[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=11028.msg103957#msg103957 date=1414703090]
That means that only a tiny number of our most elite athletes really can bend the bar on the academic score.  ... Let's say you are are a good athlete that the coaches wanted but not really elite--so that you only rate a "3" on extracurriculars based on your solid athletic achievements.  Then you would need to blow away the academic scale at a "5". 

Obviously this needs to be said carefully, but I believe you have mistaken information on the typical, and range of, academic profiles of our men's football and basketball teams.

Now the current level of incoming standards, combined with the culture on the teams, seems to be entirely appropriate as players appear to be both graduating and doing well outside of their sports - at least as far as I can tell from outside. But that is not quite equal to the statement quoted above.
[/quote]
Yes, it is a touchy subject.  Too much information might prove embarrassing to some students. 

I was describing the Hargadon system--which I was extremely familiar with.  Perhaps admissions has liberalized the number of high extracurricular scores it gives to athletes.  They used to put those on a quota system so that athletics could not simply claim that every recruit was a "5."    That could account for the improvement in recruiting that seems to have begun at the beginning of the Bowlsby era.  However, Shaw denies that there was a change in standards--and argues that the increased success in admissions is due to a better recruiting program that can get to potential recruits early and counsel them about preparing academically for Stanford.  That I can believe--if the budget was dramatically increased, and I think it was.

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2013/1/31/...ve-addazio

Well, that is about as much as I should say, I think.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=11028.msg103957#msg103957 date=1414703090]
That means that only a tiny number of our most elite athletes really can bend the bar on the academic score.  ... Let's say you are are a good athlete that the coaches wanted but not really elite--so that you only rate a "3" on extracurriculars based on your solid athletic achievements.  Then you would need to blow away the academic scale at a "5". 

Obviously this needs to be said carefully, but I believe you have mistaken information on the typical, and range of, academic profiles of our men's football and basketball teams.

Now the current level of incoming standards, combined with the culture on the teams, seems to be entirely appropriate as players appear to be both graduating and doing well outside of their sports - at least as far as I can tell from outside. But that is not quite equal to the statement quoted above.
[/quote]
Yes, it is a touchy subject.  Too much information might prove embarrassing to some students. 

I was describing the Hargadon system--which I was extremely familiar with.  Perhaps admissions has liberalized the number of high extracurricular scores it gives to athletes.  They used to put those on a quota system so that athletics could not simply claim that every recruit was a "5."    That could account for the improvement in recruiting that seems to have begun at the beginning of the Bowlsby era.  However, Shaw denies that there was a change in standards--and argues that the increased success in admissions is due to a better recruiting program that can get to potential recruits early and counsel them about preparing academically for Stanford.  That I can believe--if the budget was dramatically increased, and I think it was.

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2013/1/31/...ve-addazio

Well, that is about as much as I should say, I think.