[mutoo1]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits. using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

[mutoo1]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits. using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

[chrisk]

In yesterday's postgame, Taylor seemed to suggest that the transfer portal is necessary to build up the depth that is sorely lacking.

[chrisk]

In yesterday's postgame, Taylor seemed to suggest that the transfer portal is necessary to build up the depth that is sorely lacking.

[JJJ]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

[JJJ]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

[76lsjumb]

How about this?  Bernard Muir and Coach Taylor storm into the next board  of trustees meeting and announce: “Either you allow us to have more transfers or we quit!”

As I see it, there’s no bad outcome there. The paradigmatic win-win…

[76lsjumb]

How about this?  Bernard Muir and Coach Taylor storm into the next board  of trustees meeting and announce: “Either you allow us to have more transfers or we quit!”

As I see it, there’s no bad outcome there. The paradigmatic win-win…

[Goose]

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

The idea of splitting any kind of admission decision into "athlete" and "non-athlete" is already anathema to most of the University. One obvious problem is that it would discriminate by gender. Female non-athletes would not be eligible for spaces voluntarily relinquished by football players. IMO the coaches would possibly get some traction by pointing out they had lots of transfers out and needed help replacing those players. The admissions department could then chose to exercise their discretion in admissions to "help" a bit. Or not. A formal policy of "football slots for football players" is a total non-starter.

One might as well postulate that TT should be able to specify who gets admitted each year to play football as long as they appear to be "able to do the work". That policy might indeed make "excellence in all things" (especially football) much easier to accomplish. You would have the same chance of getting that as you would reserving slots in the transfer pool. None and less than none.

[Goose]

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

The idea of splitting any kind of admission decision into "athlete" and "non-athlete" is already anathema to most of the University. One obvious problem is that it would discriminate by gender. Female non-athletes would not be eligible for spaces voluntarily relinquished by football players. IMO the coaches would possibly get some traction by pointing out they had lots of transfers out and needed help replacing those players. The admissions department could then chose to exercise their discretion in admissions to "help" a bit. Or not. A formal policy of "football slots for football players" is a total non-starter.

One might as well postulate that TT should be able to specify who gets admitted each year to play football as long as they appear to be "able to do the work". That policy might indeed make "excellence in all things" (especially football) much easier to accomplish. You would have the same chance of getting that as you would reserving slots in the transfer pool. None and less than none.

[M T]

So-called "academic" universities actually do quite well on the football field.

There's an interesting correlation between academic quality and football success, outside of Stanford, Purdue and UCLA. Check it out, here's the Top 51 National Universities (according to US News & World Report, a flawed but common measuring stick) that have D1 FBS football programs, and I threw in the service academies and BYU, which have uniquely challenging recruiting requirements apart from academics:

Army and BYU are 8-0
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia and Texas are 7-1
Texas A&M is 7-2
Duke, Illinois and Vanderbilt are 6-3
Navy is 6-2
Washington, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and Michigan are 5-4
Virginia, Cal, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Florida and Boston College are 4-4
Northwestern and USC are 4-5

All are in the Top 51/USNWR. Stanford, Purdue and UCLA are the only "academic" teams with poor W/L records. Somehow, we need to be able to recruit better than our history. Harbaugh figured it out, as he said, you can find 22 excellent football players a year who can matriculate at Stanford. I don't think Taylor is going to figure it out, but whoever succeeds Taylor needs to be able to recruit at a high level.

Why not use all the schools?   Then you know the average winning percentage is 50%.

The top 5 is a more appropriate cohort for Stanford than the top 51.
Oh, I guess you can't compare to the top 5, because Stanford is the only FBS school in the top 5.

Ok, drop it down to the top 10.  Records against FBS schools:
  Top 10 (non-Stanford):  8-8
  Top 16 (non-Stanford): 11-13
  Top 20 (non-Stanford): 22-24

Top 5 record vs FBS:  Princeton 0-0; MIT 0-0;  Harvard 0-0;  Stanford 1-7;  Yale 0-0.
Next 5:   Caltech 0-0;  Duke 5-3;  Johns Hopkins 0-0; Northwestern 3-5; Penn 0-0
Next 6:   Cornell 0-0;  Chicago 0-0; Brown 0-0;  Columbia 0-0;  Dartmouth 0-0; UCLA 3-5
Next 4:   Cal 3-4; Rice 1-5; Notre Dame 7-0 ; Vanderbilt 3-2;

(I took a shortcut and presumed FCS schools didn't play any FBS schools.  That may not be true.)

[M T]

So-called "academic" universities actually do quite well on the football field.

There's an interesting correlation between academic quality and football success, outside of Stanford, Purdue and UCLA. Check it out, here's the Top 51 National Universities (according to US News & World Report, a flawed but common measuring stick) that have D1 FBS football programs, and I threw in the service academies and BYU, which have uniquely challenging recruiting requirements apart from academics:

Army and BYU are 8-0
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia and Texas are 7-1
Texas A&M is 7-2
Duke, Illinois and Vanderbilt are 6-3
Navy is 6-2
Washington, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and Michigan are 5-4
Virginia, Cal, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Florida and Boston College are 4-4
Northwestern and USC are 4-5

All are in the Top 51/USNWR. Stanford, Purdue and UCLA are the only "academic" teams with poor W/L records. Somehow, we need to be able to recruit better than our history. Harbaugh figured it out, as he said, you can find 22 excellent football players a year who can matriculate at Stanford. I don't think Taylor is going to figure it out, but whoever succeeds Taylor needs to be able to recruit at a high level.

Why not use all the schools?   Then you know the average winning percentage is 50%.

The top 5 is a more appropriate cohort for Stanford than the top 51.
Oh, I guess you can't compare to the top 5, because Stanford is the only FBS school in the top 5.

Ok, drop it down to the top 10.  Records against FBS schools:
  Top 10 (non-Stanford):  8-8
  Top 16 (non-Stanford): 11-13
  Top 20 (non-Stanford): 22-24

Top 5 record vs FBS:  Princeton 0-0; MIT 0-0;  Harvard 0-0;  Stanford 1-7;  Yale 0-0.
Next 5:   Caltech 0-0;  Duke 5-3;  Johns Hopkins 0-0; Northwestern 3-5; Penn 0-0
Next 6:   Cornell 0-0;  Chicago 0-0; Brown 0-0;  Columbia 0-0;  Dartmouth 0-0; UCLA 3-5
Next 4:   Cal 3-4; Rice 1-5; Notre Dame 7-0 ; Vanderbilt 3-2;

(I took a shortcut and presumed FCS schools didn't play any FBS schools.  That may not be true.)

[jonnyss]

What evidence do we have that undergraduate academic work at Stanford is "harder" than at Georgia, Notre Dame, Miami, Texas, BYU, USC, etc.? Gaining admission to Stanford is more difficult, but does the admissions challenge equate to academic difficulty or even significant academic difference? I have a hard time imagining, for example, that the undergraduate physics curriculum at Stanford is significantly different than it would be at SMU or Virginia, to take something that allows for clean comparison. And I would not be surprised to learn that Stanford is more generous in its grading than some large state schools are. For all we know, a student who earned a "B" in organic chemistry at Michigan learned more than one who earned an "A" at Stanford in the same class.

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

[jonnyss]

What evidence do we have that undergraduate academic work at Stanford is "harder" than at Georgia, Notre Dame, Miami, Texas, BYU, USC, etc.? Gaining admission to Stanford is more difficult, but does the admissions challenge equate to academic difficulty or even significant academic difference? I have a hard time imagining, for example, that the undergraduate physics curriculum at Stanford is significantly different than it would be at SMU or Virginia, to take something that allows for clean comparison. And I would not be surprised to learn that Stanford is more generous in its grading than some large state schools are. For all we know, a student who earned a "B" in organic chemistry at Michigan learned more than one who earned an "A" at Stanford in the same class.

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

[chrisk]

What evidence do we have that undergraduate academic work at Stanford is "harder" than at Georgia, Notre Dame, Miami, Texas, BYU, USC, etc.? Gaining admission to Stanford is more difficult, but does the admissions challenge equate to academic difficulty or even significant academic difference? I have a hard time imagining, for example, that the undergraduate physics curriculum at Stanford is significantly different than it would be at SMU or Virginia, to take something that allows for clean comparison. And I would not be surprised to learn that Stanford is more generous in its grading than some large state schools are. For all we know, a student who earned a "B" in organic chemistry at Michigan learned more than one who earned an "A" at Stanford in the same class.

I would be curious to know how Stanford graduates compare with those of other "football schools" in standardized tests for graduate school admissions.

The top tier of students at premier state schools (as a surrogate for FBS Schools) are likely comparable to average to above average Stanford students. But just like in freshman admissions, the transfer pool has a small proportion that are in the top tier.

Football players can get a lot of academic support but there are majors and classes that can be utilized at the factories that are not really available at Stanford.Some players make improve their academic standing at another school, but that is only somewhat easier than finding a needle in a haystack.

[chrisk]

What evidence do we have that undergraduate academic work at Stanford is "harder" than at Georgia, Notre Dame, Miami, Texas, BYU, USC, etc.? Gaining admission to Stanford is more difficult, but does the admissions challenge equate to academic difficulty or even significant academic difference? I have a hard time imagining, for example, that the undergraduate physics curriculum at Stanford is significantly different than it would be at SMU or Virginia, to take something that allows for clean comparison. And I would not be surprised to learn that Stanford is more generous in its grading than some large state schools are. For all we know, a student who earned a "B" in organic chemistry at Michigan learned more than one who earned an "A" at Stanford in the same class.

I would be curious to know how Stanford graduates compare with those of other "football schools" in standardized tests for graduate school admissions.

The top tier of students at premier state schools (as a surrogate for FBS Schools) are likely comparable to average to above average Stanford students. But just like in freshman admissions, the transfer pool has a small proportion that are in the top tier.

Football players can get a lot of academic support but there are majors and classes that can be utilized at the factories that are not really available at Stanford.Some players make improve their academic standing at another school, but that is only somewhat easier than finding a needle in a haystack.

[GK3]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

Yes, excellent idea

[GK3]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

Yes, excellent idea

[cardcrimson]

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can  and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

Was in many a classes at Stanford where a majority of the class struggled with problem sets. We'd all have our little study groups and we'd call each other for help. One class was so tough, the midterm means were in the teens, high score in the twenties. New professor, Stanford grad and PhD, wild guy; an absolutely brilliant guy who had no idea how smart he was compared to normal Stanford students. . . .

[cardcrimson]

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can  and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

Was in many a classes at Stanford where a majority of the class struggled with problem sets. We'd all have our little study groups and we'd call each other for help. One class was so tough, the midterm means were in the teens, high score in the twenties. New professor, Stanford grad and PhD, wild guy; an absolutely brilliant guy who had no idea how smart he was compared to normal Stanford students. . . .

[Mick]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

Yes, excellent idea

Good for the team, doesn't use up more than the allotted slots, offers spot fixes. Makes too much sense to actually happen...

[Mick]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

Yes, excellent idea

Good for the team, doesn't use up more than the allotted slots, offers spot fixes. Makes too much sense to actually happen...

[lex24]

[quote="Goose" pid='421492' dateline='1730589145']
Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

Yes, excellent idea

Good for the team, doesn't use up more than the allotted slots, offers spot fixes. Makes too much sense to actually happen...
[/quote

A terrific common sense solution.  It will never happen…..

[lex24]

[quote="Goose" pid='421492' dateline='1730589145']
Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

"The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period."

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

I second this line of thinking, fwliw.

Yes, excellent idea

Good for the team, doesn't use up more than the allotted slots, offers spot fixes. Makes too much sense to actually happen...
[/quote

A terrific common sense solution.  It will never happen…..

[82lsju]

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can  and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

Was in many a classes at Stanford where a majority of the class struggled with problem sets. We'd all have our little study groups and we'd call each other for help. One class was so tough, the midterm means were in the teens, high score in the twenties. New professor, Stanford grad and PhD, wild guy; an absolutely brilliant guy who had no idea how smart he was compared to normal Stanford students. . . .

chemical engineer here, we also had study groups for problem sets.  We had one chemical engineering class with a midterm where the mean was 18 and the mode was zero (that's out of 100), I am still very proud of the C+ I got in the class which was the 8th highest grade out of about 30 students.  The same prof a year or two earlier initially failed about half of a winter quarter required class, the class was mostly seniors, the dept chair suggested he revisit his grading or plan on teaching the class again in spring quarter, he did the former.  We ran into the prof at a chem eng event maybe 15 years later and went up to say hi to him, he waved us off.  I still recall him introducing a visiting prof at an event taking not so subtle shots at his colleague about why the visiting prof was so much better at catalysis than his colleague.

[82lsju]

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can  and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

Was in many a classes at Stanford where a majority of the class struggled with problem sets. We'd all have our little study groups and we'd call each other for help. One class was so tough, the midterm means were in the teens, high score in the twenties. New professor, Stanford grad and PhD, wild guy; an absolutely brilliant guy who had no idea how smart he was compared to normal Stanford students. . . .

chemical engineer here, we also had study groups for problem sets.  We had one chemical engineering class with a midterm where the mean was 18 and the mode was zero (that's out of 100), I am still very proud of the C+ I got in the class which was the 8th highest grade out of about 30 students.  The same prof a year or two earlier initially failed about half of a winter quarter required class, the class was mostly seniors, the dept chair suggested he revisit his grading or plan on teaching the class again in spring quarter, he did the former.  We ran into the prof at a chem eng event maybe 15 years later and went up to say hi to him, he waved us off.  I still recall him introducing a visiting prof at an event taking not so subtle shots at his colleague about why the visiting prof was so much better at catalysis than his colleague.

[Sam Leopold]

When I was a freshman at Caltech, the upperclassmen were still passing around tales of the midterm from the Math 2c course in the spring of '97 (which got mothballed out of the core curriculum right before my class arrived).  The professor was some Russian guy whose name I don't remember, and even if I did I'm not sure I would want to divulge it here.  By good fortune, I missed that trial by 3 years, for which the median score was not much higher than 10%.  Single-digit scores were not uncommon, and a few poor souls ended up with a score of 0.  Some time in the fall quarter '98 that midterm was parodied in the now-defunct "literary journal" of Ruddock House* known as the BFD, which featured mock questions such as "Matt is sitting on a Rubbermaid step stool and lets out a fart.  Calculate the expected duration of the fart.  (In other words, calculate the number of seconds for which the, er, the, er, er, the fart will last.)"

* Recently renamed to Venerable House, for Grant Venerable, the first African-American graduate of Caltech in 1932, after the Ruddock fellow turned out to have expressed some, ahem, insensitive attitudes in his past.  During my 20th year reunion, I was on campus and present for the Venerable name unveiling.

[Sam Leopold]

When I was a freshman at Caltech, the upperclassmen were still passing around tales of the midterm from the Math 2c course in the spring of '97 (which got mothballed out of the core curriculum right before my class arrived).  The professor was some Russian guy whose name I don't remember, and even if I did I'm not sure I would want to divulge it here.  By good fortune, I missed that trial by 3 years, for which the median score was not much higher than 10%.  Single-digit scores were not uncommon, and a few poor souls ended up with a score of 0.  Some time in the fall quarter '98 that midterm was parodied in the now-defunct "literary journal" of Ruddock House* known as the BFD, which featured mock questions such as "Matt is sitting on a Rubbermaid step stool and lets out a fart.  Calculate the expected duration of the fart.  (In other words, calculate the number of seconds for which the, er, the, er, er, the fart will last.)"

* Recently renamed to Venerable House, for Grant Venerable, the first African-American graduate of Caltech in 1932, after the Ruddock fellow turned out to have expressed some, ahem, insensitive attitudes in his past.  During my 20th year reunion, I was on campus and present for the Venerable name unveiling.

[oldalum]

I remember a ridiculous Organic Chem Lab final in the 1970s on which I scored a 14% -- which was the high score in the class.

[oldalum]

I remember a ridiculous Organic Chem Lab final in the 1970s on which I scored a 14% -- which was the high score in the class.

[martyup]

I remember when Dot gave me a hot tip to enroll in Film Esthetics.  He said all of the football players were taking it because it was an easy A.  All you had to do was watch old movies.  Well, I signed up just in time for the prof to have his come-to-Jesus career moment.  He failed half the class on their midterm and announced that his course would no longer be Mickey Mouse.  I got a D on the midterm, but studied my ass off for the final and pulled out a B in the course.  Thanks again for that Dot!

[martyup]

I remember when Dot gave me a hot tip to enroll in Film Esthetics.  He said all of the football players were taking it because it was an easy A.  All you had to do was watch old movies.  Well, I signed up just in time for the prof to have his come-to-Jesus career moment.  He failed half the class on their midterm and announced that his course would no longer be Mickey Mouse.  I got a D on the midterm, but studied my ass off for the final and pulled out a B in the course.  Thanks again for that Dot!

[cardcrimson]

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can  and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

Was in many a classes at Stanford where a majority of the class struggled with problem sets. We'd all have our little study groups and we'd call each other for help. One class was so tough, the midterm means were in the teens, high score in the twenties. New professor, Stanford grad and PhD, wild guy; an absolutely brilliant guy who had no idea how smart he was compared to normal Stanford students. . . .

chemical engineer here, we also had study groups for problem sets.  We had one chemical engineering class with a midterm where the mean was 18 and the mode was zero (that's out of 100), I am still very proud of the C+ I got in the class which was the 8th highest grade out of about 30 students.  The same prof a year or two earlier initially failed about half of a winter quarter required class, the class was mostly seniors, the dept chair suggested he revisit his grading or plan on teaching the class again in spring quarter, he did the former.  We ran into the prof at a chem eng event maybe 15 years later and went up to say hi to him, he waved us off.  I still recall him introducing a visiting prof at an event taking not so subtle shots at his colleague about why the visiting prof was so much better at catalysis than his colleague.

Great story! Thanks! Loved our Prof, even though he was so tough. Can't remember his former fraternity, but they had a rep for serious partiers. During the grad ceremony at Frost, as he walked the procession, handed him one of our bottles of champagne, and he chugged a good bit of it. 

Great fun that day! Shook hands with George Shultz (and unbeknownst to me, was almost jumped by secret service because of it); and just missed hitting Donald Kennedy with a champagne cork. Those were the days on the Farm.

---

I remember when Dot gave me a hot tip to enroll in Film Esthetics.  He said all of the football players were taking it because it was an easy A.  All you had to do was watch old movies.  Well, I signed up just in time for the prof to have his come-to-Jesus career moment.  He failed half the class on their midterm and announced that his course would no longer be Mickey Mouse.  I got a D on the midterm, but studied my ass off for the final and pulled out a B in the course.  Thanks again for that Dot!

Great story. I took a class on ancient athletics my senior year. As an engineering major, we did't get many electives. Passed the midterm with flying colors, and as there was no final and only a final paper, never went again. For years, possibly decades, had nightmares that the prof decided to have a final and I didn't graduate because I missed it. . . .

[cardcrimson]

anecdotal evidence, including personal experience:

true to some extent, but at a 20-40 ranked school, you have lots of company when you can't figure out a difficult problem set. at stanford, yale, harvard, half the class gets it no problem. so the professors can  and do make the tests and problem sets at stanford harder (in some classes, not all).

Was in many a classes at Stanford where a majority of the class struggled with problem sets. We'd all have our little study groups and we'd call each other for help. One class was so tough, the midterm means were in the teens, high score in the twenties. New professor, Stanford grad and PhD, wild guy; an absolutely brilliant guy who had no idea how smart he was compared to normal Stanford students. . . .

chemical engineer here, we also had study groups for problem sets.  We had one chemical engineering class with a midterm where the mean was 18 and the mode was zero (that's out of 100), I am still very proud of the C+ I got in the class which was the 8th highest grade out of about 30 students.  The same prof a year or two earlier initially failed about half of a winter quarter required class, the class was mostly seniors, the dept chair suggested he revisit his grading or plan on teaching the class again in spring quarter, he did the former.  We ran into the prof at a chem eng event maybe 15 years later and went up to say hi to him, he waved us off.  I still recall him introducing a visiting prof at an event taking not so subtle shots at his colleague about why the visiting prof was so much better at catalysis than his colleague.

Great story! Thanks! Loved our Prof, even though he was so tough. Can't remember his former fraternity, but they had a rep for serious partiers. During the grad ceremony at Frost, as he walked the procession, handed him one of our bottles of champagne, and he chugged a good bit of it. 

Great fun that day! Shook hands with George Shultz (and unbeknownst to me, was almost jumped by secret service because of it); and just missed hitting Donald Kennedy with a champagne cork. Those were the days on the Farm.

---

I remember when Dot gave me a hot tip to enroll in Film Esthetics.  He said all of the football players were taking it because it was an easy A.  All you had to do was watch old movies.  Well, I signed up just in time for the prof to have his come-to-Jesus career moment.  He failed half the class on their midterm and announced that his course would no longer be Mickey Mouse.  I got a D on the midterm, but studied my ass off for the final and pulled out a B in the course.  Thanks again for that Dot!

Great story. I took a class on ancient athletics my senior year. As an engineering major, we did't get many electives. Passed the midterm with flying colors, and as there was no final and only a final paper, never went again. For years, possibly decades, had nightmares that the prof decided to have a final and I didn't graduate because I missed it. . . .

[StanUSwagU]

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

The idea of splitting any kind of admission decision into "athlete" and "non-athlete" is already anathema to most of the University. One obvious problem is that it would discriminate by gender. Female non-athletes would not be eligible for spaces voluntarily relinquished by football players. IMO the coaches would possibly get some traction by pointing out they had lots of transfers out and needed help replacing those players. The admissions department could then chose to exercise their discretion in admissions to "help" a bit. Or not. A formal policy of "football slots for football players" is a total non-starter.

One might as well postulate that TT should be able to specify who gets admitted each year to play football as long as they appear to be "able to do the work". That policy might indeed make "excellence in all things" (especially football) much easier to accomplish. You would have the same chance of getting that as you would reserving slots in the transfer pool. None and less than none.

Hi Goose,

Some good points, and what I propose I will leave to the legal experts, to see if it would be acceptable on legal grounds:

(1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.

What if:

(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]

(3). Stanford created 2 New Undergraduate Majors named:

(a) "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b) "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"


In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study & exceptional passion for these 2 fields.

(4). What would this solve:

(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study, & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !

(5) Because we are ADDING 2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these 2 Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....

(a) "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b) "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"

....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)


(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !

[StanUSwagU]

there's been a lot of talk about "transfer slots" and such but fixing part of the problem ought to be as simple as admitting transfers who are judged able to do the work to graduate and be a productive member of the stanford community to replace those players who use the transfer portal to leave stanford.  the total number of available non student-athlete "transfer slots" shouldn't have any bearing on the number of transfer slots available for student-athletes to replace those who leave.  discard the admissions elitism and admit those transfers from the portal whom the coach wants or needs to replace players departing through the portal so long as admissions exercises its reasonable judgment and determines the prospective transfer player able to do the work to graduate, etc.  the "slots" already exist as the team has to be filled--and filled with talented, skilled athletes if stanford's goal of excellence in all things in which it endeavors is to hold water and be taken seriously.

that would be a partial fix for portal exits.  using the portal for regular recruiting and plugging holes should also be addressed but the standardfor admissions ought to be the same, imho.

The idea of splitting any kind of admission decision into "athlete" and "non-athlete" is already anathema to most of the University. One obvious problem is that it would discriminate by gender. Female non-athletes would not be eligible for spaces voluntarily relinquished by football players. IMO the coaches would possibly get some traction by pointing out they had lots of transfers out and needed help replacing those players. The admissions department could then chose to exercise their discretion in admissions to "help" a bit. Or not. A formal policy of "football slots for football players" is a total non-starter.

One might as well postulate that TT should be able to specify who gets admitted each year to play football as long as they appear to be "able to do the work". That policy might indeed make "excellence in all things" (especially football) much easier to accomplish. You would have the same chance of getting that as you would reserving slots in the transfer pool. None and less than none.

Hi Goose,

Some good points, and what I propose I will leave to the legal experts, to see if it would be acceptable on legal grounds:

(1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.

What if:

(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]

(3). Stanford created 2 New Undergraduate Majors named:

(a) "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b) "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"


In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study & exceptional passion for these 2 fields.

(4). What would this solve:

(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study, & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !

(5) Because we are ADDING 2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these 2 Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....

(a) "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b) "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"

....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)


(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !

[Goose]

(1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.

What if:

(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]

Many of us have wanted to increase the size of the undergraduate student body. There are lots of very practical reasons that hasn't been done.

(3). Stanford created 2  New Undergraduate Majors named:

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"


In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study &  exceptional passion for these 2 fields.

Undergraduate students are not admitted to a program. They are admitted to the University. There can be no "admission criteria to a program". That won't change, and therefore the suggested approach can't work. On top of that there is absolutely zero chance Stanford's faculty would ever countenance awarding a degree in football. Not happening, ever.

Graduate school is a different case. There you are admitted to a specific school and specific qualifications can be imposed. Very hard to argue that a  "School of Football" would ever even be considered. Also wouldn't help nearly as much because the students would all be grad transfers.

(4). What would this solve:

(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study,  & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !

(5) Because we are ADDING  2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these  2  Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"

....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)


(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !

Not at all the case. The "old, traditional stuff" that undergraduates aren't admitted to a particular program would be changed. Everybody is "undeclared" and you can select any major you wish. You can also change you major. Naturally you need to be able to do the work for your selected major, but you can't be stopped from trying. No chance at all that can be changed. Zero.

[Goose]

(1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.

What if:

(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]

Many of us have wanted to increase the size of the undergraduate student body. There are lots of very practical reasons that hasn't been done.

(3). Stanford created 2  New Undergraduate Majors named:

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"


In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study &  exceptional passion for these 2 fields.

Undergraduate students are not admitted to a program. They are admitted to the University. There can be no "admission criteria to a program". That won't change, and therefore the suggested approach can't work. On top of that there is absolutely zero chance Stanford's faculty would ever countenance awarding a degree in football. Not happening, ever.

Graduate school is a different case. There you are admitted to a specific school and specific qualifications can be imposed. Very hard to argue that a  "School of Football" would ever even be considered. Also wouldn't help nearly as much because the students would all be grad transfers.

(4). What would this solve:

(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study,  & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !

(5) Because we are ADDING  2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these  2  Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"

....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)


(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !

Not at all the case. The "old, traditional stuff" that undergraduates aren't admitted to a particular program would be changed. Everybody is "undeclared" and you can select any major you wish. You can also change you major. Naturally you need to be able to do the work for your selected major, but you can't be stopped from trying. No chance at all that can be changed. Zero.

[81alum]

(1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.

What if:

(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]

Many of us have wanted to increase the size of the undergraduate student body. There are lots of very practical reasons that hasn't been done.

(3). Stanford created 2  New Undergraduate Majors named:

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"


In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study &  exceptional passion for these 2 fields.

Undergraduate students are not admitted to a program. They are admitted to the University. There can be no "admission criteria to a program". That won't change, and therefore the suggested approach can't work. On top of that there is absolutely zero chance Stanford's faculty would ever countenance awarding a degree in football. Not happening, ever.

Graduate school is a different case. There you are admitted to a specific school and specific qualifications can be imposed. Very hard to argue that a  "School of Football" would ever even be considered. Also wouldn't help nearly as much because the students would all be grad transfers.

(4). What would this solve:

(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study,  & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !

(5) Because we are ADDING  2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these  2  Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"

....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)


(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !

Not at all the case. The "old, traditional stuff" that undergraduates aren't admitted to a particular program would be changed. Everybody is "undeclared" and you can select any major you wish. You can also change you major. Naturally you need to be able to do the work for your selected major, but you can't be stopped from trying. No chance at all that can be changed. Zero.

Thank you Goose for explaining academic reality.

[81alum]

(1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.

What if:

(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]

Many of us have wanted to increase the size of the undergraduate student body. There are lots of very practical reasons that hasn't been done.

(3). Stanford created 2  New Undergraduate Majors named:

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"


In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study &  exceptional passion for these 2 fields.

Undergraduate students are not admitted to a program. They are admitted to the University. There can be no "admission criteria to a program". That won't change, and therefore the suggested approach can't work. On top of that there is absolutely zero chance Stanford's faculty would ever countenance awarding a degree in football. Not happening, ever.

Graduate school is a different case. There you are admitted to a specific school and specific qualifications can be imposed. Very hard to argue that a  "School of Football" would ever even be considered. Also wouldn't help nearly as much because the students would all be grad transfers.

(4). What would this solve:

(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study,  & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !

(5) Because we are ADDING  2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these  2  Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....

(a)  "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b)  "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"

....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)


(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !

Not at all the case. The "old, traditional stuff" that undergraduates aren't admitted to a particular program would be changed. Everybody is "undeclared" and you can select any major you wish. You can also change you major. Naturally you need to be able to do the work for your selected major, but you can't be stopped from trying. No chance at all that can be changed. Zero.

Thank you Goose for explaining academic reality.