to ivies and all are top ranked. One just won junior Wimbledon going to Columbia,

They play awesome squash in the Ivy League too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stellar stats are enough if you go to an elite high school and are at the very top of the class.

NCS has sent the last 2 valedictorians to Stanford.
STA has sent the last 5 boys to Yale 2, Princeton 2, Stanford.
Sidwell is the same.

Easier said then done to get the top spot at these schools but these kids did not commonly have anything on their resumes besides the standard school clubs.

Any legacy connections in there that you know of? Not that they'd be needed (they'd help though).
Also, know if any applied REA?

NCS not legacy. I doubt STA or Sidwell either. Graduating #1 at one of these schools is a phenomenal accomplishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stellar stats are enough if you go to an elite high school and are at the very top of the class.

NCS has sent the last 2 valedictorians to Stanford.
STA has sent the last 5 boys to Yale 2, Princeton 2, Stanford.
Sidwell is the same.

Easier said then done to get the top spot at these schools but these kids did not commonly have anything on their resumes besides the standard school clubs.

Any legacy connections in there that you know of? Not that they'd be needed (they'd help though).
Also, know if any applied REA?

NCS not legacy. I doubt STA or Sidwell either. Graduating #1 at one of these schools is a phenomenal accomplishment.

Yes, it its! I know at least one of them doesn't share rank though (not sure about the others). At smaller schools like those, the eventual #1 may not be ranked first while applying early senior year either.

[Anonymous]

I think it is great that this thread has stuck to what it takes or what you might need to get admitted to one of these great schools (including luck). It is important that kids realize they don't "deserve" admission to one or any of them. Yes, they are special to all of us but admissions officers can reasonably admit others. When rejection happens, you can still get that yes from an amazing school (even Harvard after a Stanford rejection in the earlier example).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

There are 29 former Stanford players currently on NFL rosters.
https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/active-nfl-players-by-college/stanford/91901

When was their last national championship in college football?

Stanford has been to 9 bowl games since 2010 including 3 Rose Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, and an Orange Bowl. They are down this year but have certainly competed on the national level since the 2000s.

That's nice. The answer is 1940.

National titles are far from the only measure of football success. Your question wasn't a good one to get at what you were trying to imply (a lack of football success), so I provided some compelling data to help you see how objectively successful the program has been

I guess it is the appropriate sport for moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

There are 29 former Stanford players currently on NFL rosters.
https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/active-nfl-players-by-college/stanford/91901

When was their last national championship in college football?

Stanford has been to 9 bowl games since 2010 including 3 Rose Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, and an Orange Bowl. They are down this year but have certainly competed on the national level since the 2000s.

That's nice. The answer is 1940.

National titles are far from the only measure of football success. Your question wasn't a good one to get at what you were trying to imply (a lack of football success), so I provided some compelling data to help you see how objectively successful the program has been

I guess it is the appropriate sport for moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

There are 29 former Stanford players currently on NFL rosters.
https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/active-nfl-players-by-college/stanford/91901

When was their last national championship in college football?

Stanford has been to 9 bowl games since 2010 including 3 Rose Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, and an Orange Bowl. They are down this year but have certainly competed on the national level since the 2000s.

That's nice. The answer is 1940.

National titles are far from the only measure of football success. Your question wasn't a good one to get at what you were trying to imply (a lack of football success), so I provided some compelling data to help you see how objectively successful the program has been

I guess it is the appropriate sport for moving the goalposts.

Funny line! I'm happy anyway since Stanford beat Notre Dame in primetime, which will help with more of that recruiting. I don't think Stanford will win a national title in football in the next 5 years but here is to hoping...

Stanford does have an amazing overall athletic department though. I'm biased but I like that the university strives for excellence in everything it does and don't get the Ivy League's decision to remain D1 and yet compete not so well without athletic scholarships.