02-15-2021, 07:56 AM
A few quick thoughts:
I think people underestimate, a bit, how much pressure the combo of varsity blues and insane acceptance rates have placed on Stanford admissions. Stanford has reached a near breaking point in terms of how competitive it is to get in, and when 13% of students are varsity athletes, that both (a) invites opportunities for the privileged to find a backdoor way in, and therefore lots of pressure on coaches and opportunities for cronyism; and (b) makes it even harder for non-athletic applicants to gain admission. We're talking ~3% acceptance rates for non-athletes.
It does not help that most of the sports Stanford cut were primarily comprised of especially privileged students. There's just no way a poor kid from Kansas is ever going to get to Stanford on a sailing scholarship. Given the larger debates about inequality raging in this country, and especially concerning how admission to universities like Stanford is a golden ticket, that disparity was becoming increasingly glaring.
However, I think everyone here is quite reasonably irked that, once again, the University Administration has made a decision that no one is willing to stand behind as The Decider and take full responsibility for. Moreover, the reason given seems like pretext given the surrounding context. And as has so often been the case, students, staff, and alums seem have had no role in the decisionmaking process and no voice or seat at the table. That, to me, is what is so irksome: it feels like our intelligence is being insulted. They want our donations, but not our input. And they insult us in the process. $$$ is clearly not the reason. And that's fine: just own the decision and be willing to be accountable for the blowback from those who disagree about calibrating the balance of admissions/athletics/privileged applicants. It's not an unreasonable line to draw, though I know many disagree with it. But we can't even really have that debate, because we're shadowboxing around it in the absence of an honest accounting of why it was made.
All of this said, I think institutions belong to those who presently comprise them. I love my alma mater and I have strong views about some of the choices it has made since I graduated, but at the end of the day, the people who live and work there should have a lot more say than I do; they're better situated, more invested, and bear the brunt of the day to day costs of their choices. I can armchair second-guess them, but I can't say for sure I really know the dynamics that led to this decision.
I think people underestimate, a bit, how much pressure the combo of varsity blues and insane acceptance rates have placed on Stanford admissions. Stanford has reached a near breaking point in terms of how competitive it is to get in, and when 13% of students are varsity athletes, that both (a) invites opportunities for the privileged to find a backdoor way in, and therefore lots of pressure on coaches and opportunities for cronyism; and (b) makes it even harder for non-athletic applicants to gain admission. We're talking ~3% acceptance rates for non-athletes.
It does not help that most of the sports Stanford cut were primarily comprised of especially privileged students. There's just no way a poor kid from Kansas is ever going to get to Stanford on a sailing scholarship. Given the larger debates about inequality raging in this country, and especially concerning how admission to universities like Stanford is a golden ticket, that disparity was becoming increasingly glaring.
However, I think everyone here is quite reasonably irked that, once again, the University Administration has made a decision that no one is willing to stand behind as The Decider and take full responsibility for. Moreover, the reason given seems like pretext given the surrounding context. And as has so often been the case, students, staff, and alums seem have had no role in the decisionmaking process and no voice or seat at the table. That, to me, is what is so irksome: it feels like our intelligence is being insulted. They want our donations, but not our input. And they insult us in the process. $$$ is clearly not the reason. And that's fine: just own the decision and be willing to be accountable for the blowback from those who disagree about calibrating the balance of admissions/athletics/privileged applicants. It's not an unreasonable line to draw, though I know many disagree with it. But we can't even really have that debate, because we're shadowboxing around it in the absence of an honest accounting of why it was made.
All of this said, I think institutions belong to those who presently comprise them. I love my alma mater and I have strong views about some of the choices it has made since I graduated, but at the end of the day, the people who live and work there should have a lot more say than I do; they're better situated, more invested, and bear the brunt of the day to day costs of their choices. I can armchair second-guess them, but I can't say for sure I really know the dynamics that led to this decision.