[chrisk]

Incoming freshman Kupono Browne from Hawaii now has 20,764 signatures on his change.org petition to reinstate MVB.

https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/incomi...m-in-2021/

https://www.change.org/p/stanford-univer...e_petition

[chrisk]

Incoming freshman Kupono Browne from Hawaii now has 20,764 signatures on his change.org petition to reinstate MVB.

https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/incomi...m-in-2021/

https://www.change.org/p/stanford-univer...e_petition

[cardcrimson]

Incoming freshman Kupono Browne from Hawaii now has 20,764 signatures on his change.org petition to reinstate MVB.

https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/incomi...m-in-2021/

https://www.change.org/p/stanford-univer...e_petition

Signed. I find it extremely disappointing that Stanford is cutting ANY program at this point. It's time for investment. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Incoming freshman Kupono Browne from Hawaii now has 20,764 signatures on his change.org petition to reinstate MVB.

https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/incomi...m-in-2021/

https://www.change.org/p/stanford-univer...e_petition

Signed. I find it extremely disappointing that Stanford is cutting ANY program at this point. It's time for investment. . . .

[Leftcoast]

I signed as well.  Unfortunately the decision sounded final but I'll happily sacrifice a few electrons and some time to register my disappointment.

It's no doubt an unpopular sentiment and an inconvenient truth but I'm afraid MVB was a Title-9 casualty. Regardless this is a sad era for Stanford athletics.

[Leftcoast]

I signed as well.  Unfortunately the decision sounded final but I'll happily sacrifice a few electrons and some time to register my disappointment.

It's no doubt an unpopular sentiment and an inconvenient truth but I'm afraid MVB was a Title-9 casualty. Regardless this is a sad era for Stanford athletics.

[Mick]

Signed.  Of course.

[Mick]

Signed.  Of course.

[fullmetal]

Efforts to push back against the decision are developing among the individual programs and their alumni.

[fullmetal]

Efforts to push back against the decision are developing among the individual programs and their alumni.

[akiddoc]

I signed as well.  Unfortunately the decision sounded final but I'll happily sacrifice a few electrons and some time to register my disappointment.

It's no doubt an unpopular sentiment and an inconvenient truth but I'm afraid MVB was a Title-9 casualty.  Regardless this is a sad era for Stanford athletics.

I would call it a football decision, not a Title IX decision. Football warps all of the decisions on Olympic sports.

---

Incoming freshman Kupono Browne from Hawaii now has 20,764 signatures on his change.org petition to reinstate MVB.

https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/incomi...m-in-2021/

https://www.change.org/p/stanford-univer...e_petition

If everyone who signed contributes $10,000, then it might make the university budge. They don't care about signatures. 

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

[akiddoc]

I signed as well.  Unfortunately the decision sounded final but I'll happily sacrifice a few electrons and some time to register my disappointment.

It's no doubt an unpopular sentiment and an inconvenient truth but I'm afraid MVB was a Title-9 casualty.  Regardless this is a sad era for Stanford athletics.

I would call it a football decision, not a Title IX decision. Football warps all of the decisions on Olympic sports.

---

Incoming freshman Kupono Browne from Hawaii now has 20,764 signatures on his change.org petition to reinstate MVB.

https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/incomi...m-in-2021/

https://www.change.org/p/stanford-univer...e_petition

If everyone who signed contributes $10,000, then it might make the university budge. They don't care about signatures. 

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

[Mick]

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.  If you really want to provide access to the poor, drop the cost by 85%, go fully online with the best professors teaching specific classes, eliminate non-STEM classes, hire professors at second tier universities to moderate pods of students and grade papers.  If we eliminate athletics, let's just eliminate the rest of it, shall we?

I prefer the university experience with athletics and all of the above over the online experience, and perhaps I'm just an oddball outlier. In the spirit of transparency, both of my sons played the despised and now departed from Stanford men's volleyball in college.  And I like to attend and watch college sports, though I didn't play varsity athletics.

To me, here's what collegiate athletics delivers:

1. Direct participants in athletics drives good habits of fitness, competitiveness, drive and discipline.
2. Athletic programs deliver more applicants to the university.
3. Studies show that athletes donate more to their alma maters (Knight, Arillaga, Packard, etc.)
4. Athletes are the epitome of team players, whereas non-athletes are less so.
5. Athletics offers a connection between college and the local community.
6. Athletics enhances the connection between the university and its alumni.
7. Social reputation is important to incoming students.
8. Athletic programs add materially to the overall student experience. (see anecdote below)
9. Varsity athletic programs encourage the development of intramural programs, both of which lead to better overall fitness programs for the university.
10. Athletics teaches teamwork, individual responsibility, leadership, collegiality, ability to deal with failure, determination and goal-orientation, which makes athletes better future employees.
11. Athletes achieve in different ways, but they still achieve.
12. Athletes are captains, future CEOs, future heads of sales.
13. Athletes are in better shape than the average student, and can withstand longer hours better.
14. Athletes, on average, may not have as developed the logical/mathematical intelligence, but they have elevated levels of other types of intelligence, based upon the 9 types of intelligence.
https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intel...fographic/
15. Admissions theory holds that if athletes devoted the amount of time to their academics that they otherwise devote to athletics, their GPA and test scores would reflect that time investment.
16. Athletes are highly visible on campus and in the community.
17. Someone has to be the academic anchor.  Should it be the 4.0 1600 with all AP classes?  Actually, I don't really believe that, but I heard a college counselor say that to a roomful of students once.  So maybe someone believes it.  Perhaps the 880 athletes at Stanford each year serve as the academic anchors.

* I talked with the athletic director in charge of admissions for athletes at Harvard a little over ten years ago.  She told me that for a period, Harvard focused on admitting "well-lopsided" applicants (their term), versus "well-rounded" applicants.  They found that a campus full of savants made for an unpleasant collegiate experience.  They then sought a balance between well-lopsided and well-rounded students.  Sure, they still want the best cellist on the planet and the student with half-a-dozen patents.  But there's still a place for the student body president/4.0/team captain/founder of a non-profit.

Personally, I like athletic programs.  I never watched fencing, but I was always happy that Stanford had it.  On the other hand, if it is deemed necessary to eliminate athletic programs, I could get behind that too as long as the arts, greek system, and non-STEM academic programs are eliminated as well.  Either way would be fine with me.

[Mick]

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.  If you really want to provide access to the poor, drop the cost by 85%, go fully online with the best professors teaching specific classes, eliminate non-STEM classes, hire professors at second tier universities to moderate pods of students and grade papers.  If we eliminate athletics, let's just eliminate the rest of it, shall we?

I prefer the university experience with athletics and all of the above over the online experience, and perhaps I'm just an oddball outlier. In the spirit of transparency, both of my sons played the despised and now departed from Stanford men's volleyball in college.  And I like to attend and watch college sports, though I didn't play varsity athletics.

To me, here's what collegiate athletics delivers:

1. Direct participants in athletics drives good habits of fitness, competitiveness, drive and discipline.
2. Athletic programs deliver more applicants to the university.
3. Studies show that athletes donate more to their alma maters (Knight, Arillaga, Packard, etc.)
4. Athletes are the epitome of team players, whereas non-athletes are less so.
5. Athletics offers a connection between college and the local community.
6. Athletics enhances the connection between the university and its alumni.
7. Social reputation is important to incoming students.
8. Athletic programs add materially to the overall student experience. (see anecdote below)
9. Varsity athletic programs encourage the development of intramural programs, both of which lead to better overall fitness programs for the university.
10. Athletics teaches teamwork, individual responsibility, leadership, collegiality, ability to deal with failure, determination and goal-orientation, which makes athletes better future employees.
11. Athletes achieve in different ways, but they still achieve.
12. Athletes are captains, future CEOs, future heads of sales.
13. Athletes are in better shape than the average student, and can withstand longer hours better.
14. Athletes, on average, may not have as developed the logical/mathematical intelligence, but they have elevated levels of other types of intelligence, based upon the 9 types of intelligence.
https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intel...fographic/
15. Admissions theory holds that if athletes devoted the amount of time to their academics that they otherwise devote to athletics, their GPA and test scores would reflect that time investment.
16. Athletes are highly visible on campus and in the community.
17. Someone has to be the academic anchor.  Should it be the 4.0 1600 with all AP classes?  Actually, I don't really believe that, but I heard a college counselor say that to a roomful of students once.  So maybe someone believes it.  Perhaps the 880 athletes at Stanford each year serve as the academic anchors.

* I talked with the athletic director in charge of admissions for athletes at Harvard a little over ten years ago.  She told me that for a period, Harvard focused on admitting "well-lopsided" applicants (their term), versus "well-rounded" applicants.  They found that a campus full of savants made for an unpleasant collegiate experience.  They then sought a balance between well-lopsided and well-rounded students.  Sure, they still want the best cellist on the planet and the student with half-a-dozen patents.  But there's still a place for the student body president/4.0/team captain/founder of a non-profit.

Personally, I like athletic programs.  I never watched fencing, but I was always happy that Stanford had it.  On the other hand, if it is deemed necessary to eliminate athletic programs, I could get behind that too as long as the arts, greek system, and non-STEM academic programs are eliminated as well.  Either way would be fine with me.

[JustAnotherFan]

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.

I like college athletics as well. And I know there are tangible benefits to sports on campus. But regarding the above statement I think that maybe what akiddoc was getting at with 880 undergrad spots taken up is that Stanford admissions is giving tremendous admissions hooks to recruited athletes, and that means that 880 people without said hooks are denied a spot. At a school like UCLA or Michigan it is no big deal because they have such large student bodies. But at Stanford where athletes make up 12% of the student body that is not insignificant. Kids who want to come in and participate in student government or greek life or party are not getting admissions hooks for that.

[JustAnotherFan]

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.

I like college athletics as well. And I know there are tangible benefits to sports on campus. But regarding the above statement I think that maybe what akiddoc was getting at with 880 undergrad spots taken up is that Stanford admissions is giving tremendous admissions hooks to recruited athletes, and that means that 880 people without said hooks are denied a spot. At a school like UCLA or Michigan it is no big deal because they have such large student bodies. But at Stanford where athletes make up 12% of the student body that is not insignificant. Kids who want to come in and participate in student government or greek life or party are not getting admissions hooks for that.

[BobK]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

[BobK]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

[chrisk]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

In Dartmouth’s statement, they mentioned that the number of athletes was affecting their ability to diversify the student body.

[chrisk]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

In Dartmouth’s statement, they mentioned that the number of athletes was affecting their ability to diversify the student body.

[2006alum]

No one is banning club sports. During my time at Stanford, women's rugby, women's club soccer, and ultimate frisbee were all very popular and relatively well attended by friends and fans. It's not like D1 sports with scholarships is the only way to preserve athletics as part of college life...

[2006alum]

No one is banning club sports. During my time at Stanford, women's rugby, women's club soccer, and ultimate frisbee were all very popular and relatively well attended by friends and fans. It's not like D1 sports with scholarships is the only way to preserve athletics as part of college life...

[terry]

If the recent decision is fully implemented, varsity athletes will make up 9% of Stanford's student body, compared to 12% currently.

The number of club sport athletes at Stanford almost certainly will go up because some of the 11 dropped varsity programs will become club sports.

[terry]

If the recent decision is fully implemented, varsity athletes will make up 9% of Stanford's student body, compared to 12% currently.

The number of club sport athletes at Stanford almost certainly will go up because some of the 11 dropped varsity programs will become club sports.

[BostonCard]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

In Dartmouth’s statement, they mentioned that the number of athletes was affecting their ability to diversify the student body.

I wonder how athletics' impact on diversity compares to the impact of legacy admissions.

BC

---

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

Especially in a sport like crew.  In fact I remember crew recruiting my freshman year and saying that previous crew experience was not necessary (just a desire to wake up at ungodly hours in the morning).

BC

[BostonCard]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

In Dartmouth’s statement, they mentioned that the number of athletes was affecting their ability to diversify the student body.

I wonder how athletics' impact on diversity compares to the impact of legacy admissions.

BC

---

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

Especially in a sport like crew.  In fact I remember crew recruiting my freshman year and saying that previous crew experience was not necessary (just a desire to wake up at ungodly hours in the morning).

BC

[needle]

I believe there's an important diversity brought to campus by the athletes in the sports that are going to be cut--I don't see any way the university backtracks--but of course I recognize there are competing definitions of what sorts of diversity are most important for an institution like Stanford.

I still wonder if the Varsity Blues scandal is having any influence on this decision.

[needle]

I believe there's an important diversity brought to campus by the athletes in the sports that are going to be cut--I don't see any way the university backtracks--but of course I recognize there are competing definitions of what sorts of diversity are most important for an institution like Stanford.

I still wonder if the Varsity Blues scandal is having any influence on this decision.

[akiddoc]

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.  If you really want to provide access to the poor, drop the cost by 85%, go fully online with the best professors teaching specific classes, eliminate non-STEM classes, hire professors at second tier universities to moderate pods of students and grade papers.  If we eliminate athletics, let's just eliminate the rest of it, shall we?

Who said anything about eliminating athletics? This will lower that 880 number to about 660. The administration will probably find that number more palatable.

[akiddoc]

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.  If you really want to provide access to the poor, drop the cost by 85%, go fully online with the best professors teaching specific classes, eliminate non-STEM classes, hire professors at second tier universities to moderate pods of students and grade papers.  If we eliminate athletics, let's just eliminate the rest of it, shall we?

Who said anything about eliminating athletics? This will lower that 880 number to about 660. The administration will probably find that number more palatable.

[Mick]

No one is banning club sports. During my time at Stanford, women's rugby, women's club soccer, and ultimate frisbee were all very popular and relatively well attended by friends and fans. It's not like D1 sports with scholarships is the only way to preserve athletics as part of college life...

Or in the case of the Ivies, sports without scholarships.

---

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.  If you really want to provide access to the poor, drop the cost by 85%, go fully online with the best professors teaching specific classes, eliminate non-STEM classes, hire professors at second tier universities to moderate pods of students and grade papers.  If we eliminate athletics, let's just eliminate the rest of it, shall we?

Who said anything about eliminating athletics? This will lower that 880 number to about 660. The administration will probably find that number more palatable.

It's a legitimate question, particularly when 11 of 36 sports were eliminated.  Why stop there?

---

Especially in a sport like crew.  In fact I remember crew recruiting my freshman year and saying that previous crew experience was not necessary (just a desire to wake up at ungodly hours in the morning).

BC

My roommate rowed on SCU's lightweight crew that rowed at the Henley in the early 1980s.  That SoB got up at 5 a.m. every day to run dam faces at Lexington reservoir...

[Mick]

No one is banning club sports. During my time at Stanford, women's rugby, women's club soccer, and ultimate frisbee were all very popular and relatively well attended by friends and fans. It's not like D1 sports with scholarships is the only way to preserve athletics as part of college life...

Or in the case of the Ivies, sports without scholarships.

---

I don't think the university wants 880 undergrad spots taken up by athletes anymore, either.

Perhaps.  Eliminating athletics from college life would eradicate a fair amount of the social fabric of the collegiate experience.  I would support that argument if we eliminate the rest of collegiate life outside of classes; e.g., student government, clubs, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, bands, music, parties, and all other social elements.  If you really want to provide access to the poor, drop the cost by 85%, go fully online with the best professors teaching specific classes, eliminate non-STEM classes, hire professors at second tier universities to moderate pods of students and grade papers.  If we eliminate athletics, let's just eliminate the rest of it, shall we?

Who said anything about eliminating athletics? This will lower that 880 number to about 660. The administration will probably find that number more palatable.

It's a legitimate question, particularly when 11 of 36 sports were eliminated.  Why stop there?

---

Especially in a sport like crew.  In fact I remember crew recruiting my freshman year and saying that previous crew experience was not necessary (just a desire to wake up at ungodly hours in the morning).

BC

My roommate rowed on SCU's lightweight crew that rowed at the Henley in the early 1980s.  That SoB got up at 5 a.m. every day to run dam faces at Lexington reservoir...

[Mick]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

Agreed.  I remember the recruiting restrictions on the Harvard, Princeton and Stanford coaches.  Harvard needed to replace five outgoing seniors, but could only recruit two players.  The other three came from regular applicants.  Ditto Stanford.  Stanford had seven departing seniors but recruited just four players.  Princeton had six departing seniors, but could only offer "likely letters" (Ivy versions of LoI) to three players.

[Mick]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

Agreed.  I remember the recruiting restrictions on the Harvard, Princeton and Stanford coaches.  Harvard needed to replace five outgoing seniors, but could only recruit two players.  The other three came from regular applicants.  Ditto Stanford.  Stanford had seven departing seniors but recruited just four players.  Princeton had six departing seniors, but could only offer "likely letters" (Ivy versions of LoI) to three players.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/sport...e=Homepage

Article from NY Times on Stanford's cutting of programs, with comments from current and former MVB players.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/sport...e=Homepage

Article from NY Times on Stanford's cutting of programs, with comments from current and former MVB players.

[teejers1]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

In Dartmouth’s statement, they mentioned that the number of athletes was affecting their ability to diversify the student body.

Again, critical reading of statements from Stanford's senior-most administrators leads me to believe that this is the driving force (and also why Muir said the cuts are "final" no matter what).  I just wish Stanford would be more direct and open, if in fact this is what's going on. . .

[teejers1]

880 includes many walk ons who went thru the regular admissions process

In Dartmouth’s statement, they mentioned that the number of athletes was affecting their ability to diversify the student body.

Again, critical reading of statements from Stanford's senior-most administrators leads me to believe that this is the driving force (and also why Muir said the cuts are "final" no matter what).  I just wish Stanford would be more direct and open, if in fact this is what's going on. . .

[Mick]

If the recent decision is fully implemented, varsity athletes will make up 9% of Stanford's student body, compared to 12% currently.

The number of club sport athletes at Stanford almost certainly will go up because some of the 11 dropped varsity programs will become club sports.

I don't know that they would "become" club sports.  I know there were separate club and varsity men's volleyball programs in existence.

[Mick]

If the recent decision is fully implemented, varsity athletes will make up 9% of Stanford's student body, compared to 12% currently.

The number of club sport athletes at Stanford almost certainly will go up because some of the 11 dropped varsity programs will become club sports.

I don't know that they would "become" club sports.  I know there were separate club and varsity men's volleyball programs in existence.