[teejers1]

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.

And you know that . . . how?
I find it hard to believe that Stanford has not kept pace with "societal evolution" on anything, but particularly on the race front.

[teejers1]

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.

And you know that . . . how?
I find it hard to believe that Stanford has not kept pace with "societal evolution" on anything, but particularly on the race front.

[fullmetal]

I think the racism digression started with a false conjecture that hiring diversity specialists was related to the 11 sports cut, whether by budget or function.  That conjecture doesn't pass the smell test as some of those 11 sports contribute to diversity, and that the university (not the athletic department) seems to be hiring the diversity specialists.  May we never hear this kind of ridiculousness again.

Looks like there are various grassroots alumni responses to the announcement forming, both through each of the 11 programs' alumni and through the general alumni population.  No one's going to take this sitting down, even if the athletic department did their best to shock and awe the coaches and students into thinking all would be inevitable.

[fullmetal]

I think the racism digression started with a false conjecture that hiring diversity specialists was related to the 11 sports cut, whether by budget or function.  That conjecture doesn't pass the smell test as some of those 11 sports contribute to diversity, and that the university (not the athletic department) seems to be hiring the diversity specialists.  May we never hear this kind of ridiculousness again.

Looks like there are various grassroots alumni responses to the announcement forming, both through each of the 11 programs' alumni and through the general alumni population.  No one's going to take this sitting down, even if the athletic department did their best to shock and awe the coaches and students into thinking all would be inevitable.

[BigJohn043]

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.

It looks like you didn't read the report.  Here it is:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.ed...report.pdf

Let me pull out some juicy quotes.  And I am sure that you thought it was "under-whelming" because you don't like the answer.  I am sure you believe the faculty Senate are a bunch of Trump loving racists.

" The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.  For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

"Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups."

Facts are stubborn things....

[BigJohn043]

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.

It looks like you didn't read the report.  Here it is:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.ed...report.pdf

Let me pull out some juicy quotes.  And I am sure that you thought it was "under-whelming" because you don't like the answer.  I am sure you believe the faculty Senate are a bunch of Trump loving racists.

" The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.  For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

"Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups."

Facts are stubborn things....

[JustAnotherFan]

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.

And you know that . . . how?
I find it hard to believe that Stanford has not kept pace with "societal evolution" on anything, but particularly on the race front.

Are you suggesting that Stanford has somehow kept pace, or even led?

---

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.

It looks like you didn't read the report.  Here it is:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.ed...report.pdf

Let me pull out some juicy quotes.  And I am sure that you thought it was "under-whelming" because you don't like the answer.  I am sure you believe the faculty Senate are a bunch of Trump loving racists.

" The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.  For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

"Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups."

Facts are stubborn things....

Facts are stubborn things. Especially when you pick and choose facts to support your inaccurate initial claims. 

Ironically, your selective quotes don't even support your position. Underwhelming was indeed the right word to use. For example, "test scores" are "about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation" as high school GPA is. Wow. So yeah, if you care about first-year GPA in college you should totally lean on test scores. Because lord knows that is what is important. Oh wait, it isn't. What is more important than first-year GPA? Right, more important is first-year retention, undergraduate GPA, and graduation rates. Of which the tests that consume high school juniors and seniors does not actually provide meaningful benefit to the university, much less the applicant. And that's what you want to hang your hat on?

Also, there is this hell of a thing called correlation vs causation. Why do you think there is a correlation between test scores within a GPA band and certain outcomes? It couldn't have anything to do with ... family resources, could it? Speaking of correlation, because that's what you seem fixated on, guess what correlates best with the tests? Intellect? No. Work ethic? No. Values? No. Family resources? Yup.

Now if you, or UC, cared about economic and racial diversity, and access, you could promote using a top x percent system like UT does. 

Test scores work ... for families that can pay for test prep, for students who have stable home lives, for schools that want an excuse to keep their URM and low-income population down.

[JustAnotherFan]

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.

And you know that . . . how?
I find it hard to believe that Stanford has not kept pace with "societal evolution" on anything, but particularly on the race front.

Are you suggesting that Stanford has somehow kept pace, or even led?

---

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.

It looks like you didn't read the report.  Here it is:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.ed...report.pdf

Let me pull out some juicy quotes.  And I am sure that you thought it was "under-whelming" because you don't like the answer.  I am sure you believe the faculty Senate are a bunch of Trump loving racists.

" The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.  For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

"Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups."

Facts are stubborn things....

Facts are stubborn things. Especially when you pick and choose facts to support your inaccurate initial claims. 

Ironically, your selective quotes don't even support your position. Underwhelming was indeed the right word to use. For example, "test scores" are "about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation" as high school GPA is. Wow. So yeah, if you care about first-year GPA in college you should totally lean on test scores. Because lord knows that is what is important. Oh wait, it isn't. What is more important than first-year GPA? Right, more important is first-year retention, undergraduate GPA, and graduation rates. Of which the tests that consume high school juniors and seniors does not actually provide meaningful benefit to the university, much less the applicant. And that's what you want to hang your hat on?

Also, there is this hell of a thing called correlation vs causation. Why do you think there is a correlation between test scores within a GPA band and certain outcomes? It couldn't have anything to do with ... family resources, could it? Speaking of correlation, because that's what you seem fixated on, guess what correlates best with the tests? Intellect? No. Work ethic? No. Values? No. Family resources? Yup.

Now if you, or UC, cared about economic and racial diversity, and access, you could promote using a top x percent system like UT does. 

Test scores work ... for families that can pay for test prep, for students who have stable home lives, for schools that want an excuse to keep their URM and low-income population down.

[BigJohn043]

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned.  The study clearly said that SATs help predict outcomes.  For some metrics better than GPA and for others about the same.

Not sure why you wouldn't want an admissions office to look at a piece of data that clearly correlates with the thing they are supposed to be doing which is admit the students with the best change of success at their school.  I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

[BigJohn043]

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned.  The study clearly said that SATs help predict outcomes.  For some metrics better than GPA and for others about the same.

Not sure why you wouldn't want an admissions office to look at a piece of data that clearly correlates with the thing they are supposed to be doing which is admit the students with the best change of success at their school.  I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

[JustAnotherFan]

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned.  The study clearly said that SATs help predict outcomes.  For some metrics better than GPA and for others about the same.

Not sure why you wouldn't want an admissions office to look at a piece of data that clearly correlates with the thing they are supposed to be doing which is admit the students with the best change of success at their school.  I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned. The study clearly states that SATs are marginal measures, at best, in predicting outcomes. And not helpful in the most important outcomes. Or do you think that first year GPA is more important than UGPA, or college completion?

People see a .4 correlation and they lose it thinking they found something valuable, but when almost all of the benefit of SATs is already accounted for by say ... GPA and class ranking ... it isn't valuable.

You know what else correlates with college completion rate, by the way? Race. Income. Ethnicity. Zip code. Are you advocating that they use those pieces of data? Of course not. That would be highly problematic. But no worries, the SAT is a proxy for all of it, so that way admissions can be "objective" and you get the benefit of keeping poor and Black and brown kids out. Win-win.

Also, admissions offices are not supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school." Admissions offices have many charges and success at school is but a minor one. They need to fill the sports teams with good recruited athletes. They need to make donors happy. They need to have token diversity and geographic representation. They need to meet revenue expectations. They need to accept faculty children. They need to give advantages to legacies. It is ridiculous to believe that admissions officers are merely supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school."

I don't want to look at the "very valid piece of information" because it is only valid in the eyes of people who want to preserve the status quo. The test measures one thing -- ability to take the test. That's why Chicago went test optional along with 1000 other colleges. And it is embarrassing that Stanford still requires it. It is a fabulous example of Stanford not leading, but simply going along for the ride while society evolves. 

Anyway, I have one simple request from you. Please say explicitly what you are getting at with this statement: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I'd love for you to own it.

[JustAnotherFan]

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned.  The study clearly said that SATs help predict outcomes.  For some metrics better than GPA and for others about the same.

Not sure why you wouldn't want an admissions office to look at a piece of data that clearly correlates with the thing they are supposed to be doing which is admit the students with the best change of success at their school.  I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned. The study clearly states that SATs are marginal measures, at best, in predicting outcomes. And not helpful in the most important outcomes. Or do you think that first year GPA is more important than UGPA, or college completion?

People see a .4 correlation and they lose it thinking they found something valuable, but when almost all of the benefit of SATs is already accounted for by say ... GPA and class ranking ... it isn't valuable.

You know what else correlates with college completion rate, by the way? Race. Income. Ethnicity. Zip code. Are you advocating that they use those pieces of data? Of course not. That would be highly problematic. But no worries, the SAT is a proxy for all of it, so that way admissions can be "objective" and you get the benefit of keeping poor and Black and brown kids out. Win-win.

Also, admissions offices are not supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school." Admissions offices have many charges and success at school is but a minor one. They need to fill the sports teams with good recruited athletes. They need to make donors happy. They need to have token diversity and geographic representation. They need to meet revenue expectations. They need to accept faculty children. They need to give advantages to legacies. It is ridiculous to believe that admissions officers are merely supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school."

I don't want to look at the "very valid piece of information" because it is only valid in the eyes of people who want to preserve the status quo. The test measures one thing -- ability to take the test. That's why Chicago went test optional along with 1000 other colleges. And it is embarrassing that Stanford still requires it. It is a fabulous example of Stanford not leading, but simply going along for the ride while society evolves. 

Anyway, I have one simple request from you. Please say explicitly what you are getting at with this statement: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I'd love for you to own it.

[Mick]

From Science magazine:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3...0coaching.

Results from a large body of literature indicate that standardized tests are useful predictors of subsequent performance in graduate school, predict more accurately than college GPA, do not demonstrate bias, and are not damaged by test coaching. Despite differences across disciplines in grading standards, content, and pedagogy, standardized admissions tests have positive and useful relationships with subsequent student accomplishments.

[Mick]

From Science magazine:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/3...0coaching.

Results from a large body of literature indicate that standardized tests are useful predictors of subsequent performance in graduate school, predict more accurately than college GPA, do not demonstrate bias, and are not damaged by test coaching. Despite differences across disciplines in grading standards, content, and pedagogy, standardized admissions tests have positive and useful relationships with subsequent student accomplishments.

[doubledub]

It is amusing how some folks here believe they know what is good for UC, know even more than the folks who run the place and have a stake in maintaining and growing its prestige. I happen to work there and have a relationship with the decision-makers...they are not making decisions lightly or without serious consideration.

The SATs predict first year success, but not after. Tests benefit the privileged (white, black, brown, etc.)  If you want to perpetuate elitism and benefit wealthy people, who are largely white, sure use the SAT. If you are actually interested in identifying talent or raw ability, then maybe the SAT is not what you want to use.

When you examine the undisputed racist origins of IQ tests and the SAT you might reconsider its use.

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

[doubledub]

It is amusing how some folks here believe they know what is good for UC, know even more than the folks who run the place and have a stake in maintaining and growing its prestige. I happen to work there and have a relationship with the decision-makers...they are not making decisions lightly or without serious consideration.

The SATs predict first year success, but not after. Tests benefit the privileged (white, black, brown, etc.)  If you want to perpetuate elitism and benefit wealthy people, who are largely white, sure use the SAT. If you are actually interested in identifying talent or raw ability, then maybe the SAT is not what you want to use.

When you examine the undisputed racist origins of IQ tests and the SAT you might reconsider its use.

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

[teejers1]

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

Thank you, Jim Mora ("You think you know, but you don't know. . .").

Look, I'll concede white privilege in society at large (and I happen to think that is one of the biggest pieces of systemic racism).  But what I question is whether the privilege (for lack of a better term) is that pronounced for Stanford students versus their AA schoolmates.  And more to the point here, I cannot conceive that it's "as bad" at Stanford as it is in society at large.

But no one has cell phones, so I'll guess we'll all just have to take your word as "the truth."

[teejers1]

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

Thank you, Jim Mora ("You think you know, but you don't know. . .").

Look, I'll concede white privilege in society at large (and I happen to think that is one of the biggest pieces of systemic racism).  But what I question is whether the privilege (for lack of a better term) is that pronounced for Stanford students versus their AA schoolmates.  And more to the point here, I cannot conceive that it's "as bad" at Stanford as it is in society at large.

But no one has cell phones, so I'll guess we'll all just have to take your word as "the truth."

[akiddoc]

Men's gymnastics is down to 15 NCAA teams, not 16. My son's team at University of Illinois Chicago was the last to be cut a year ago. They are now club level and continue to compete against the NCAA teams. There are 5 college club teams that are decent, but none near the Stanford level. My son is attempting to transfer to an NCAA school. Since no one knows if there will be a season this winter that is in limbo right now. 

Since my kids are biracial, black and white, I'm pretty well versed in the admissions issues around race and privilege. My kids are basically privileged African Americans (But that doesn't mean that unpleasant things have not occurred due to their race.). There is some correlation between SAT and college achievement. Several studies have shown that. It is far from linear and isn't much different than high school GPA in predicting college success. All of the arguing over SAT vs GPA doesn't make too much sense. Studies on this issue are all over the place. The most recent one I have seen shows high school GPA to be a better predictor ( https://www.educationdive.com/news/high-...co/571287/ ). I think schools like Stanford want to hold on to the SAT as a guarantee that there is no fraud in a school's GPA. There are many examples of small private schools producing students with perfect GPA's and ridiculously low SAT's. Stanford wants to be sure they do not admit those students. And there is certainly variation from high school to high school in grading. My daughter's high school was "harder than college" per her assessment, while my son's high school was no where near the difficulty of a top prep school. 

According to the people I know in undergrad admissions at UCB, UC wanted to be able to use both the SAT and GPA to identify kids who might be successful where one of those was low but the other was high. If either grades OR SAT were high, they would assign more weight with the score that made the student look better when looking at students from lower socioloeconomic neighborhoods. The reason for initially keeping the SAT was not because at was a better predictor of college success. 

The fact of the matter is that if your parents have money, you can improve your SAT about 100 points with top tutors. It is pretty much an invalid method of assessment unless used for comparison within the same socioeconomic group. 

The fact of the matter is that institutionalized racism is greatly impacting the preparation for college of the majority of students of color in this country. It starts at the preschool level and extends through high school. Because students of color generally live in poor neighborhoods, they do not attend premium preschools. They do not get the best teachers. Their schools are inferior in supplies, maintenance, and physical plant. According to the psychology literature, children who are aware of racism directed at them from a young age do not do as well academically, suffering essentially from chronic PTSD. Although it is fine to get as many underprivileged kids into college as possible, if the underlying racism and classism that affects our educational system is not addressed, we will never fix this problem. If you come out of high school unprepared, you won't succeed at a top educational institution. 

10 years ago, an elementary school in a poor section of Hayward, California was closed for three years while it was demolished and rebuilt. The rebuild included the best equipment and facilities possible. A new principal was brought in and allowed to recruit the best teachers she could find. Within three years of reopening, the school went from one of the worst in the city to the best according to the standardized test scores administered by the state. It surpassed the school sitting in an affluent area next to Cal State Hayward (now called Cal State East Bay). The school is 77% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 7% Black, 4% biracial and 2% White. Unfortunately it has not held onto those gains as the new teachers and the principal eventually drifted away. The Hayward school district does not pay very well. 

There is a charter school in San Lorenzo, CA called KIPP Summit. Grades 5-8. Pretty similar demographics. When the state was publishing scores there was a year when the school ranked #4 in California on the statewide tests. I know the person who was the first principal of the school. He was recruited from my daughter's private school. The school has first rate teachers. 99% of the graduates go to college. There is a long waiting list to get a place in the school. 


When the investment is made and the surrounding community takes pride in the school, brobdingnagian changes can be made. It would cost hundreds of billions a year to bring all of our schools to the level needed, but it would be better spent than in almost any other way that I can think of. 

[akiddoc]

Men's gymnastics is down to 15 NCAA teams, not 16. My son's team at University of Illinois Chicago was the last to be cut a year ago. They are now club level and continue to compete against the NCAA teams. There are 5 college club teams that are decent, but none near the Stanford level. My son is attempting to transfer to an NCAA school. Since no one knows if there will be a season this winter that is in limbo right now. 

Since my kids are biracial, black and white, I'm pretty well versed in the admissions issues around race and privilege. My kids are basically privileged African Americans (But that doesn't mean that unpleasant things have not occurred due to their race.). There is some correlation between SAT and college achievement. Several studies have shown that. It is far from linear and isn't much different than high school GPA in predicting college success. All of the arguing over SAT vs GPA doesn't make too much sense. Studies on this issue are all over the place. The most recent one I have seen shows high school GPA to be a better predictor ( https://www.educationdive.com/news/high-...co/571287/ ). I think schools like Stanford want to hold on to the SAT as a guarantee that there is no fraud in a school's GPA. There are many examples of small private schools producing students with perfect GPA's and ridiculously low SAT's. Stanford wants to be sure they do not admit those students. And there is certainly variation from high school to high school in grading. My daughter's high school was "harder than college" per her assessment, while my son's high school was no where near the difficulty of a top prep school. 

According to the people I know in undergrad admissions at UCB, UC wanted to be able to use both the SAT and GPA to identify kids who might be successful where one of those was low but the other was high. If either grades OR SAT were high, they would assign more weight with the score that made the student look better when looking at students from lower socioloeconomic neighborhoods. The reason for initially keeping the SAT was not because at was a better predictor of college success. 

The fact of the matter is that if your parents have money, you can improve your SAT about 100 points with top tutors. It is pretty much an invalid method of assessment unless used for comparison within the same socioeconomic group. 

The fact of the matter is that institutionalized racism is greatly impacting the preparation for college of the majority of students of color in this country. It starts at the preschool level and extends through high school. Because students of color generally live in poor neighborhoods, they do not attend premium preschools. They do not get the best teachers. Their schools are inferior in supplies, maintenance, and physical plant. According to the psychology literature, children who are aware of racism directed at them from a young age do not do as well academically, suffering essentially from chronic PTSD. Although it is fine to get as many underprivileged kids into college as possible, if the underlying racism and classism that affects our educational system is not addressed, we will never fix this problem. If you come out of high school unprepared, you won't succeed at a top educational institution. 

10 years ago, an elementary school in a poor section of Hayward, California was closed for three years while it was demolished and rebuilt. The rebuild included the best equipment and facilities possible. A new principal was brought in and allowed to recruit the best teachers she could find. Within three years of reopening, the school went from one of the worst in the city to the best according to the standardized test scores administered by the state. It surpassed the school sitting in an affluent area next to Cal State Hayward (now called Cal State East Bay). The school is 77% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 7% Black, 4% biracial and 2% White. Unfortunately it has not held onto those gains as the new teachers and the principal eventually drifted away. The Hayward school district does not pay very well. 

There is a charter school in San Lorenzo, CA called KIPP Summit. Grades 5-8. Pretty similar demographics. When the state was publishing scores there was a year when the school ranked #4 in California on the statewide tests. I know the person who was the first principal of the school. He was recruited from my daughter's private school. The school has first rate teachers. 99% of the graduates go to college. There is a long waiting list to get a place in the school. 


When the investment is made and the surrounding community takes pride in the school, brobdingnagian changes can be made. It would cost hundreds of billions a year to bring all of our schools to the level needed, but it would be better spent than in almost any other way that I can think of. 

[akiddoc]

I think the racism digression started with a false conjecture that hiring diversity specialists was related to the 11 sports cut, whether by budget or function.  That conjecture doesn't pass the smell test as some of those 11 sports contribute to diversity, and that the university (not the athletic department) seems to be hiring the diversity specialists.  May we never hear this kind of ridiculousness again.

Looks like there are various grassroots alumni responses to the announcement forming, both through each of the 11 programs' alumni and through the general alumni population.  No one's going to take this sitting down, even if the athletic department did their best to shock and awe the coaches and students into thinking all would be inevitable.

I lived through this sports elimination thing with my son at another school. The only way the university backs down is if someone invests many hundreds of millions in the athletic department. I don't see that happening. I'm thinking 400 million changes the school's direction.

[akiddoc]

I think the racism digression started with a false conjecture that hiring diversity specialists was related to the 11 sports cut, whether by budget or function.  That conjecture doesn't pass the smell test as some of those 11 sports contribute to diversity, and that the university (not the athletic department) seems to be hiring the diversity specialists.  May we never hear this kind of ridiculousness again.

Looks like there are various grassroots alumni responses to the announcement forming, both through each of the 11 programs' alumni and through the general alumni population.  No one's going to take this sitting down, even if the athletic department did their best to shock and awe the coaches and students into thinking all would be inevitable.

I lived through this sports elimination thing with my son at another school. The only way the university backs down is if someone invests many hundreds of millions in the athletic department. I don't see that happening. I'm thinking 400 million changes the school's direction.

[BigJohn043]

I wasn't really going to respond because this isn't going anywhere.  But I will make one more post because you specifically asked me to.

First, let me repeat the points from the study:

• The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success.
  
• For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). 
  
• Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. 
  
• Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. 
  
• In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income.
  

The study very clearly says that test scores aid the basic job of admissions in finding students who can succeed.  They are predictive even after controlling for GPA and demographic groups.  I am not sure why you can't understand this basic finding from a bunch of academics who don't like the answer but at least are willing to engage with the facts.

It is true that in any study like this the R2 is going to be lowish given the amount of variability.  This give you the chance to say that the data is underwhelming.  But that is just true of the data set.  For example, if you are looking to predict NFL player success the first thing you would do is look at where a player was drafted.  You would find that it is clearly a statistically significant driver but explains only a small part of the overall variance.  In this kind of data set, you are never going to get a high R2 for literally any metric.

My guess is that you can't admit the basic facts because:

• SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests that are highly correlated with standardized tests.  The science behind these tests is very strong but as we all know there are differences in results for different demographic groups.  This is just unacceptable to your social justice worldview, even if the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear.  It is a "sacred" value for SJW types.  People of all political viewpoints will throw science out the window when it conflicts with their sacred values.
  
• You don't really care about the core mission of the admissions office to admit the students with the best chance of success.  You think their mission should really be about social justice and forget the real life consequences.
  

This is it for me.  I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  When faced with very clear evidence written by a set of liberal academics you can't face reality.  At some point, further discussion is pointless.

[BigJohn043]

I wasn't really going to respond because this isn't going anywhere.  But I will make one more post because you specifically asked me to.

First, let me repeat the points from the study:

• The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success.
  
• For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). 
  
• Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. 
  
• Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. 
  
• In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income.
  

The study very clearly says that test scores aid the basic job of admissions in finding students who can succeed.  They are predictive even after controlling for GPA and demographic groups.  I am not sure why you can't understand this basic finding from a bunch of academics who don't like the answer but at least are willing to engage with the facts.

It is true that in any study like this the R2 is going to be lowish given the amount of variability.  This give you the chance to say that the data is underwhelming.  But that is just true of the data set.  For example, if you are looking to predict NFL player success the first thing you would do is look at where a player was drafted.  You would find that it is clearly a statistically significant driver but explains only a small part of the overall variance.  In this kind of data set, you are never going to get a high R2 for literally any metric.

My guess is that you can't admit the basic facts because:

• SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests that are highly correlated with standardized tests.  The science behind these tests is very strong but as we all know there are differences in results for different demographic groups.  This is just unacceptable to your social justice worldview, even if the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear.  It is a "sacred" value for SJW types.  People of all political viewpoints will throw science out the window when it conflicts with their sacred values.
  
• You don't really care about the core mission of the admissions office to admit the students with the best chance of success.  You think their mission should really be about social justice and forget the real life consequences.
  

This is it for me.  I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  When faced with very clear evidence written by a set of liberal academics you can't face reality.  At some point, further discussion is pointless.

[JustAnotherFan]

My guess is that you can't admit the basic facts because:

• SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests that are highly correlated with standardized tests.  The science behind these tests is very strong but as we all know there are differences in results for different demographic groups.  This is just unacceptable to your social justice worldview, even if the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear.  It is a "sacred" value for SJW types.  People of all political viewpoints will throw science out the window when it conflicts with their sacred values.
  
• You don't really care about the core mission of the admissions office to admit the students with the best chance of success.  You think their mission should really be about social justice and forget the real life consequences.
  

This is it for me.  I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  When faced with very clear evidence written by a set of liberal academics you can't face reality.  At some point, further discussion is pointless.

You keep using the word "facts" when you are peddling nonsense. 

"SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests" not because they are "highly correlated with standardized tests" but because they are racist in origin and effect. Since the tests are actually not very good predictors of anything of value why are you so wedded to them? We know why eugenicists and universities and the people peddling the tests favored them, but why are you so wedded to them? Do you think that UC or Stanford suffers from a lack of qualified applicants who have a high chance of success that they need standardized tests scores to determine who is going to have better grades as a freshman in college? That you insist that "the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear" but you cannot explain how the science is strong (weak correlations do not make strong science, strong correlations do not even necessarily make strong science) or why schools shouldn't just use family income as a measure since that "predictive value is clear" suggests to me that you are literally an anti-justice warrior. But maybe that is the point, using SATs are a way to dance around the classism and racism of explicitly basing admissions on wealth and race, allows a degree of innocent ignorance on the actual impact of using the tests, so defend the "objective measures" of the standardized tests! Because surely the richer people and the whiter people are just smarter and harder working, right?

That you continue to argue that the "core mission of the admissions office" is to "admit the students with the best chance of success" highlights that you know next to nothing about college admissions. You're just clinging onto the lies of the past.

Although I didn't expect you to answer any of the questions I raised, I was hoping you'd answer one: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

Please put in print in the most explicit terms what you claim to know about why I don't want a racist in origin and effect "very valid piece of information" to sully the admissions process at Stanford or UC. I'm super excited to hear what you know about what I believe.

-----

Reposting this because it deserves to be read twice:

It is amusing how some folks here believe they know what is good for UC, know even more than the folks who run the place and have a stake in maintaining and growing its prestige. I happen to work there and have a relationship with the decision-makers...they are not making decisions lightly or without serious consideration.

The SATs predict first year success, but not after. Tests benefit the privileged (white, black, brown, etc.)  If you want to perpetuate elitism and benefit wealthy people, who are largely white, sure use the SAT. If you are actually interested in identifying talent or raw ability, then maybe the SAT is not what you want to use.

When you examine the undisputed racist origins of IQ tests and the SAT you might reconsider its use.

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

[JustAnotherFan]

My guess is that you can't admit the basic facts because:

• SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests that are highly correlated with standardized tests.  The science behind these tests is very strong but as we all know there are differences in results for different demographic groups.  This is just unacceptable to your social justice worldview, even if the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear.  It is a "sacred" value for SJW types.  People of all political viewpoints will throw science out the window when it conflicts with their sacred values.
  
• You don't really care about the core mission of the admissions office to admit the students with the best chance of success.  You think their mission should really be about social justice and forget the real life consequences.
  

This is it for me.  I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  When faced with very clear evidence written by a set of liberal academics you can't face reality.  At some point, further discussion is pointless.

You keep using the word "facts" when you are peddling nonsense. 

"SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests" not because they are "highly correlated with standardized tests" but because they are racist in origin and effect. Since the tests are actually not very good predictors of anything of value why are you so wedded to them? We know why eugenicists and universities and the people peddling the tests favored them, but why are you so wedded to them? Do you think that UC or Stanford suffers from a lack of qualified applicants who have a high chance of success that they need standardized tests scores to determine who is going to have better grades as a freshman in college? That you insist that "the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear" but you cannot explain how the science is strong (weak correlations do not make strong science, strong correlations do not even necessarily make strong science) or why schools shouldn't just use family income as a measure since that "predictive value is clear" suggests to me that you are literally an anti-justice warrior. But maybe that is the point, using SATs are a way to dance around the classism and racism of explicitly basing admissions on wealth and race, allows a degree of innocent ignorance on the actual impact of using the tests, so defend the "objective measures" of the standardized tests! Because surely the richer people and the whiter people are just smarter and harder working, right?

That you continue to argue that the "core mission of the admissions office" is to "admit the students with the best chance of success" highlights that you know next to nothing about college admissions. You're just clinging onto the lies of the past.

Although I didn't expect you to answer any of the questions I raised, I was hoping you'd answer one: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

Please put in print in the most explicit terms what you claim to know about why I don't want a racist in origin and effect "very valid piece of information" to sully the admissions process at Stanford or UC. I'm super excited to hear what you know about what I believe.

-----

Reposting this because it deserves to be read twice:

It is amusing how some folks here believe they know what is good for UC, know even more than the folks who run the place and have a stake in maintaining and growing its prestige. I happen to work there and have a relationship with the decision-makers...they are not making decisions lightly or without serious consideration.

The SATs predict first year success, but not after. Tests benefit the privileged (white, black, brown, etc.)  If you want to perpetuate elitism and benefit wealthy people, who are largely white, sure use the SAT. If you are actually interested in identifying talent or raw ability, then maybe the SAT is not what you want to use.

When you examine the undisputed racist origins of IQ tests and the SAT you might reconsider its use.

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

[BostonCard]

I think this is an interesting debate, and I've learned a fair bit reading it, but I suspect it runs afoul of the purpose of this board.  Moreover, at this point, each side has said its piece and has made it pretty clear that they do not appear willing to move from the territory they've staked out.  I'm not a fan of locking threads, and this is an important one, so this one will remain open, but let's get back to subject of this thread, the fact that Stanford is dropping 11 sports.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think this is an interesting debate, and I've learned a fair bit reading it, but I suspect it runs afoul of the purpose of this board.  Moreover, at this point, each side has said its piece and has made it pretty clear that they do not appear willing to move from the territory they've staked out.  I'm not a fan of locking threads, and this is an important one, so this one will remain open, but let's get back to subject of this thread, the fact that Stanford is dropping 11 sports.

BC

[Mudhead]

Question:  anyone have any thoughts as to how you determine the number of scholarship sports Stanford ( or anyone else) should have? How do you determine which ones?   We all have our opinions with regard to the cut 11, but how many should we have and which ones.

I’m not a brobdingnagian fan of any of the cut 11 so the cuts cause me no great angst but personal preference seems like a pretty poor way to choose .  If I were AD, a genuinely frightening thought, I think I’d try and have an objective screen once a few hurdles were met . In my lexicon, if you don’t get over the hurdles, it’s a non starter. If you do , you rank  the “hurdlers” with your screens

My hurdles might be 1. Can Stanford be excellent at the sport? 2. Does the sport bring something to Stanford it doesn’t have or is required to have? Ex: Women’s lacrosse helps with Title IX and reaches a mid Atlantic audience of applicants .  I’m guessing here; no interest in or knowledge of Women’s lacrosse. 

My screen might be 1.how much interest is there in the Stanford student body and the Stanford fan community? 2, Will the sport be a NET revenue generator or resource eater. ( most will be “ eaters” but by how much? 4. Can you raise incremental funds for the sport from the donor base and does it expand the donor base vs slicing the existing resource pie a little thinner?

I’m assuming a limited resource base here, even at Stanford. I’m begging the question “How big should the Athletics budget be because I am  too biased; I would probably put too much in the budget.

But seriously , does anyone have a good way of determining how many and which sports should remain in the program?

[Mudhead]

Question:  anyone have any thoughts as to how you determine the number of scholarship sports Stanford ( or anyone else) should have? How do you determine which ones?   We all have our opinions with regard to the cut 11, but how many should we have and which ones.

I’m not a brobdingnagian fan of any of the cut 11 so the cuts cause me no great angst but personal preference seems like a pretty poor way to choose .  If I were AD, a genuinely frightening thought, I think I’d try and have an objective screen once a few hurdles were met . In my lexicon, if you don’t get over the hurdles, it’s a non starter. If you do , you rank  the “hurdlers” with your screens

My hurdles might be 1. Can Stanford be excellent at the sport? 2. Does the sport bring something to Stanford it doesn’t have or is required to have? Ex: Women’s lacrosse helps with Title IX and reaches a mid Atlantic audience of applicants .  I’m guessing here; no interest in or knowledge of Women’s lacrosse. 

My screen might be 1.how much interest is there in the Stanford student body and the Stanford fan community? 2, Will the sport be a NET revenue generator or resource eater. ( most will be “ eaters” but by how much? 4. Can you raise incremental funds for the sport from the donor base and does it expand the donor base vs slicing the existing resource pie a little thinner?

I’m assuming a limited resource base here, even at Stanford. I’m begging the question “How big should the Athletics budget be because I am  too biased; I would probably put too much in the budget.

But seriously , does anyone have a good way of determining how many and which sports should remain in the program?

[fullmetal]

I don't think the answer is ever "expansion for the sake of expansion."  But I do think that each sport has created its own space in the student body and has been elevated to varsity status because the Athletic Dept thinks Stanford is capable of excellence in that sport and that Stanford should have representation among other universities in that sport.  Adding sports should be a very, very careful process; cutting sports should be nearly anathema.  

Not all sports have numerous scholarships.  I think that number is determined by alumni endowment/support and capped by athletic dept NCAA numbers.

I like your criteria, even if I am loathe to see sports as either resource generators or consumers.  Sports at Stanford shape the student-athlete experience.  They build people.  They provide intangible lessons in the human experience that you can't get in a research lab, student body government, or fine arts club.  You can't put a price on this even if you can put a price on the infrastructure around it.  And at the varsity level, being able to represent the university in competition with and against future Olympians and world champions is an experience you can't get anywhere else.

As for the question of how many sports the Athletic Dept should sponsor, I would say: the ones that it currently does.  There were decisions made over the last couple of decades that have led to this structural deficit, and I honestly think that without a full budget reckoning, it's unethical to place the burden of those decisions on these 11 sports without being able to tie the deficit to these sports.  There are favored children in the department, and while I understand such priorities, cutting several sports to preserve incremental increases in spending in other sports is foul play.

Yes, these are unprecedented times, and yes things are going to get tough.  But in light of a potential suspension of all athletic competitions in the next school year (that's what I'm thinking), surely costs will be greatly reduced and the department should suffer that deficit in order to preserve the quality experience that Stanford provides to its student-athletes.

Or suspend all sports.  Or some sports.  But cutting sports from varsity sponsorship is a deep, deep wound that erodes the purpose and premium of the Stanford athletics brand.  It sours the emotional ties that so many program alumni and their friends have to the university.  The lack of discussion before the announcement was tantamount to betrayal for some.  

Stanford is full of smart people and smart alumni.  There did not seem to be an effort to get clever or creative here, and the result was a hack job to amputate business units in the red instead of reassessing a garden in the shadow of a blight.

[fullmetal]

I don't think the answer is ever "expansion for the sake of expansion."  But I do think that each sport has created its own space in the student body and has been elevated to varsity status because the Athletic Dept thinks Stanford is capable of excellence in that sport and that Stanford should have representation among other universities in that sport.  Adding sports should be a very, very careful process; cutting sports should be nearly anathema.  

Not all sports have numerous scholarships.  I think that number is determined by alumni endowment/support and capped by athletic dept NCAA numbers.

I like your criteria, even if I am loathe to see sports as either resource generators or consumers.  Sports at Stanford shape the student-athlete experience.  They build people.  They provide intangible lessons in the human experience that you can't get in a research lab, student body government, or fine arts club.  You can't put a price on this even if you can put a price on the infrastructure around it.  And at the varsity level, being able to represent the university in competition with and against future Olympians and world champions is an experience you can't get anywhere else.

As for the question of how many sports the Athletic Dept should sponsor, I would say: the ones that it currently does.  There were decisions made over the last couple of decades that have led to this structural deficit, and I honestly think that without a full budget reckoning, it's unethical to place the burden of those decisions on these 11 sports without being able to tie the deficit to these sports.  There are favored children in the department, and while I understand such priorities, cutting several sports to preserve incremental increases in spending in other sports is foul play.

Yes, these are unprecedented times, and yes things are going to get tough.  But in light of a potential suspension of all athletic competitions in the next school year (that's what I'm thinking), surely costs will be greatly reduced and the department should suffer that deficit in order to preserve the quality experience that Stanford provides to its student-athletes.

Or suspend all sports.  Or some sports.  But cutting sports from varsity sponsorship is a deep, deep wound that erodes the purpose and premium of the Stanford athletics brand.  It sours the emotional ties that so many program alumni and their friends have to the university.  The lack of discussion before the announcement was tantamount to betrayal for some.  

Stanford is full of smart people and smart alumni.  There did not seem to be an effort to get clever or creative here, and the result was a hack job to amputate business units in the red instead of reassessing a garden in the shadow of a blight.

[BigJohn043]

The method here is pretty simple.  6 of the 11 sports aren't even sponsored by the NCAA.  Not sure when we started to have a bunch of varsity sports that aren't part of the NCAA but that was probably a poor choice to begin with.

Fencing (mens & womens) and field hockey are fringe sports that are supported by a small number of schools and 2/1 other programs on the west coast.  And BTW, we have never won a national title in either and probably never will.

So once you get to that spot, you have to cut two mens sports due to title 9.  Wrestling was probably the easy option.  Only 3 Pac-12 schools have wrestling programs.  And this is another sport where we have never won a national title and never really competed at the highest levels.

That leaves one more mens sport to cut.  We compete in three sports that very few NCAA schools support: mens volleyball, mens water polo and mens gymnastics.  One has to go.  Unfortunately for volleyball, the other two sports won national titles last year.  The mens volleyball team had a losing season and despite a couple decent runs over the years, our results just haven't been that good for a sport that only 4 other power 5 schools sponsor.

I think we can hope that one day we add another women's sport and get mens volleyball back.  The problem is that there aren't a lot of good candidates.  Prior to this the only women's sport we didn't offer was Bowling.  Thats right, Bowling.

The emerging sports for women right now are acrobatics & tumbling, women's wrestling, equestrian, rugby & triathlon.

[BigJohn043]

The method here is pretty simple.  6 of the 11 sports aren't even sponsored by the NCAA.  Not sure when we started to have a bunch of varsity sports that aren't part of the NCAA but that was probably a poor choice to begin with.

Fencing (mens & womens) and field hockey are fringe sports that are supported by a small number of schools and 2/1 other programs on the west coast.  And BTW, we have never won a national title in either and probably never will.

So once you get to that spot, you have to cut two mens sports due to title 9.  Wrestling was probably the easy option.  Only 3 Pac-12 schools have wrestling programs.  And this is another sport where we have never won a national title and never really competed at the highest levels.

That leaves one more mens sport to cut.  We compete in three sports that very few NCAA schools support: mens volleyball, mens water polo and mens gymnastics.  One has to go.  Unfortunately for volleyball, the other two sports won national titles last year.  The mens volleyball team had a losing season and despite a couple decent runs over the years, our results just haven't been that good for a sport that only 4 other power 5 schools sponsor.

I think we can hope that one day we add another women's sport and get mens volleyball back.  The problem is that there aren't a lot of good candidates.  Prior to this the only women's sport we didn't offer was Bowling.  Thats right, Bowling.

The emerging sports for women right now are acrobatics & tumbling, women's wrestling, equestrian, rugby & triathlon.

[chrisk]

Regarding the financial planning underlying the decision, this paragraph from the open letter from the President, Provost, and AD is relevant.  Also, given the university is making structural cuts of 10%, the athetic department would be expected to make cuts of at least that size.

We have investigated a wide variety of alternatives – ticket sales, broadcast revenue, university funding, philanthropic support, operating budget reductions and many others – and found them insufficient to meet the magnitude of the financial challenge before us. While Stanford may be perceived to have limitless resources, the truth is that we do not. In general, Athletics has been a self-sustaining entity on our campus, and we are striving to preserve that model in a time when budgetary support for our academic mission is already under significant stress. Academic and administrative units across the university already have been planning budget cuts of up to 10% in response to the university’s constrained resources as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The vast majority of Stanford’s endowment is directed toward specific long-term uses, including need-based financial aid for students, and is not available to backfill an ongoing structural budget deficit in a specific department. In addition, while Stanford Athletics benefits from a robust community of generous supporters, their philanthropy simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.

[chrisk]

Regarding the financial planning underlying the decision, this paragraph from the open letter from the President, Provost, and AD is relevant.  Also, given the university is making structural cuts of 10%, the athetic department would be expected to make cuts of at least that size.

We have investigated a wide variety of alternatives – ticket sales, broadcast revenue, university funding, philanthropic support, operating budget reductions and many others – and found them insufficient to meet the magnitude of the financial challenge before us. While Stanford may be perceived to have limitless resources, the truth is that we do not. In general, Athletics has been a self-sustaining entity on our campus, and we are striving to preserve that model in a time when budgetary support for our academic mission is already under significant stress. Academic and administrative units across the university already have been planning budget cuts of up to 10% in response to the university’s constrained resources as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The vast majority of Stanford’s endowment is directed toward specific long-term uses, including need-based financial aid for students, and is not available to backfill an ongoing structural budget deficit in a specific department. In addition, while Stanford Athletics benefits from a robust community of generous supporters, their philanthropy simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.

[Mick]

I think we can hope that one day we add another women's sport and get mens volleyball back.  The problem is that there aren't a lot of good candidates.  Prior to this the only women's sport we didn't offer was Bowling.  Thats right, Bowling.

Easy.  My granddad played on Stanford's bowling team in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

---

That leaves one more mens sport to cut.  We compete in three sports that very few NCAA schools support: mens volleyball, mens water polo and mens gymnastics.  One has to go.  Unfortunately for volleyball, the other two sports won national titles last year.  The mens volleyball team had a losing season and despite a couple decent runs over the years, our results just haven't been that good for a sport that only 4 other power 5 schools sponsor.

I think we can hope that one day we add another women's sport and get mens volleyball back.  

Rumor I hear is that a number of MVB patrons approached LSJU about what it would take to get men's volleyball back.  A ridiculous number (think eight figures) was mentioned.  A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

[Mick]

I think we can hope that one day we add another women's sport and get mens volleyball back.  The problem is that there aren't a lot of good candidates.  Prior to this the only women's sport we didn't offer was Bowling.  Thats right, Bowling.

Easy.  My granddad played on Stanford's bowling team in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

---

That leaves one more mens sport to cut.  We compete in three sports that very few NCAA schools support: mens volleyball, mens water polo and mens gymnastics.  One has to go.  Unfortunately for volleyball, the other two sports won national titles last year.  The mens volleyball team had a losing season and despite a couple decent runs over the years, our results just haven't been that good for a sport that only 4 other power 5 schools sponsor.

I think we can hope that one day we add another women's sport and get mens volleyball back.  

Rumor I hear is that a number of MVB patrons approached LSJU about what it would take to get men's volleyball back.  A ridiculous number (think eight figures) was mentioned.  A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

[82lsju]

Rumor I hear is that a number of MVB patrons approached LSJU about what it would take to get men's volleyball back.  A ridiculous number (think eight figures) was mentioned.  A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

well if you do the math and the "problem" is ~$12m/year you get about ~$1m/sport, to endow them with a 5% payout you need ~$20m/sport, some more and some less, if you look at the "things got worse with COVID-19" number you're probably talking twice that amount/sport.

I think the fundraising issue is probably on the order of $300m-$500m in "new AD endowment" if they took an all or nothing approach, given the endowment payout in 2018-19 ($34.7m) I'd SWAG the current AD endowment at ~$700m, you are talking a 50%-70% increase in the AD endowment.  If you had enough whales willing to step up that could happen, but I'm guessing the AD doesn't want to wait for 300-500 $1m donors....and whether whales of $1m donors you'd have to have them lined up pretty quickly as I would guess at least some in the discontinued sports are looking to transfer (or if a coach for a new job).....

[82lsju]

Rumor I hear is that a number of MVB patrons approached LSJU about what it would take to get men's volleyball back.  A ridiculous number (think eight figures) was mentioned.  A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

well if you do the math and the "problem" is ~$12m/year you get about ~$1m/sport, to endow them with a 5% payout you need ~$20m/sport, some more and some less, if you look at the "things got worse with COVID-19" number you're probably talking twice that amount/sport.

I think the fundraising issue is probably on the order of $300m-$500m in "new AD endowment" if they took an all or nothing approach, given the endowment payout in 2018-19 ($34.7m) I'd SWAG the current AD endowment at ~$700m, you are talking a 50%-70% increase in the AD endowment.  If you had enough whales willing to step up that could happen, but I'm guessing the AD doesn't want to wait for 300-500 $1m donors....and whether whales of $1m donors you'd have to have them lined up pretty quickly as I would guess at least some in the discontinued sports are looking to transfer (or if a coach for a new job).....