- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Messages
- 19,488
Well said.
forums
OT Stanford's "Academic Narrative"
- Thread starter CaneFan79
- Start date
Well said.
Advertisement
CaneFan79
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 4,860
Cane15 wrote:
I really wanted to leave this alone, but it is so agenda driven and you are so desperate to advance the argument.
I should note that one of the main sources you repeatedly rely on is a student newspaper. Anyone who has had experience dealing with student reporters should know that this would not be among the most reliable sources. Furthermore, I am not sure what data set the students used for their analysis, but it sure seems limited as they have only used data that some prospective students self-reported and their subsequent analysis was solely based on standardized test scores without the use of GPAs and other activities used in the admissions process. There is always difficulty getting this type of student data because of student privacy laws at both the federal and state levels.
So just because they are Stanford students and have provided some researched info and you have none, their work needs to be discounted? In the entire thread no one is discounting the scholorship of non-athletic Stanford students, yet you imply this to further your argument...Oh, the irony!
How about this student discovered scandal involving Stanford's PR saying one thing, but doing another to game the system (yes, I posted earlier):
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/04/stanford-lied-about-business-school-scholarships
Sure invites statements made by Stanford administrators to be at least worthy of a healthy dose of skepticism
Yes Stanford athletes have academic advisors located in a place that is convenient for them, but similar resources are available for all Stanford students. That is a good thing for all.
Oh wait...
https://undergrad.stanford.edu/advising/getting-started/advising-student-athletes/aarc-and-other-campus-tutorial-resources/aarc
AARC tutorial is offered in addition to tutorial resources available on campus at a time and in a location that is conducive to student-athlete schedules. Tutors are typically current Stanford graduate students.
The number of Academic All-Americans doesn't prove that Stanford athletes didn't achieve in their high school coursework or are not achieving in the classroom as college students.
Do you have proof? Or you just believe this and we should take it as fact?
The average GPAs of Stanford athletes are higher than the rest of the student body.
Have you factored in difficulty of coursework? Oh never mind, it's another UNSUBSTANTIATED claim
One of the things that really gets me is that you repeatedly criticize a particular major. You might take a look at the courses in that major including the required courses--loads of science courses https://sts.stanford.edu/. While there are some options in the social sciences (not that there is anything wrong with taking courses in the social sciences) the major is not what you describe it to be. Take a look at the core courses and understand that individual courses of study have to be approved. Additional courses have many excellent offerings and outstanding faculty. And many of these kids will go to grad school and the major seems like a good foundations for any number of educational and career paths.
Really? Let's take a look:
Science, Technology, and Society | Stanford University
I built my course load according to the guidance provided:
The Public Life of Science and Technology
Sociology of Science
World History of Science
The Religious Life of Things
Urban Culture in Global Perspective
Human Society and Environmental Change
Air Pollution and Global Warming: History, Science, and Solutions
Food and Society: Politics, Culture and Technology
Advanced Individual Work (not defined)
It's college work, but not exactly "Blinded by Science" (sorry, showing my age) and those helpful Grad students are ready to help me write my papers in the evening.
As for football, the record shows that Stanford football competes at a very high level and you will never find Shaw or other Stanford folks using academics as an excuse for occasional losses. The kids are smart and academics is an advantage for the football team not a disadvantage.
Yep, the media just talks about it, unprompted...Again, that diabolical student paper states the following:
"When Duke University economist Charles Clotfelter gave a presentation at Stanford claiming that universities were making academic concessions, including relaxed admissions standards, in order to have successful athletic programs, 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.”
You seriously can't grasp that innuendo? The excuse is already baked-in for later use. Don't be so naive, especially when all the evidence I have presented shows that Stanford's athletes are hardly "Football Playing Einstein's" but in reality have an advantage in gaining admission, the majority major in a relatively easy major and have tutoring opportunities not available to the ordinary student.
Your thread is more evidence that the most insufferable people are those who have the greatest differential between how smart they think they are and how smart they actually are.
Hmm, I don't think you made that up yourself, so you should abscribe it...As for me, I think I will paraphrase Mark Twain:
“It’s better to keep your keyboard still and be thought a fool rather than type on it it and remove all doubt.”
I really wanted to leave this alone, but it is so agenda driven and you are so desperate to advance the argument.
I should note that one of the main sources you repeatedly rely on is a student newspaper. Anyone who has had experience dealing with student reporters should know that this would not be among the most reliable sources. Furthermore, I am not sure what data set the students used for their analysis, but it sure seems limited as they have only used data that some prospective students self-reported and their subsequent analysis was solely based on standardized test scores without the use of GPAs and other activities used in the admissions process. There is always difficulty getting this type of student data because of student privacy laws at both the federal and state levels.
So just because they are Stanford students and have provided some researched info and you have none, their work needs to be discounted? In the entire thread no one is discounting the scholorship of non-athletic Stanford students, yet you imply this to further your argument...Oh, the irony!
How about this student discovered scandal involving Stanford's PR saying one thing, but doing another to game the system (yes, I posted earlier):
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/04/stanford-lied-about-business-school-scholarships
Sure invites statements made by Stanford administrators to be at least worthy of a healthy dose of skepticism
Yes Stanford athletes have academic advisors located in a place that is convenient for them, but similar resources are available for all Stanford students. That is a good thing for all.
Oh wait...
https://undergrad.stanford.edu/advising/getting-started/advising-student-athletes/aarc-and-other-campus-tutorial-resources/aarc
AARC tutorial is offered in addition to tutorial resources available on campus at a time and in a location that is conducive to student-athlete schedules. Tutors are typically current Stanford graduate students.
The number of Academic All-Americans doesn't prove that Stanford athletes didn't achieve in their high school coursework or are not achieving in the classroom as college students.
Do you have proof? Or you just believe this and we should take it as fact?
The average GPAs of Stanford athletes are higher than the rest of the student body.
Have you factored in difficulty of coursework? Oh never mind, it's another UNSUBSTANTIATED claim
One of the things that really gets me is that you repeatedly criticize a particular major. You might take a look at the courses in that major including the required courses--loads of science courses https://sts.stanford.edu/. While there are some options in the social sciences (not that there is anything wrong with taking courses in the social sciences) the major is not what you describe it to be. Take a look at the core courses and understand that individual courses of study have to be approved. Additional courses have many excellent offerings and outstanding faculty. And many of these kids will go to grad school and the major seems like a good foundations for any number of educational and career paths.
Really? Let's take a look:
Science, Technology, and Society | Stanford University
I built my course load according to the guidance provided:
The Public Life of Science and Technology
Sociology of Science
World History of Science
The Religious Life of Things
Urban Culture in Global Perspective
Human Society and Environmental Change
Air Pollution and Global Warming: History, Science, and Solutions
Food and Society: Politics, Culture and Technology
Advanced Individual Work (not defined)
It's college work, but not exactly "Blinded by Science" (sorry, showing my age) and those helpful Grad students are ready to help me write my papers in the evening.
As for football, the record shows that Stanford football competes at a very high level and you will never find Shaw or other Stanford folks using academics as an excuse for occasional losses. The kids are smart and academics is an advantage for the football team not a disadvantage.
Yep, the media just talks about it, unprompted...Again, that diabolical student paper states the following:
"When Duke University economist Charles Clotfelter gave a presentation at Stanford claiming that universities were making academic concessions, including relaxed admissions standards, in order to have successful athletic programs, 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.”
You seriously can't grasp that innuendo? The excuse is already baked-in for later use. Don't be so naive, especially when all the evidence I have presented shows that Stanford's athletes are hardly "Football Playing Einstein's" but in reality have an advantage in gaining admission, the majority major in a relatively easy major and have tutoring opportunities not available to the ordinary student.
Your thread is more evidence that the most insufferable people are those who have the greatest differential between how smart they think they are and how smart they actually are.
Hmm, I don't think you made that up yourself, so you should abscribe it...As for me, I think I will paraphrase Mark Twain:
“It’s better to keep your keyboard still and be thought a fool rather than type on it it and remove all doubt.”
Last edited:
CaneFan79
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 4,860
You at least admit your experience is anecdotal; most posters here seem to take the Stanford can't compete all the time because of crushing academics as gospel.
I'm used to getting negged on my threads; Herbstreit is thought of as being UMiami's biggest supporter by most and don't like me being a fact-based contrarian...Hmm, no too much written on CIS about him being party to an O$UCK recruiting violation, but I digress...