[2006alum]

I know Mamlet is hugely unpopular around these parts, but her tenure as admissions dean was from 2000 to 2005, so her maximum years of impact would have been athletic seasons between 2003 and 2007, when nearly all athletes were ones admitted under her watch. Stanford collected:

2003: 2
2004: 2
2005: 2
2006: 2
2007: 2
Avg: 2

Yet well over a decade after she left, Stanford was not doing noticeably better in the first years where Dean Shaw's admits comprised almost all Stanford athletes:

2008: 0
2009: 2
2010: 2
2011: 3
2012: 1
2013: 1
2014: 1
Avg.: 1.4

Only in Shaw's second decade at the helm did our athletics performance take off:

2015: 3
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 3
2019: 8
Avg.: 4.2

So to the degree we are looking for causal factors, I'm guessing there was more at work than whoever is the admissions dean, because the first decade after Shaw took the helm looked essentially no different than the peak Mamlet years.

[2006alum]

I know Mamlet is hugely unpopular around these parts, but her tenure as admissions dean was from 2000 to 2005, so her maximum years of impact would have been athletic seasons between 2003 and 2007, when nearly all athletes were ones admitted under her watch. Stanford collected:

2003: 2
2004: 2
2005: 2
2006: 2
2007: 2
Avg: 2

Yet well over a decade after she left, Stanford was not doing noticeably better in the first years where Dean Shaw's admits comprised almost all Stanford athletes:

2008: 0
2009: 2
2010: 2
2011: 3
2012: 1
2013: 1
2014: 1
Avg.: 1.4

Only in Shaw's second decade at the helm did our athletics performance take off:

2015: 3
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 3
2019: 8
Avg.: 4.2

So to the degree we are looking for causal factors, I'm guessing there was more at work than whoever is the admissions dean, because the first decade after Shaw took the helm looked essentially no different than the peak Mamlet years.