[82lsju]

A school-record 10 Stanford women's basketball student-athletes received recognition from the conference for their combined work in the classroom and on the court when the Pac-12 announced its women's basketball all-academic teams on Thursday morning.

Mikaela Brewer, DiJonai Carrington, Shannon Coffee, Maya Dodson, Nadia Fingall, Alyssa Jerome, Estella Moschkau, Alanna Smith, Kiana Williams and Anna Wilson earned spots on the Pac-12 All-Academic honorable mention squad.

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/3/13/wo...n_honors__

[82lsju]

A school-record 10 Stanford women's basketball student-athletes received recognition from the conference for their combined work in the classroom and on the court when the Pac-12 announced its women's basketball all-academic teams on Thursday morning.

Mikaela Brewer, DiJonai Carrington, Shannon Coffee, Maya Dodson, Nadia Fingall, Alyssa Jerome, Estella Moschkau, Alanna Smith, Kiana Williams and Anna Wilson earned spots on the Pac-12 All-Academic honorable mention squad.

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/3/13/wo...n_honors__

[BostonCard]

Just me or is it a little disappointing that nobody made first or second team?

BC

[BostonCard]

Just me or is it a little disappointing that nobody made first or second team?

BC

[BobK]

The good news is all those eligible were mentioned

[BobK]

The good news is all those eligible were mentioned

[76lsjumb]

According to the story, "To be eligible for selection, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average, at least one year of enrollment at the institution and appear in at least 50 percent of their team's games."  

For the men's team, however, the story said: "To be eligible for selection on the conference's three all-academic teams, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average and be a starter or significant contributor."

Anyone know why the criteria are [apparently] different w/r/t playing time?

[76lsjumb]

According to the story, "To be eligible for selection, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average, at least one year of enrollment at the institution and appear in at least 50 percent of their team's games."  

For the men's team, however, the story said: "To be eligible for selection on the conference's three all-academic teams, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average and be a starter or significant contributor."

Anyone know why the criteria are [apparently] different w/r/t playing time?

[2006alum]

According to the story, "To be eligible for selection, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average, at least one year of enrollment at the institution and appear in at least 50 percent of their team's games."  

For the men's team, however, the story said: "To be eligible for selection on the conference's three all-academic teams, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average and be a starter or significant contributor."

Anyone know why the criteria are [apparently] different w/r/t playing time?

Probably because women's basketball players don't get as favorable treatment from their admissions departments as men's basketball players do, and so if the women's standard applied to the men, they wouldn't be able to fill a complete roster of all-academic teams.

How else to explain how "significant contributors" Kodye Pugh and Trevor Standback became second-team selections? Stanback appeared in 13/31 games for a total of 85 minutes. Pugh cleared the 50% marker with 21/31 games and 132 minutes. I think anyone who follows our team would say they clearly fail the test of "starter or significant contributor," but it's subjective enough that plausible deniability carries the day.

It's really, really hard to be a top athlete and a top student, even at Stanford, and at most of the schools in the PAC-12. And the pool of top academic students in men's basketball is especially shallow compared to most sports.

[2006alum]

According to the story, "To be eligible for selection, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average, at least one year of enrollment at the institution and appear in at least 50 percent of their team's games."  

For the men's team, however, the story said: "To be eligible for selection on the conference's three all-academic teams, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average and be a starter or significant contributor."

Anyone know why the criteria are [apparently] different w/r/t playing time?

Probably because women's basketball players don't get as favorable treatment from their admissions departments as men's basketball players do, and so if the women's standard applied to the men, they wouldn't be able to fill a complete roster of all-academic teams.

How else to explain how "significant contributors" Kodye Pugh and Trevor Standback became second-team selections? Stanback appeared in 13/31 games for a total of 85 minutes. Pugh cleared the 50% marker with 21/31 games and 132 minutes. I think anyone who follows our team would say they clearly fail the test of "starter or significant contributor," but it's subjective enough that plausible deniability carries the day.

It's really, really hard to be a top athlete and a top student, even at Stanford, and at most of the schools in the PAC-12. And the pool of top academic students in men's basketball is especially shallow compared to most sports.

[qwerty49]

So Alanna Smith is Pac-12 Scholar-Athlete of the Year and only Honorable Mention on the Pac-12 All-Academic team?

Ho-o-o-okay....

[qwerty49]

So Alanna Smith is Pac-12 Scholar-Athlete of the Year and only Honorable Mention on the Pac-12 All-Academic team?

Ho-o-o-okay....

[BobK]

Here’s the players mentioned
You can see great GPAs

One cal player mentioned. Just one

https://uclabruins.com/documents/2019/3/...ademic.pdf

[BobK]

Here’s the players mentioned
You can see great GPAs

One cal player mentioned. Just one

https://uclabruins.com/documents/2019/3/...ademic.pdf

[qwerty49]

Here’s the players mentioned
You can see great GPAs

One cal player mentioned.  Just one

https://uclabruins.com/documents/2019/3/...ademic.pdf

Maybe this is snarky but honestly, I have a lot of trouble believing that a 3.8 or 4.0 at ASU, OSU or WSU is equivalent to the same GPA at Cal or Stanford.

The UW player majored in "Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership."  WTH is that?  An internship with Larry Scott?

Congrats to all the players but I just hope it's based on more than just raw GPA.

[qwerty49]

Here’s the players mentioned
You can see great GPAs

One cal player mentioned.  Just one

https://uclabruins.com/documents/2019/3/...ademic.pdf

Maybe this is snarky but honestly, I have a lot of trouble believing that a 3.8 or 4.0 at ASU, OSU or WSU is equivalent to the same GPA at Cal or Stanford.

The UW player majored in "Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership."  WTH is that?  An internship with Larry Scott?

Congrats to all the players but I just hope it's based on more than just raw GPA.

[BostonCard]

So Alanna Smith is Pac-12 Scholar-Athlete of the Year and only Honorable Mention on the Pac-12 All-Academic team?

Ho-o-o-okay....

It appears that first and second team is based solely on GPA.

BC

[BostonCard]

So Alanna Smith is Pac-12 Scholar-Athlete of the Year and only Honorable Mention on the Pac-12 All-Academic team?

Ho-o-o-okay....

It appears that first and second team is based solely on GPA.

BC

[CompSci87]

So Alanna Smith is Pac-12 Scholar-Athlete of the Year and only Honorable Mention on the Pac-12 All-Academic team?

Ho-o-o-okay....

It appears that first and second team is based solely on GPA.

BC

So SAOY could have been based on taking account of Stanford classes being harder, I suppose. Or on weighting the "athlete" half more heavily than GPA.

Or maybe Alanna's SAOY award was a sort of consolation prize for not being chosen POY or DPOY. That was my feeling when those three awards were announced.

[CompSci87]

So Alanna Smith is Pac-12 Scholar-Athlete of the Year and only Honorable Mention on the Pac-12 All-Academic team?

Ho-o-o-okay....

It appears that first and second team is based solely on GPA.

BC

So SAOY could have been based on taking account of Stanford classes being harder, I suppose. Or on weighting the "athlete" half more heavily than GPA.

Or maybe Alanna's SAOY award was a sort of consolation prize for not being chosen POY or DPOY. That was my feeling when those three awards were announced.

[2006alum]

I think Smith got a big bump for her on-court accomplishments and her off-court, outside the classroom activities (like organizing the Human Trafficking Awareness day). Smith's GPA (3.47), while extremely admirable for an athlete of her caliber at a school like Stanford, is significantly lower than most of the other top academic All-Americans. (Pivec really is a stud - she's also carrying a 3.93 in biohealth sciences! One of the few admitted who have turned us down.)

Having taught undergrads at both a top public university and an Ivy, I will say, as a matter of probabilities, it's much, much *much* easier to get an A at the Stanfords/Ivies of the world than the public universities of the world, and much harder to get much lower than a B, at least for any class with a paper assignment. I about 10-15% of my students got A's at the public (as the curve dictated), while the percentage, on average, was roughly double (or more) at Stanford and Ivies.

So the only question is the degree to which the overall class composition is sufficiently stronger at Stanford/Ivies such that the same student turning in the same work would get a higher grade at the public university. At the one I taught at, the differential from Stanford isn't brobdingnagian, but I would guess OSU and WSU type schools are very different student bodies.

[2006alum]

I think Smith got a big bump for her on-court accomplishments and her off-court, outside the classroom activities (like organizing the Human Trafficking Awareness day). Smith's GPA (3.47), while extremely admirable for an athlete of her caliber at a school like Stanford, is significantly lower than most of the other top academic All-Americans. (Pivec really is a stud - she's also carrying a 3.93 in biohealth sciences! One of the few admitted who have turned us down.)

Having taught undergrads at both a top public university and an Ivy, I will say, as a matter of probabilities, it's much, much *much* easier to get an A at the Stanfords/Ivies of the world than the public universities of the world, and much harder to get much lower than a B, at least for any class with a paper assignment. I about 10-15% of my students got A's at the public (as the curve dictated), while the percentage, on average, was roughly double (or more) at Stanford and Ivies.

So the only question is the degree to which the overall class composition is sufficiently stronger at Stanford/Ivies such that the same student turning in the same work would get a higher grade at the public university. At the one I taught at, the differential from Stanford isn't brobdingnagian, but I would guess OSU and WSU type schools are very different student bodies.

[81alum]

I think Smith got a big bump for her on-court accomplishments and her off-court, outside the classroom activities (like organizing the Human Trafficking Awareness day). Smith's GPA (3.47), while extremely admirable for an athlete of her caliber at a school like Stanford, is significantly lower than most of the other top academic All-Americans. (Pivec really is a stud - she's also carrying a 3.93 in biohealth sciences! One of the few admitted who have turned us down.)

Having taught undergrads at both a top public university and an Ivy, I will say, as a matter of probabilities, it's much, much *much* easier to get an A at the Stanfords/Ivies of the world than the public universities of the world, and much harder to get much lower than a B, at least for any class with a paper assignment. I about 10-15% of my students got A's at the public (as the curve dictated), while the percentage, on average, was roughly double (or more) at Stanford and Ivies.

So the only question is the degree to which the overall class composition is sufficiently stronger at Stanford/Ivies such that the same student turning in the same work would get a higher grade at the public university. At the one I taught at, the differential from Stanford isn't of immense proportions, but I would guess OSU and WSU type schools are very different student bodies.

I remember some time ago learning that the average GPA upon graduation from Stanford was about a 3.7.  Average. 

The average GPA where I teach (a CSU campus) is about 2.7.

But what does that prove?  Is the average GPA at Stanford higher because the grades are more inflated there, or because the academic performance of students is higher there?  Probably more the latter.

But not all elites follow that pattern.  Harvard and Yale and Stanford are infamous for giving high grades.  U Chicago grades are about a full point lower.  And they are dealing with approximately the same elite students.  Of course they are Div III but I imagine one can find Div I schools with similar differences.

All this is a way of saying that GPA is a really lousy way of allocating academic awards across universities.  It can be useful within a single university.

[81alum]

I think Smith got a big bump for her on-court accomplishments and her off-court, outside the classroom activities (like organizing the Human Trafficking Awareness day). Smith's GPA (3.47), while extremely admirable for an athlete of her caliber at a school like Stanford, is significantly lower than most of the other top academic All-Americans. (Pivec really is a stud - she's also carrying a 3.93 in biohealth sciences! One of the few admitted who have turned us down.)

Having taught undergrads at both a top public university and an Ivy, I will say, as a matter of probabilities, it's much, much *much* easier to get an A at the Stanfords/Ivies of the world than the public universities of the world, and much harder to get much lower than a B, at least for any class with a paper assignment. I about 10-15% of my students got A's at the public (as the curve dictated), while the percentage, on average, was roughly double (or more) at Stanford and Ivies.

So the only question is the degree to which the overall class composition is sufficiently stronger at Stanford/Ivies such that the same student turning in the same work would get a higher grade at the public university. At the one I taught at, the differential from Stanford isn't of immense proportions, but I would guess OSU and WSU type schools are very different student bodies.

I remember some time ago learning that the average GPA upon graduation from Stanford was about a 3.7.  Average. 

The average GPA where I teach (a CSU campus) is about 2.7.

But what does that prove?  Is the average GPA at Stanford higher because the grades are more inflated there, or because the academic performance of students is higher there?  Probably more the latter.

But not all elites follow that pattern.  Harvard and Yale and Stanford are infamous for giving high grades.  U Chicago grades are about a full point lower.  And they are dealing with approximately the same elite students.  Of course they are Div III but I imagine one can find Div I schools with similar differences.

All this is a way of saying that GPA is a really lousy way of allocating academic awards across universities.  It can be useful within a single university.

[WBB fan]

The good news is all those eligible were mentioned

To me, this is most impressive. Only 10 of the team were eligible since freshmen are not and Marta did not play in enough games since she didn't play at all. That's 10 out of 10 on the all academic team. A real accomplishment.

[WBB fan]

The good news is all those eligible were mentioned

To me, this is most impressive. Only 10 of the team were eligible since freshmen are not and Marta did not play in enough games since she didn't play at all. That's 10 out of 10 on the all academic team. A real accomplishment.