Talia von Oelhoffen 2021

[EricSD]

Regardless of all the back and forth yaya, look at what matters, the #1 W, Demeter, has already committed to Stanford for 2021. If PT is a consideration TVO, may be considering alternatives. Just a thought

True but Fudd is also a 5'11" guard/wing type. When you consider that UCONN has Guards of Bueckers, Muhl, Makurat and Williams as well as wing/forward types of McLean, Edwards and Poffenbarger, if we land Fudd, a guard/wing, I would be hard pressed to see where Talia could see herself as a starter much before her senior year. If that's something that is important to her, I'd say Stanford and UCONN are both stacked.

Doesn't mean she wouldn't get lot of PT - Geno will have the unusual scenario where he has legit 10 really good to great players, so starters won't be out there for 40 minutes. Probably 25-28 at the very most...

IMHO the thing UCONN needs most is a big bruising center type (ie. back to the basket center). Just to have "one of everything"... Cuz we sure have just about everything else!!

 

[oldude]

True but Fudd is also a 5'11" guard/wing type. When you consider that UCONN has Guards of Bueckers, Muhl, Makurat and Williams as well as wing types of McLean and Poffenbarger, if we land Fudd, a guard/wing, I would be hard pressed to see where Talia could see herself as a starter much before her senior year. If that's something that is important to her, I'd say Stanford and UCONN are both stacked.

Doesn't mean she wouldn't get lot of PT - Geno will have the unusual scenario where he has legit 10 really good to great players, so starters won't be out there for 40 minutes. Probably 25-26 at the very most...

Aaliyah at 6’3” is also very capable of playing the wing.

 

[Bama fan]

Frankly, I'd want her just for her name alone.

KVO sounds great!

 

[BobbyJ]

KVO sounds great!

Except her first name is Talia.

 

[MilfordHusky]

I think a lot of this is what we mean by involvement. At a very basic level, every recruited varsity athlete at Stanford has coach involvement in admissions, insofar as coaches' "athletic recommendations" are part and parcel to the admissions evaluation process for student-athlete applicants (see here for Stanford's recently announced changes to this process after the sailing team bribery scandal).

I think the main thing none of us is entirely sure about is how much influence, and how much the "athletic recommendation" can bump an otherwise non-admissible profile into being admissible. My guess is that it's not as great as you suggest, but more than zero. But I don't think we can safely assume all the players you mentioned could be admitted simply because Tara said she wanted them.

I'm not sure if the term "non-admissible" is fully accurate, though I cannot offer a better choice off the top of my head. There is a continuum of the degree of admissibility and the ability to succeed at schools like Stanford. The admissions office also looks for well-rounded kids who are "glue" students. (I'm not sure Stanford Admissions used that term, but it was clearly the same idea.) I haven't looked at the stats recently, but the majority of high school valedictorians who apply to Stanford and Brown are declined admission. A large percentage of applicants with perfect SAT scores are also denied. It's not all about GPA and SATs. Other parts of a student's resume factor in, including whether he/she is a legacy candidate.

When I did alumni interviewing for Brown (I corrected my time frame to 20+ years ago from 2+ years ago), the acceptance rate was about 16%, or 1 in 6. Largely or at least partly due to Brown shifting to use of the Common App, the number of applicants soared since then and the acceptance rate correspondingly plummeted. Back then, this is how Brown viewed things: Admissions thought that 4 in 6 were academically capable of graduating and even prospering. They thought the bottom 33% (or 2 in 6) would struggle or fail at Brown. Thus, the admissions process had essentially 2 parts: (1) weed out the weak applicants (roughly 1/3 of the pool) and (2) choose 1/4 of the remaining applicants. I think it's clear that the bottom 33% are largely "non-admissible," but almost all of those offered admission were in the top 67%. Though some of the top 67% were clearly stronger than others, none of them was deemed strictly "non-admissible." I don't know the individual situations, but the stats showed, based on SATs and GPAs, that a very small number of people from the bottom 1/3 were admitted. They obviously had something very special going for them. [Apologies for rambling, but it's my 1st draft.]

 

[MilfordHusky]

Except her first name is Talia.

Then we'll make it TVO.

TiVo??? Watch her highlights!

 

[JoePgh]

The possibility of having Poffenbarger, Wolfenbarger and Oelhoffen on the floor together? Priceless.

And why not add #8 Payton Verhulst to that list as well? You would have what sounds like the Prussian General Staff coming off the bench ...

 

[CocoHusky]

I'm not sure if the term "non-admissible" is fully accurate, though I cannot offer a better choice off the top of my head. There is a continuum of the degree of admissibility and the ability to succeed at schools like Stanford. The admissions office also looks for well-rounded kids who are "glue" students. (I'm not sure Stanford Admissions used that term, but it was clearly the same idea.) I haven't looked at the stats recently, but the majority of high school valedictorians who apply to Stanford and Brown are declined admission. A large percentage of applicants with perfect SAT scores are also denied. It's not all about GPA and SATs. Other parts of a student's resume factor in, including whether he/she is a legacy candidate.

When I did alumni interviewing for Brown (I corrected my time frame to 20+ years ago from 2+ years ago), the acceptance rate was about 16%, or 1 in 6. Largely or at least partly due to Brown shifting to use of the Common App, the number of applicants soared since then and the acceptance rate correspondingly plummeted. Back then, this is how Brown viewed things: Admissions thought that 4 in 6 were academically capable of graduating and even prospering. They thought the bottom 33% (or 2 in 6) would struggle or fail at Brown. Thus, the admissions process had essentially 2 parts: (1) weed out the weak applicants (roughly 1/3 of the pool) and (2) choose 1/4 of the remaining applicants. I think it's clear that the bottom 33% are largely "non-admissible," but almost all of those offered admission were in the top 67%. Though some of the top 67% were clearly stronger than others, none of them was deemed strictly "non-admissible." I don't know the individual situations, but the stats showed, based on SATs and GPAs, that a very small number of people from the bottom 1/3 were admitted. They obviously had something very special going for them. [Apologies for rambling, but it's my 1st draft.]

Stanford admission uses the term "holistic" which is precisely what you describe as well- rounded. HS valedictorian & perfect ACT or SAT scores are great singular accomplishments but may not be indicators of a well rounded students that Stanford is looking for.
Regarding the athletics & this holistic approach is summed up in this one sentence:
"In some cases, exceptional abilities in athletics may influence our decision if the applicant is otherwise well qualified, but such abilities never, by themselves, ensure admission to Stanford."

Page Not Found : Stanford University

Undergraduate Admission at Stanford University--one of the world's leading research and teaching institutions. It is located in Palo Alto, California.

admission.stanford.edu

 

[Bama fan]

Except her first name is Talia.

KVO was her dad, Kimo. Always liked him as a Steeler. Neat name. Nothing to do with Talia.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Stanford admission uses the term "holistic" which is precisely what you describe as well- rounded. HS valedictorian & perfect ACT or SAT scores are great singular accomplishments but may not be indicators of a well rounded students that Stanford is looking for.
Regarding the athletics & this holistic approach is summed up in this one sentence:
"In some cases, exceptional abilities in athletics may influence our decision if the applicant is otherwise well qualified, but such abilities never, by themselves, ensure admission to Stanford."

Page Not Found : Stanford University

Undergraduate Admission at Stanford University--one of the world's leading research and teaching institutions. It is located in Palo Alto, California.

admission.stanford.edu

Thanks. It was 1995, so I may have forgotten some of the info. I don't recall the word "holistic" coming up, but I do recall their description of students who were good people who enriched the student body by their presence. I also believe they were looking for people who made the student body more cohesive, hence my term "glue."

It was an informative session on a beautiful August day in Palo Alto, after a campus tour led by a charming cheerleader type. My son wanted to be an architect, so Stanford wasn't the best fit for him. He thought the admissions process and academics might be a little too demanding, so he didn't apply. He found several other schools he liked.

 

[Pauloalto]

On the topic of Stanford admissions for athletes:

Yes, athletes with applications flagged by coaches will get some special treatment. This includes an accelerated decision due to decision pressure on the applicants. It also includes some bonus points in their favor, of the sort also given to applicants who might be concert musicians or precocious scientists. These bonus points are not decisive.

Tara does not decide.

Here's a 2015 quote from the Stanford Daily article:

"Although we do not have comprehensive statistics comparing athletic admits to regular admits, some data does exist. Looking at a group of 10 elite colleges and using SAT scores (on the 1600 point scale) as a proxy for academic ability, Princeton researchers found that being a recruited athlete gave an admissions boost equivalent to scoring 200 points higher on the SAT. We can also look at high school scouting reports for football players. Looking at the Stanford recruitment class of 2009 (this year was quite typical in terms of test scores), the median football player who reported scores got an 1800 out of 2400 on the SAT and 26 on the ACT. Based on university statistics, this puts the football median comfortably in the bottom quartile and likely somewhere in the bottom 10 percent in terms of test scores. Stanford football players are quite smart, but the data suggests they place near the bottom of Stanford’s admits. "

 

[kat0189]

Gabby Williams, like KML, committed too early to have had an admissions decision from Stanford at the time.

After the Hull twins committed, Stanford earmarked its final c/o 2018 scholarship for a post player. But there were only two serious post options being considered and neither panned out—one was a promising top 50 prospect as an underclassman who plateaued and ultimately was not offered (and has recently transferred down from the P5 to mid-major level) and the other one did not gain admission. As a result, that final scholarship "opened up" or became available to the best player who wanted it regardless of position, which was Jenna Brown (who decommitted from Notre Dame too quickly take the "new" opening at Stanford).

Tara has also noted in interviews that the academic standard varies a bit for her recruits based on the people that make up the admissions committee on a given year which changes.

 

[kat0189]

Also, Talia von Oelhoffen visited Stanford during the 2020s' official, along with 2021 commit Demetre.

 

[hjoerring]

Isn't it unreasonable, today, to argue that a coach's desire for a student athlete plays no role in the admission process; that it is all random! Clearly, a coach knows well the standard of the school and that of the student athlete. This is why we are sometimes shock (when we shouldn't) that a student might decide on MSU over Uconn and why a Stanford/ND are wishful thinking (And why it is so difficult to compete with schools like Stanford for high scholastic students).
Tara- like other coaches, send the student papers to Admission with supporting evidence concerning how the athletic dept will facilitate that the student athlete in question holds herself to a given standard. An evaluation is then made by the Admission Office. This is not a negative against any specific school (cf. MSU), but to say, the profile of the admitting student athlete cannot be radically different than the overall student body.

One other thing I'll like to say on a related subject. People here have spoken aloud a few times why a European player decides to go Pro in the Euro Leagues than come to the U.S. colleges. A recent example is that of the young Finsk player. (Not sure if she has decided her fate as yet) There are several explanations. 1) If you are good enough the Leagues offer a good salary- certainly more than the WNBA. And the schedule is such that one can simultaneously pursue an education. So, it is not unusual that a player might simultaneously pursuing a medical education while playing. 2) A univ/college educ carries a different set of premises in Europe than the U.S. Here, universities are not yet 'business' enterprises as they are in the States. I'd give an example. I believe the U.S educ system has given up-- for the most part- technical high schools (and even colleges- with the exception of a few). But in Europe the technical hs compete with the so-called academic gymnasiums, and the populists here are blaming the elitism that has moved into the culture as to why fewer students are heading to the tech hs; and, to the so-called Professional Colleges upon graduation.

What this means is that in Europe ( France, DK, S, Finn, Ger, etc., the B.S degree is radically di than that of the U.S for the most part. There isn't the flexibility that one sees in the States. For example, you will not be able to get a job working in a pre-school with a degree in psychology. Such jobs are opened only to those who have gone to a Teacher College and majored in childhood educ. Your psych degree is seen as a research degree-- not a practicing degree.

Lastly, why are European students older than American students when they come to the States as freshmen? Simply, we start school at an older age. Childhood is really cuddled here. Then come pre-school, public school- 4years and gymnasium-3years. After Gym it is common for students to travel the world for a year (my generation headed to the Americas; today's generation are to be found in Asia). This is standard. And it should be kept in mind that gymnasium here overlaps with 1-2 years of college in the States. So, a typical Danish student coming to an American college should academically be qualify to enter as a soph. As I said earlier all bachelor degrees are 3-years. My overall point is this, the Finn or Danish student has some serious calculations to make in accepting a scholarship.