OT Stanford's "Academic Narrative"

[CaneFan79]

So Stanford blows a lead and the well worn excuse comes back out in another thread, namely "But look at their academic requirements!!"

Okay, lets look at what their own student newspaper reported:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

"Stanford’s senior associate athletic director responded: “I beg to differ on that. We haven’t lowered our academic standards.” Football coach David Shaw has repeated this mantra: Responding to critics claiming that Stanford had relaxed its academic standards to achieve football success, he claimed, “We have the same academic standards.” But this is not actually true. 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..."

So what do these student athletes take when they get to Stanford?

Most Popular Academic Majors for 2015 Power 5 Conference Football Players | Bleacher Report

So do you think that "Science, technology and society" is going to make you a tech pioneer or rocket scientist? Sounds more like you write a paper that says "Steve Jobs was great, he co-founded Apple and my Iphone is great for selfies." and you get a B (Yeah, I know, A+ work at UNC!)

Heck, seems like Arkansas, LSU, Tennesee, Miami and even O$UCK are allowing the majority of their athletes to major in something they may find useful after graduation (i.e. it enhances their already evident skill set)

The Stanford narrative on their athletes' academic prowess is false and needs to be put to bed.

 

[Pentagon Cane]

So Stanford blows a lead and the well worn excuse comes back out in another thread, namely "But look at their academic requirements!!"

Okay, lets look at what their own student newspaper reported:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

"Stanford’s senior associate athletic director responded: “I beg to differ on that. We haven’t lowered our academic standards.” Football coach David Shaw has repeated this mantra: Responding to critics claiming that Stanford had relaxed its academic standards to achieve football success, he claimed, “We have the same academic standards.” But this is not actually true. 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..."

So what do these student athletes take when they get to Stanford?

Most Popular Academic Majors for 2015 Power 5 Conference Football Players | Bleacher Report

So do you think that "Science, technology and society" is going to make you a tech pioneer or rocket scientist? Sounds more like you write a paper that says "Steve Jobs was great, he co-founded Apple and my Iphone is great for selfies." and you get a B (Yeah, I know, A+ work at UNC!)

Heck, seems like Arkansas, LSU, Tennesee, Miami and even O$UCK are allowing the majority of their athletes to major in something they may find useful after graduation (i.e. it enhances their already evident skill set)

The Stanford narrative on their athletes' academic prowess is false and needs to be put to bed.

LoL, you realize that a 26 on the ACT is in the 83 percentile. The Stanford student body average is a 33.

The TCU student body average is a 27 so I'm sure the TCU football team is meeting that, lol.

Now give me the average ACT scores for the Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma or Georgia football teams.

 

[AUcane]

So my takeaway from this is that stanford football players do not excel in academics quite like their non-football playing classmates?

GET OUT!!!

Anyway, all joking aside, you are a fool if you don't think that the typical football player at stanford excels at academic more than your average P5 football player.

 

[ben]

when i got rejected by Stanford they sent an FAQ pamphlet on most commonly asked questions by rejected candidates

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

 

[CaneFan79]

So Stanford blows a lead and the well worn excuse comes back out in another thread, namely "But look at their academic requirements!!"

Okay, lets look at what their own student newspaper reported:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

"Stanford’s senior associate athletic director responded: “I beg to differ on that. We haven’t lowered our academic standards.” Football coach David Shaw has repeated this mantra: Responding to critics claiming that Stanford had relaxed its academic standards to achieve football success, he claimed, “We have the same academic standards.” But this is not actually true. 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..."

So what do these student athletes take when they get to Stanford?

Most Popular Academic Majors for 2015 Power 5 Conference Football Players | Bleacher Report

So do you think that "Science, technology and society" is going to make you a tech pioneer or rocket scientist? Sounds more like you write a paper that says "Steve Jobs was great, he co-founded Apple and my Iphone is great for selfies." and you get a B (Yeah, I know, A+ work at UNC!)

Heck, seems like Arkansas, LSU, Tennesee, Miami and even O$UCK are allowing the majority of their athletes to major in something they may find useful after graduation (i.e. it enhances their already evident skill set)

The Stanford narrative on their athletes' academic prowess is false and needs to be put to bed.

LoL, you realize that a 26 on the ACT is in the 83 percentile. The normal student body average is a 33. I know this for a fact because my son's choices are the United States Air Force Academy to play lacrosse or Stanford on a Type I to study aeronautical engineering and go to undergraduate pilot training from there. Sorry for bragging.

Now give me the average ACT scores for the Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma or Georgia football teams.

Sure do realize a 26 score's percentage; I work as a volunteer in college admission efforts and that 26 is a good, but not great score for college admission. Miami's (since we are on a 'Cane board) 50% range, i.e. 50% of the enrolled student are in the score range, 25% are above or below, is 28-32. I would have to make an inquiry to the CFP school's admissions department to get that range for their football teams, though Clemson's "Parks, recreation and tourism management" major sounds more like a sitcom than something to build a career on...

Point is, they are not the "Einstein's playing football" Stanford and a sycophantic media makes them out to be; indeed, Stanford has a lot to answer for recently when it comes to transparency in boosting one of it's most respected school's:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/04/stanford-lied-about-business-school-scholarships

All that aside, congrats on your son's (ACT 33, AFROTC Type 1) fantastic achievements; it's not bragging whan it's true. To help decipher for the masses, here is something helpful to explain what a AFROTC Type 1 scholly is:
https://www.afrotc.com/scholarships/types

You have probably worked long enough just at the Five Sided Puzzle Palace to know that if your son wants to fly and make the USAF a career, the academy is the place to go to increase their chances of UPT and promotion. Stanford is the choice if the USAF/Civilian career is in Science and Technology (AFRL/AFOSR) or Lockheed, NG, Boeing, etc.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Ridiculous thread.

26 gets you in as a regular student, not a football scholarship student, in hundreds of state schools, and private schools. So does that SAT score.

Those are massive scores compared to the national average of college football players. Massive.

To try and compare their scores to the Stanford student body is beyond retarded. This is a student body that’s among the academic elite. Stanford is basically Ivy League or just a rung below. They couldn’t field a football team if that was a requirement. It is literally impossible to find enough students that can score that high, and be 3* and 4* football players. There’s just not enough of them.

I’d venture to say those test scores are far higher than the CIS average porster score. Easily.

 

[CaneFan79]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

"Text without context is pretext." Glad to see you woke up in rhetoric class for that bit.

Without having the actual FACTS, i.e. numbers of who is admitted and with what scores/GPA/Whole Person factors for only the respective football teams of Stanford and TCU, you are basing your argument on an ASSumption whose basis is a faulty narrative.

Now go back to sleep.

 

[CaneFan79]

Ridiculous thread.

26 gets you in as a regular student, not a football scholarship student, in hundreds of state schools, and private schools. So does that SAT score.

Those are massive scores compared to the national average of college football players. Massive.

To try and compare their scores to the Stanford student body is beyond retarded. This is a student body that’s among the academic elite. Stanford is basically Ivy League or just a rung below. They couldn’t field a football team if that was a requirement. It is literally impossible to find enough students that can score that high, and be 3* and 4* football players. There’s just not enough of them.

I’d venture to say those test scores are far higher than the CIS average porster score. Easily.

26 is only an ACT score; an SAT score is reflected by a four number score (you should have stopped there)

How about we check Stanfords' two deep ACT or SAT scores (whichever's better) and majors, not just their whole roster? I bet we may find the "Football Playing Einstein's" are not that at all.

What is suprising is how many of you 'Canes fans buy into this crap, especially since it is promulgated by many of the same people who deride our student athletes as "Thugs." Take Mike Wilbon, ESECPN's "Mr. Street cred" who is in reality a privileged Northwestern Grad (and uses the same type of excuses for his alma mater) who infamously and despicably slurred Sean Taylor's legacy (and will not apoligize for it). I am so tired of this "real student athletes" crap, especially when UNC cheats on academics like crazy (and is not punished), but Braxton Berrios, who is a summa *** laude graduate in a double major of FINANCE and economics is treated as an outlier, not a representative of a lot of hard working STUDENT athletes at Miami.

 

[HurricaneHauk]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

Yet Stanford has much higher recruiting classes

Hmmm

 

[Tad Footeball]

While the OP makes several valid points here, I think the real recruiting disadvantage for Shaw (and maybe a few other elite academic Power 5 institutions) is more in university reputation rather than actual university admission standards. There probably is more than a sizable number of upper echelon recruits that never even consider Stanford based on being intimidated by their perception of the academic rigor that would be involved in going there.

Let's be honest though, if ANY top 50 or 100 type kid all of a sudden decided that he had interest in Stanford then Shaw is going to be able to get him in. The same at Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy, Dook, etc. These perceived admission strandards probably only limit overall team depth.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

"Text without context is pretext." Glad to see you woke up in rhetoric class for that bit.

Without having the actual FACTS, i.e. numbers of who is admitted and with what scores/GPA/Whole Person factors for only the respective football teams of Stanford and TCU, you are basing your argument on an ASSumption whose basis is a faulty narrative.

Now go back to sleep.

Even if Stanford relaxed their admission standards for football players, it would still be harder to get in there than TCU, Arkansas, LSU, Tennessee, Miami, & OSU.

And stop projecting your behavior onto me, your OP is based off the false narrative that I was making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

Yet Stanford has much higher recruiting classes

Hmmm

Right, so what's Patterson's excuse for middle of the road recruting classes with the luxury of higher acceptance rates at TCU?

 

[CaneFan79]

While the OP makes several valid points here, I think the real recruiting disadvantage for Shaw (and maybe a few other elite academic Power 5 institutions) is more in university reputation rather than actual university admission standards. There probably is more than a sizable number of upper echelon recruits that never even consider Stanford based on being intimidated by their perception of the academic rigor that would be involved in going there.

Let's be honest though, if ANY top 50 or 100 type kid all of a sudden decided that he had interest in Stanford then Shaw is going to be able to get him in. The same at Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy, Dook, etc. These perceived admission strandards probably only limit overall team depth.

Fair Points, especially this:

"There probably is more than a sizable number of upper echelon recruits that never even consider Stanford based on being intimidated by their perception of the academic rigor that would be involved in going there."

David Shaw should send this to every recruit:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/09/study-questions-whether-elite-college-courses-are-higher-quality-others

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Ridiculous thread.

26 gets you in as a regular student, not a football scholarship student, in hundreds of state schools, and private schools. So does that SAT score.

Those are massive scores compared to the national average of college football players. Massive.

To try and compare their scores to the Stanford student body is beyond retarded. This is a student body that’s among the academic elite. Stanford is basically Ivy League or just a rung below. They couldn’t field a football team if that was a requirement. It is literally impossible to find enough students that can score that high, and be 3* and 4* football players. There’s just not enough of them.

I’d venture to say those test scores are far higher than the CIS average porster score. Easily.

26 is only an ACT score; an SAT score is reflected by a four number score (you should have stopped there)

How about we check Stanfords' two deep ACT or SAT scores (whichever's better) and majors, not just their whole roster? I bet we may find the "Football Playing Einstein's" are not that at all.

What is suprising is how many of you 'Canes fans buy into this crap, especially since it is promulgated by many of the same people who deride our student athletes as "Thugs." Take Mike Wilbon, ESECPN's "Mr. Street cred" who is in reality a privileged Northwestern Grad (and uses the same type of excuses for his alma mater) who infamously and despicably slurred Sean Taylor's legacy (and will not apoligize for it). I am so tired of this "real student athletes" crap, especially when UNC cheats on academics like crazy (and is not punished), but Braxton Berrios, who is a summa *** laude graduate in a double major of FINANCE and economics is treated as an outlier, not a representative of a lot of hard working STUDENT athletes at Miami.

Are you developmentally disabled?

You didn’t respond to a single point I made but instead went off on a tangent about Mike Wilbon.

I know 26 is an ACT score. Who wouldn’t know that? Where did I write or indicate it wasn’t?

I also know enough about the SAT. Enough to know what scores get you in to what schools.

I agree about our SA’s being stereotyped as thugs, but that wasn’t part of the discussion. My point was that if the Stanford football team averages a 26 on their ACT (I realize it was median that reported), than I can basically guarantee that’s higher than just about all other P5 teams. If it’s true that 26 is the median.

 

[deleted1998]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

Yet Stanford has much higher recruiting classes

Hmmm

Right, so what's Patterson's excuse for middle of the road recruting classes with the luxury of higher acceptance rates at TCU?

I disagree with OP. But his excuse is he is at TC freaking U.

 

[HurricaneHauk]

LOL...nice try at changing the narrative OP...not.

I wasn't making excuses for Shaw losing last night.

My point was that between Stanford & TCU, Shaw has a harder time recruiting at Stanford with their low acceptance rate, than Patterson does at TCU with their much more liberal acceptance rate compared to Stanford.

Since 2011, Shaw's outperformed Patterson on the field & on the recruiting trail given His constraints.

Text without context is pretext.

Yet Stanford has much higher recruiting classes

Hmmm

Right, so what's Patterson's excuse for middle of the road recruting classes with the luxury of higher acceptance rates at TCU?

He's in Texas...Has Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State to compete with for recruits. Hope that wasn't a serious question. Stanford has USC and ?.

 

[Cortez55403]

79,

Your narrative is way off base. There’s no question that scholarship athletes in a whole variety of Power 5 sports get an admission advantage vs students who are not scholarship athletes. This applies to Stanford, Northwester, Duke, Vanderbilt and every other school.

This advantage, however, does not negate the difficult task of recruiting top football players to Stanford. The average scores and grades for those admitted players are very high, just not quite as high as the rest of the student body. The players take a full course load and are expected to graduate on schedule. Admitting poorly qualified players would just lead to them feeling out of place, doing poorly in school and dropping out. That would not help the players or the team.

Because of the tough academic standards, Stanford must recruit nationwide to attract and get great players who are also excellent academically. This requires the coaches to constantly fly rather than to drive to see top recruits. Expensive and time consuming.

Stanford, Notre Dame and Northwestern do a particularly good job of finding and signing top students. Good for them. They don’t use their high academic standards as an excuse for poor on field performance. They expect to win and win consistently. And they do.

 

[CaneFan79]

OCC Posted:

"Are you developmentally disabled?"

You are always use an ad hominem attack; nice to know you have not improved in your weak *** debating skills.

Wilbon was an aside argument; note the seperation of paragraph and the "What is suprising" intro to the new thought. Do you read anything non-linear?

"I also know enough about the SAT. Enough to know what scores get you in to what schools."

So you are an admissions person or just read USNWR College Book? Scores level out GPA/Academic rigor questions, but certainly are not the only admissions factor, especially when regional differences (i.e. Midwest does better in the ACT) come into play

"If it’s true that 26 is the average."

The 26 was taken from the Stanford story, focused on one year (2009), with the caveat "who reported scores...." Only data point we have at this time to use. The scores could be up or down this year, but a fair estimation between what test scores have been reported and what is reported regarding what the majority of Stanford football players are majoring in clearly shows they are not really that more academically accomplished in comparison to similar schools they compete against.

Let me guess, you drive the biggest truck in your neighborhood just to show...Ah, never mind.

 

[CaneFan79]

79,

Your narrative is way off base. There’s no question that scholarship athletes in a whole variety of Power 5 sports get an admission advantage vs students who are not scholarship athletes. This applies to Stanford, Northwester, Duke, Vanderbilt and every other school.

This advantage, however, does not negate the difficult task of recruiting top football players to Stanford. The average scores and grades for those admitted players are very high, just not quite as high as the rest of the student body. The players take a full course load and are expected to graduate on schedule. Admitting poorly qualified players would just lead to them feeling out of place, doing poorly in school and dropping out. That would not help the players or the team.

Because of the tough academic standards, Stanford must recruit nationwide to attract and get great players who are also excellent academically. This requires the coaches to constantly fly rather than to drive to see top recruits. Expensive and time consuming.

Stanford, Notre Dame and Northwestern do a particularly good job of finding and signing top students. Good for them. They don’t use their high academic standards as an excuse for poor on field performance. They expect to win and win consistently. And they do.

My narrative is off? Did you read ANY of the articles I have posted? 26 is a good score, but depending on test prep, quality of instruction, and student motivation it is acheived by THOUSANDS of students each year. They majority of Stanford's players are in what sure sounds like a social science major and researchers have found that the academic rigor at supposed elite universities is quite possibly false.

[video=youtube;Uo-QIY7ys-k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-QIY7ys-k[/video]