[fullmetal]

While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.

Aww :)

What hurts the most (besides my personal tie to men's rowing) is that in nearly all of these sports, Stanford was a banner name, a flagbearer and the standard to which high school athletes aspired.  Recruits from all over knew that Stanford was the place to be for both athletics and academics.  To throw in the towel on these sports is to admit that not even at Stanford can these student-athletes excel at the highest level that they and we expect of them.

For these sports, where a sanctioned varsity national championship already exists, club status is not acceptable for Stanford.  The lightweight women's rowing program, which has won nine of the last ten national championships, feels this the most strongly as they routinely beat openweight women's teams each fall during head racing season and showed up to win the national championship in the spring.  Where do they fit as a club?  Where do any of our highly competitive teams fit in as club sports?

If Stanford can't be a home for the smartest, most talented fencers, rowers, sailors, wrestlers, men's volleyball players, field hockey players, squash players, or synchro swimmers...what university should be, then?

[fullmetal]

While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.

Aww :)

What hurts the most (besides my personal tie to men's rowing) is that in nearly all of these sports, Stanford was a banner name, a flagbearer and the standard to which high school athletes aspired.  Recruits from all over knew that Stanford was the place to be for both athletics and academics.  To throw in the towel on these sports is to admit that not even at Stanford can these student-athletes excel at the highest level that they and we expect of them.

For these sports, where a sanctioned varsity national championship already exists, club status is not acceptable for Stanford.  The lightweight women's rowing program, which has won nine of the last ten national championships, feels this the most strongly as they routinely beat openweight women's teams each fall during head racing season and showed up to win the national championship in the spring.  Where do they fit as a club?  Where do any of our highly competitive teams fit in as club sports?

If Stanford can't be a home for the smartest, most talented fencers, rowers, sailors, wrestlers, men's volleyball players, field hockey players, squash players, or synchro swimmers...what university should be, then?

[gailtate]

While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.

Aww :)

What hurts the most (besides my personal tie to men's rowing) is that in nearly all of these sports, Stanford was a banner name, a flagbearer and the standard to which high school athletes aspired.  Recruits from all over knew that Stanford was the place to be for both athletics and academics.  To throw in the towel on these sports is to admit that not even at Stanford can these student-athletes excel at the highest level that they and we expect of them.

For these sports, where a sanctioned varsity national championship already exists, club status is not acceptable for Stanford.  The lightweight women's rowing program, which has won nine of the last ten national championships, feels this the most strongly as they routinely beat openweight women's teams each fall during head racing season and showed up to win the national championship in the spring.  Where do they fit as a club?  Where do any of our highly competitive teams fit in as club sports?

If Stanford can't be a home for the smartest, most talented fencers, rowers, sailors, wrestlers, men's volleyball players, field hockey players, squash players, or synchro swimmers...what university should be, then?

OK. Still, and at risk of offending the more tender sensibilities on this board, the inevitable mastodon-in-the-living-room question becomes.."Who cares?"  Who besides players, coaches, families and the cultists who follow these activities really cares what/where that mythical "home" is?

[gailtate]

While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.

Aww :)

What hurts the most (besides my personal tie to men's rowing) is that in nearly all of these sports, Stanford was a banner name, a flagbearer and the standard to which high school athletes aspired.  Recruits from all over knew that Stanford was the place to be for both athletics and academics.  To throw in the towel on these sports is to admit that not even at Stanford can these student-athletes excel at the highest level that they and we expect of them.

For these sports, where a sanctioned varsity national championship already exists, club status is not acceptable for Stanford.  The lightweight women's rowing program, which has won nine of the last ten national championships, feels this the most strongly as they routinely beat openweight women's teams each fall during head racing season and showed up to win the national championship in the spring.  Where do they fit as a club?  Where do any of our highly competitive teams fit in as club sports?

If Stanford can't be a home for the smartest, most talented fencers, rowers, sailors, wrestlers, men's volleyball players, field hockey players, squash players, or synchro swimmers...what university should be, then?

OK. Still, and at risk of offending the more tender sensibilities on this board, the inevitable mastodon-in-the-living-room question becomes.."Who cares?"  Who besides players, coaches, families and the cultists who follow these activities really cares what/where that mythical "home" is?

[JustAnotherFan]

While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.

Aww :)

What hurts the most (besides my personal tie to men's rowing) is that in nearly all of these sports, Stanford was a banner name, a flagbearer and the standard to which high school athletes aspired.  Recruits from all over knew that Stanford was the place to be for both athletics and academics.  To throw in the towel on these sports is to admit that not even at Stanford can these student-athletes excel at the highest level that they and we expect of them.

For these sports, where a sanctioned varsity national championship already exists, club status is not acceptable for Stanford.  The lightweight women's rowing program, which has won nine of the last ten national championships, feels this the most strongly as they routinely beat openweight women's teams each fall during head racing season and showed up to win the national championship in the spring.  Where do they fit as a club?  Where do any of our highly competitive teams fit in as club sports?

If Stanford can't be a home for the smartest, most talented fencers, rowers, sailors, wrestlers, men's volleyball players, field hockey players, squash players, or synchro swimmers...what university should be, then?

Harvard. Obviously.

[JustAnotherFan]

While seeing any sport go, for me it is men's crew that hurts the most. This sport has always struggled. It almost always seemed to be hanging by a thread, yet year after year guys got up at 4 am to go row. Nobody cared but them and a very few others. When I was at Stanford, Washington was totally dominant. We weren't going to defeat them. The goal was to beat Kal and to be representative in all our meets. A very few cared a whole lot about that. The thought that the last power ten has been called for and delivered (because of COVID-19) is really, really sad.

Aww :)

What hurts the most (besides my personal tie to men's rowing) is that in nearly all of these sports, Stanford was a banner name, a flagbearer and the standard to which high school athletes aspired.  Recruits from all over knew that Stanford was the place to be for both athletics and academics.  To throw in the towel on these sports is to admit that not even at Stanford can these student-athletes excel at the highest level that they and we expect of them.

For these sports, where a sanctioned varsity national championship already exists, club status is not acceptable for Stanford.  The lightweight women's rowing program, which has won nine of the last ten national championships, feels this the most strongly as they routinely beat openweight women's teams each fall during head racing season and showed up to win the national championship in the spring.  Where do they fit as a club?  Where do any of our highly competitive teams fit in as club sports?

If Stanford can't be a home for the smartest, most talented fencers, rowers, sailors, wrestlers, men's volleyball players, field hockey players, squash players, or synchro swimmers...what university should be, then?

Harvard. Obviously.

[81alum]

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

I've been saying that for 30 years and I work there.  The student body has little interest in it and attendance seldom breaks 15k--for a University with an alumni base in the area that is 15 times the size of Stanford's.  It saps $12 million of taxpayer dollars and $8 million of student fees per year, it generates $2-3 million of donations, and it has had one winning season in the last couple of decades.  But Presidents and Advancement people feel their own prestige and ability to raise money would be diminished if they worked at a university that was not in Division I football, and so they keep it for their own purposes.

[81alum]

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

I've been saying that for 30 years and I work there.  The student body has little interest in it and attendance seldom breaks 15k--for a University with an alumni base in the area that is 15 times the size of Stanford's.  It saps $12 million of taxpayer dollars and $8 million of student fees per year, it generates $2-3 million of donations, and it has had one winning season in the last couple of decades.  But Presidents and Advancement people feel their own prestige and ability to raise money would be diminished if they worked at a university that was not in Division I football, and so they keep it for their own purposes.

[Mick]

Let me say something controversial.  The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly.  We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.

Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent.  With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.

The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports.  The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.

Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors.  I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.

MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010.  The issue is that it is a very fringe sport.  Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team:  UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.

Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9.  Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball

Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.

---

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

Interesting observation.  Evidence?  I have none either way, your comments indicates that you know that "Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution" and you also stated "racism that has infected Stanford." Again, I ask you , can you cite evidence?

[Mick]

Let me say something controversial.  The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly.  We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.

Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent.  With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.

The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports.  The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.

Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors.  I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.

MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010.  The issue is that it is a very fringe sport.  Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team:  UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.

Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9.  Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball

Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.

---

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

Interesting observation.  Evidence?  I have none either way, your comments indicates that you know that "Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution" and you also stated "racism that has infected Stanford." Again, I ask you , can you cite evidence?

[Giants]

But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.

Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?

BC

Yes.  However, they were restored.  It is just a matter of time until they come to their senses and make the hard decision.

[Giants]

But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.

Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?

BC

Yes.  However, they were restored.  It is just a matter of time until they come to their senses and make the hard decision.

[Mick]

The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants. 

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it.  I don’t know the answer.  But I assume  the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day.  I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know?  I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist.  Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out.  I would support  Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.

You made the claim that racism has infected Stanford.  I asked you if you had evidence.  And you tell me "Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it. "  

Why can't I ask the question?

[Mick]

The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants. 

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it.  I don’t know the answer.  But I assume  the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day.  I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know?  I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist.  Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out.  I would support  Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.

You made the claim that racism has infected Stanford.  I asked you if you had evidence.  And you tell me "Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it. "  

Why can't I ask the question?

[BostonCard]

But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.

Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?

BC

Yes.  However, they were restored.  It is just a matter of time until they come to their senses and make the hard decision.

I thought baseball was restored.  I wasn't sure that the other sports were.

BC

[BostonCard]

But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.

Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?

BC

Yes.  However, they were restored.  It is just a matter of time until they come to their senses and make the hard decision.

I thought baseball was restored.  I wasn't sure that the other sports were.

BC

[Phogge]

Wow, provocative question. I would answer that this is the USA and I have a right to ask just about any question that I want to. And you have a right to respond and directly point out where the institution is failing. And I have a duty to listen to you. If that right is taken away then I'm off to Slovenia.

Probably politics so my hand will be slapped but we do need dialogue.

[Phogge]

Wow, provocative question. I would answer that this is the USA and I have a right to ask just about any question that I want to. And you have a right to respond and directly point out where the institution is failing. And I have a duty to listen to you. If that right is taken away then I'm off to Slovenia.

Probably politics so my hand will be slapped but we do need dialogue.

[chrisk]

The 2019 Buck/Cardinal Club report shows athletic department revenue in excess of $120M, with $50M coming from philanthropy ($35M of which was payout from the endowment.)

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

[chrisk]

The 2019 Buck/Cardinal Club report shows athletic department revenue in excess of $120M, with $50M coming from philanthropy ($35M of which was payout from the endowment.)

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

[Phogge]

My school has made a small fraction of Stanford's yearly sports revenue in its entire history. You guys don't know how fortunate you are.

[Phogge]

My school has made a small fraction of Stanford's yearly sports revenue in its entire history. You guys don't know how fortunate you are.

[Spiny_Norman]

The 2019 Buck/Cardinal Club report shows athletic department revenue in excess of $120M, with $50M coming from philanthropy ($35M of which was payout from the endowment.)

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

The P12 is so far behind other top programs across the country. The data in this table is from 2017-18 and the gap has probably increased since then.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

It only contains public school data so Stanford and USC are missing. But you can slot them in around $120M. The P12 is in an athletic arms race and is losing badly.

[Spiny_Norman]

The 2019 Buck/Cardinal Club report shows athletic department revenue in excess of $120M, with $50M coming from philanthropy ($35M of which was payout from the endowment.)

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

The P12 is so far behind other top programs across the country. The data in this table is from 2017-18 and the gap has probably increased since then.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

It only contains public school data so Stanford and USC are missing. But you can slot them in around $120M. The P12 is in an athletic arms race and is losing badly.

[pefloresjr]

Mick,
Of course you can ask the question but I think it is likely that you know that your question about racism "infecting" Stanford is really beside the point.  The point is that inherent bias has been shown to exist in the vast majority of people and also affects the way institutions treat people of different backgrounds and races.  This has historically been to the great detriment of people of color.  There is no evidence or reason to believe that Stanford is immune to these biases.  

It can be difficult to see bias in places like Stanford where people from many diverse backgrounds are given the great opportunity of accessing a high level education.  However, as a minority student, I experienced several instances where people at Stanford initially didn't believe or were surprised that I was a Stanford student.  These mostly happened when I was working or coming from work driving a truck and working in shipping and receiving in the old basement of the bookstore.  The worst of all was when I was wrongly accused of having attempted to defraud Stanford regarding paying tuition when, in fact, I had attempted to pay my tuition several times and they kept refunding my payments.  It was all eventually straightened out but it was clear to me that the benefit of the doubt was always against me until I was able to bring forth overwhelming evidence of their error.  They never believed me even with evidence when I was still in my work clothes.  They finally did believe me when I met with them on a non-work day and wasn't dressed like a Mexican worker who didn't look like a typical Stanford student.  Just one of many lifetime experiences with inherent bias.  

Things don't have to be worse at Stanford for there to be a need to examine and attempt to root out the inherent racism that does still exist at Stanford.  Returning to the basis for this thread, I am glad that diversity was considered in the decision making that went into the heartbreaking outcome of cutting 11 sports.  I don't think it should be the primary factor and it doesn't seem that it was.  However, I think it is a big step forward to even acknowledge that diversity is an important goal.  The same applies to Title IX.  Diversity and rooting out inherent and historical bias helps to improve the educational experience for all.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Mick,
Of course you can ask the question but I think it is likely that you know that your question about racism "infecting" Stanford is really beside the point.  The point is that inherent bias has been shown to exist in the vast majority of people and also affects the way institutions treat people of different backgrounds and races.  This has historically been to the great detriment of people of color.  There is no evidence or reason to believe that Stanford is immune to these biases.  

It can be difficult to see bias in places like Stanford where people from many diverse backgrounds are given the great opportunity of accessing a high level education.  However, as a minority student, I experienced several instances where people at Stanford initially didn't believe or were surprised that I was a Stanford student.  These mostly happened when I was working or coming from work driving a truck and working in shipping and receiving in the old basement of the bookstore.  The worst of all was when I was wrongly accused of having attempted to defraud Stanford regarding paying tuition when, in fact, I had attempted to pay my tuition several times and they kept refunding my payments.  It was all eventually straightened out but it was clear to me that the benefit of the doubt was always against me until I was able to bring forth overwhelming evidence of their error.  They never believed me even with evidence when I was still in my work clothes.  They finally did believe me when I met with them on a non-work day and wasn't dressed like a Mexican worker who didn't look like a typical Stanford student.  Just one of many lifetime experiences with inherent bias.  

Things don't have to be worse at Stanford for there to be a need to examine and attempt to root out the inherent racism that does still exist at Stanford.  Returning to the basis for this thread, I am glad that diversity was considered in the decision making that went into the heartbreaking outcome of cutting 11 sports.  I don't think it should be the primary factor and it doesn't seem that it was.  However, I think it is a big step forward to even acknowledge that diversity is an important goal.  The same applies to Title IX.  Diversity and rooting out inherent and historical bias helps to improve the educational experience for all.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[fullmetal]

OK. Still, and at risk of offending the more tender sensibilities on this board, the inevitable mastodon-in-the-living-room question becomes.."Who cares?"  Who besides players, coaches, families and the cultists who follow these activities really cares what/where that mythical "home" is?

Not sure if you attended Stanford, but it should be at least evident that student-athletes involved in these sports affect or influence their peers during college and forever on down their course in life.  They usually end up giving back to the sport, working in service to their greater communities and sometimes doing outreach work for high school student-athletes.  They end up on governing boards, in philanthropic positions, and administrative leadership.  They become role models in their local scenes, bolstered by their experiences as D1 varsity athletes with the Stanford brand of excellence.  Their postgraduate legacies are also part of the Stanford athletics legacy.

But maybe you don't know this because you weren't there, or you didn't know these people.  Shame.

Did you start this thread just to dunk on eleven sports for being so pitiful that the athletic department could cut them with impunity?  Obviously you cared enough to start the thread.  And there are many people on this board who do care about Stanford athletics in the general and in the specific.  This board serves to educate and inform Stanford sports fans about all Stanford sports, so your implication that non-players, non-parents, and non-cultists ought not to care is misplaced here.

[fullmetal]

OK. Still, and at risk of offending the more tender sensibilities on this board, the inevitable mastodon-in-the-living-room question becomes.."Who cares?"  Who besides players, coaches, families and the cultists who follow these activities really cares what/where that mythical "home" is?

Not sure if you attended Stanford, but it should be at least evident that student-athletes involved in these sports affect or influence their peers during college and forever on down their course in life.  They usually end up giving back to the sport, working in service to their greater communities and sometimes doing outreach work for high school student-athletes.  They end up on governing boards, in philanthropic positions, and administrative leadership.  They become role models in their local scenes, bolstered by their experiences as D1 varsity athletes with the Stanford brand of excellence.  Their postgraduate legacies are also part of the Stanford athletics legacy.

But maybe you don't know this because you weren't there, or you didn't know these people.  Shame.

Did you start this thread just to dunk on eleven sports for being so pitiful that the athletic department could cut them with impunity?  Obviously you cared enough to start the thread.  And there are many people on this board who do care about Stanford athletics in the general and in the specific.  This board serves to educate and inform Stanford sports fans about all Stanford sports, so your implication that non-players, non-parents, and non-cultists ought not to care is misplaced here.

[Mudhead]

The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants. 

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it.  I don’t know the answer.  But I assume  the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day.  I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know?  I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist.  Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out.  I would support  Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.

You made the claim that racism has infected Stanford.  I asked you if you had evidence.  And you tell me "Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it. "  

Why can't I ask the question?

Mick, obviously you can ask any question you want. You in fact did. In all liklyhood you won’t get an answer . I certainly don’t have one.  Also please note it’s not me or anyone on this board who claimed racism at Stanford.  It was the President of the University who spends a lot more time on Campus and is on position to know.  I don’t spend much time on campus and did not know racism was so present that it was necessary to hire 20 professionals and put everyone through sensitivity training or I would not have been making my regular small donations to the school .( it would have survived without them , I’m pretty sure).  I’m hoping this gets cleaned up so i can renew my support.

I agree with Pete F when he observes that it is beside the point ; we don’t have any reason to know that the racism discovery had anything to do with ending the 11 sports. I only raised it to suggest that the University has many demands for its resources, some of which are more important than others. Any good leader, not just Muir , who is drawing on University funds (“deficit?”) has the obligation to weed out expenditures that are not productive. We can disagree with the decision; I was just trying to make the point that there is no free money and that if one area is in deficit some other area will be short changed.

BTW, whoever is in charge of the new profs and the sensitivity training has the duty to make sure those funds are spent effectively or else curtailed. So does everyone else in charge of a budget at Stanford. Based on his actions, Muir understands this and I applaud him for it. I hope he is not alone in being willing to make hard decisions; decisions that save money rather than use it.

Sorry if my point was poorly made or if i came across as trying to tell you what questions you can ask.  I was just trying to suggest that getting hard data to support decisions in academia is usually a fruitless task, akin to tilting at windmills .  But each of us can do so.

[Mudhead]

The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants. 

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it.  I don’t know the answer.  But I assume  the President does.. he is there and works with faculty and students every day.  I’m on campus maybe ten days a year so how can I know?  I’ve given money ( not big money) to Stanford for many years and was never told nor had any reason to believe my money was going to an institution that was racist.  Now I know and am willing to support efforts to rectify it. But that’s really a side line to the question of cutting these sports out.  I would support  Muirs effort irrespective of the race issue.

You made the claim that racism has infected Stanford.  I asked you if you had evidence.  And you tell me "Interesting question but I’m not sure you are supposed  to ask it. "  

Why can't I ask the question?

Mick, obviously you can ask any question you want. You in fact did. In all liklyhood you won’t get an answer . I certainly don’t have one.  Also please note it’s not me or anyone on this board who claimed racism at Stanford.  It was the President of the University who spends a lot more time on Campus and is on position to know.  I don’t spend much time on campus and did not know racism was so present that it was necessary to hire 20 professionals and put everyone through sensitivity training or I would not have been making my regular small donations to the school .( it would have survived without them , I’m pretty sure).  I’m hoping this gets cleaned up so i can renew my support.

I agree with Pete F when he observes that it is beside the point ; we don’t have any reason to know that the racism discovery had anything to do with ending the 11 sports. I only raised it to suggest that the University has many demands for its resources, some of which are more important than others. Any good leader, not just Muir , who is drawing on University funds (“deficit?”) has the obligation to weed out expenditures that are not productive. We can disagree with the decision; I was just trying to make the point that there is no free money and that if one area is in deficit some other area will be short changed.

BTW, whoever is in charge of the new profs and the sensitivity training has the duty to make sure those funds are spent effectively or else curtailed. So does everyone else in charge of a budget at Stanford. Based on his actions, Muir understands this and I applaud him for it. I hope he is not alone in being willing to make hard decisions; decisions that save money rather than use it.

Sorry if my point was poorly made or if i came across as trying to tell you what questions you can ask.  I was just trying to suggest that getting hard data to support decisions in academia is usually a fruitless task, akin to tilting at windmills .  But each of us can do so.

[JustAnotherFan]

Let me say something controversial.  The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly.  We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.

Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent.  With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.

The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports.  The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.

Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors.  I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.

MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010.  The issue is that it is a very fringe sport.  Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team:  UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.

Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9.  Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball

Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.

---

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

Interesting observation.  Evidence?  I have none either way, your comments indicates that you know that "Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution" and you also stated "racism that has infected Stanford."  Again, I ask you , can you cite evidence?

I didn't say racism has infected Stanford. That was someone else. Racism has always been a part of Stanford as it has been with nearly every college and university. 

But other universities have moved with regards to their inherently racist and classist admissions policies. Stanford could have been a leader, for example, in striking standardized tests in the admissions process. They haven't. Haven't even gone test optional (except during pandemic times I suppose). Yet over 1000 other colleges have. 

Also, the Hoover Institute. Heather MacDonald for goodness sake. If cancel culture ever needed to hit someone it is her.

Just two examples. Stanford might send out a nicely worded email from Deans and the President about how they believe Black Lives Matter but it seems they have as much eagerness to actually combat their own racism as Princeton does (and Princeton does not). Just my two cents. To be fair, no university is actually anti-racist. So Stanford is just worse in degrees of apathy or inaction. I would love for Stanford to prove me wrong some day.

[JustAnotherFan]

Let me say something controversial.  The idea that Stanford supported 36 sports including 6 sports that the NCAA didn't even sanction was always silly.  We also supported a number of sports with almost no competitors on the west coast making putting together a schedule for a reasonable cost very difficult.

Even if you have the money to do this, there are other resources being spent.  With 12% of the student body playing varsity sports, we are asking for a lot of admissions breaks for all of these sports.

The sad thing is it seems like we held onto these sports for far too long and now that we need to cut we are doing it to 11 varsity sports.  The two that are really sad are wrestling and MVB.

Wrestling is a great sport with a decent number of schools competing and at least a reasonable number of west coast competitors.  I think the issue is that even with our recent momentum we were never really going to compete for a national title.

MVB we clearly can be more competitive and won the title as recently as 2010.  The issue is that it is a very fringe sport.  Only four other Power 5 schools have a MVB team:  UCLA, USC, PSU, OSU.

Another way to think about it is lets pretend that we have to cut a certain number of sports and the last two have to be men's due to title 9.  Which of these sports do you cut rather than wrestling and MVB:
Baseball

Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

Excellent point. By the way, I'd be nervous if I were Stanford men's gymnastics. While they are the defending national champs, and they have won 6 titles, it is worth noting that there are only 16 schools in the nation that field a Division I team. Of those teams, Cal is the only other team in the Pacific time zone, and only Air Force is in the Mountain time zone.

---

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however.  Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts.  The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all.  I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most.  Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities.  Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

Is Stanford measurably more racist now than...5/10/20/50 years ago?  Have they gathered evidence?

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

Interesting observation.  Evidence?  I have none either way, your comments indicates that you know that "Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution" and you also stated "racism that has infected Stanford."  Again, I ask you , can you cite evidence?

I didn't say racism has infected Stanford. That was someone else. Racism has always been a part of Stanford as it has been with nearly every college and university. 

But other universities have moved with regards to their inherently racist and classist admissions policies. Stanford could have been a leader, for example, in striking standardized tests in the admissions process. They haven't. Haven't even gone test optional (except during pandemic times I suppose). Yet over 1000 other colleges have. 

Also, the Hoover Institute. Heather MacDonald for goodness sake. If cancel culture ever needed to hit someone it is her.

Just two examples. Stanford might send out a nicely worded email from Deans and the President about how they believe Black Lives Matter but it seems they have as much eagerness to actually combat their own racism as Princeton does (and Princeton does not). Just my two cents. To be fair, no university is actually anti-racist. So Stanford is just worse in degrees of apathy or inaction. I would love for Stanford to prove me wrong some day.

[Giants]

But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.

Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?

BC

Yes.  However, they were restored.  It is just a matter of time until they come to their senses and make the hard decision.

I thought baseball was restored.  I wasn't sure that the other sports were.

BC

All five were restored

Rugby
Baseball
Lacrosse
Men’s and Women’s Gymnastics

[Giants]

But if a mid-tier university is the first to make such an announcement, there will be serious questions about their overall financial solvency.

Didn't Cal cut a bunch of varsity sports a while back?

BC

Yes.  However, they were restored.  It is just a matter of time until they come to their senses and make the hard decision.

I thought baseball was restored.  I wasn't sure that the other sports were.

BC

All five were restored

Rugby
Baseball
Lacrosse
Men’s and Women’s Gymnastics

[BigJohn043]

I didn't say racism has infected Stanford. That was someone else. Racism has always been a part of Stanford as it has been with nearly every college and university. 

But other universities have moved with regards to their inherently racist and classist admissions policies. Stanford could have been a leader, for example, in striking standardized tests in the admissions process. They haven't. Haven't even gone test optional (except during pandemic times I suppose). Yet over 1000 other colleges have. 

Also, the Hoover Institute. Heather MacDonald for goodness sake. If cancel culture ever needed to hit someone it is her.

Just two examples. Stanford might send out a nicely worded email from Deans and the President about how they believe Black Lives Matter but it seems they have as much eagerness to actually combat their own racism as Princeton does (and Princeton does not). Just my two cents. To be fair, no university is actually anti-racist. So Stanford is just worse in degrees of apathy or inaction. I would love for Stanford to prove me wrong some day.

Standardized tests are used because they work.  They actually help predict college success.  But lets ignore that.

UC just did a big faculty led study.  The found that Standardized tests actually meant that more diverse students were admitted and not less.  They were particularly good at identifying students who did well on the test but had poor grades.  They recommended keeping the tests.

Of course the Regents promptly ignored the work and voted to start moving away from the tests.  Despite the left thinking it is pro-science, it turns out that both sides promptly ignore the science when it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs....

[BigJohn043]

I didn't say racism has infected Stanford. That was someone else. Racism has always been a part of Stanford as it has been with nearly every college and university. 

But other universities have moved with regards to their inherently racist and classist admissions policies. Stanford could have been a leader, for example, in striking standardized tests in the admissions process. They haven't. Haven't even gone test optional (except during pandemic times I suppose). Yet over 1000 other colleges have. 

Also, the Hoover Institute. Heather MacDonald for goodness sake. If cancel culture ever needed to hit someone it is her.

Just two examples. Stanford might send out a nicely worded email from Deans and the President about how they believe Black Lives Matter but it seems they have as much eagerness to actually combat their own racism as Princeton does (and Princeton does not). Just my two cents. To be fair, no university is actually anti-racist. So Stanford is just worse in degrees of apathy or inaction. I would love for Stanford to prove me wrong some day.

Standardized tests are used because they work.  They actually help predict college success.  But lets ignore that.

UC just did a big faculty led study.  The found that Standardized tests actually meant that more diverse students were admitted and not less.  They were particularly good at identifying students who did well on the test but had poor grades.  They recommended keeping the tests.

Of course the Regents promptly ignored the work and voted to start moving away from the tests.  Despite the left thinking it is pro-science, it turns out that both sides promptly ignore the science when it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs....

[LuckE2Bhere]

Great thread (politics aside), folks - thank you all!

A few notes that may be of interest... as I'm still recovering from this news:

The coaching staff with whom I was on a call recently noted that they were informed 5 minutes before the press release hit the wire. Completely blind-sided.  Contrary to the release's reference to discussions with athletes, they had clearly not been informed (and there may now be a misalignment of interests between those who are still trying to save certain of these programs, and the Athletic Department's desire to tell these athletes that "it's over").

Otherwise, I'm generally a fan of Bernard Muir.  Truly a great person.  To whoever suggested that he take a proportionate pay cut: point well taken... but he may be "exiting stage left" soon anyway (I've seen references to him being considered for the ACC Commissioner's job).

I've also heard that he had to save/protect at least one or two other programs that were at risk of being cut.  I certainly hope this is not just the beginning - we need to play football this fall (safely)!

[LuckE2Bhere]

Great thread (politics aside), folks - thank you all!

A few notes that may be of interest... as I'm still recovering from this news:

The coaching staff with whom I was on a call recently noted that they were informed 5 minutes before the press release hit the wire. Completely blind-sided.  Contrary to the release's reference to discussions with athletes, they had clearly not been informed (and there may now be a misalignment of interests between those who are still trying to save certain of these programs, and the Athletic Department's desire to tell these athletes that "it's over").

Otherwise, I'm generally a fan of Bernard Muir.  Truly a great person.  To whoever suggested that he take a proportionate pay cut: point well taken... but he may be "exiting stage left" soon anyway (I've seen references to him being considered for the ACC Commissioner's job).

I've also heard that he had to save/protect at least one or two other programs that were at risk of being cut.  I certainly hope this is not just the beginning - we need to play football this fall (safely)!

[JustAnotherFan]

Standardized tests are used because they work.  They actually help predict college success.  But lets ignore that.

They are actually a worse predictor of college success than high school grades and family wealth. They also have a much higher correlation with family wealth than they do college success. 

UC just did a big faculty led study.  The found that Standardized tests actually meant that more diverse students were admitted and not less.  They were particularly good at identifying students who did well on the test but had poor grades.  They recommended keeping the tests.

This is an overwhelmingly simplistic reading of the UC study.

Who tends to do better on tests than in school? Who is paying for test prep. 

Of course the Regents promptly ignored the work and voted to start moving away from the tests.  Despite the left thinking it is pro-science, it turns out that both sides promptly ignore the science when it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs....

The task force did not provide an endorsement of using standardized tests. They didn't "ignore" the work. It was underwhelming, at best. Standardized tests are a poor predictor of success at the college level. UC has enough candidates that they can easily make determinations on who to let in without the tests that won't reinforce race and class disparities without sacrificing academic quality or graduation rates.

Stanford sure as hell doesn't need them.

[JustAnotherFan]

Standardized tests are used because they work.  They actually help predict college success.  But lets ignore that.

They are actually a worse predictor of college success than high school grades and family wealth. They also have a much higher correlation with family wealth than they do college success. 

UC just did a big faculty led study.  The found that Standardized tests actually meant that more diverse students were admitted and not less.  They were particularly good at identifying students who did well on the test but had poor grades.  They recommended keeping the tests.

This is an overwhelmingly simplistic reading of the UC study.

Who tends to do better on tests than in school? Who is paying for test prep. 

Of course the Regents promptly ignored the work and voted to start moving away from the tests.  Despite the left thinking it is pro-science, it turns out that both sides promptly ignore the science when it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs....

The task force did not provide an endorsement of using standardized tests. They didn't "ignore" the work. It was underwhelming, at best. Standardized tests are a poor predictor of success at the college level. UC has enough candidates that they can easily make determinations on who to let in without the tests that won't reinforce race and class disparities without sacrificing academic quality or graduation rates.

Stanford sure as hell doesn't need them.