[OutsiderFan]

USC will probably sign a couple 5 stars and pass Stanford rather easily.

I just think it's amazing that nobody can think of even three more potential candidates for Stanford after Higgins, now that we know Sanguinetti, McDuffie, and Johnson are off the board.

[OutsiderFan]

USC will probably sign a couple 5 stars and pass Stanford rather easily.

I just think it's amazing that nobody can think of even three more potential candidates for Stanford after Higgins, now that we know Sanguinetti, McDuffie, and Johnson are off the board.

[BobK]

2 are easy. I paid to find out.
The other ? I have no clue. Why is there still another when Miller said no ?

[BobK]

2 are easy. I paid to find out.
The other ? I have no clue. Why is there still another when Miller said no ?

[Spiny_Norman]

For those who like to analyze such things, 247sports has published a list of Stanford recruits since 2000 ordered by their high school ranking, including 2019 and 2020 commits. 3 of the top 6 all time are currently on the roster.

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/S...eRecruits/

[Spiny_Norman]

For those who like to analyze such things, 247sports has published a list of Stanford recruits since 2000 ordered by their high school ranking, including 2019 and 2020 commits. 3 of the top 6 all time are currently on the roster.

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/S...eRecruits/

[BostonCard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

By position:
QB: 2 out of the top 6 are on the roster now and a third will be when he gets back from his mission. However, crazy that Costello is sandwiched between Chryst and Nunes and Hogan is our 13th most highly regarded recruit since 2000, behind two guys he beat out (Nunes and Nottingham), and sandwiched between a guy who moved to safety (Lloyd) and a guy who never played (Kiilsgard)

RB: Bryce Love is 8th, Sione Lund is 7th, and Austin Jones is 4th.  Hard to believe that JR Lemon is our most highly regarded recruit at the position as McCaffrey is 4th, Stepfan Taylor is 11th, Gaffney is 13th, and Toby Gerhart is 17th

WR/TE: The top 2 (Parkinson and Smith) are on the roster now, as is the 4th highest rated recruit (Irwin), 6th (St. Brown), 8th (Fehoko), and the 9th is a 2020 signee (Farrell).  Wilson is 13th, Bowman is 14th, and Archer is 23rd.  But man, JJ Arcega-Whiteside is 30th, Coby Fleener is tied for 38th, and Doug Baldwin is 49th, out of 50.  No wonder the guy plays with a giant chip on his shoulder.

OL: Sarrell and Little are 2 and 3 (Kwame Harris was #1).  The Big 3 in the class of 2012 (Murphy, Peat, Garnett) are 4 - 6.  Incoming recruit Branson Bragg is 9, Hamilton is 13, Fanaika and Wilson are 16 and 17, and we have a couple of incoming recruits in the 20's.

DL: A couple of incoming DLinemen are in the top 10 (Pekola and Herron); FOx and Booker are 14 and 15, Williams and DWP are 18 and 19. Amazing that Ben Gardner was ranked lower than a 2018 walk-on.

LB: Our top recruit was Michael Craven.  Curtis Robinson is the top recruit currently on the roster, at 4th.  Okeriki and Alfieri are 8th and 9th, and incoming recruit Sinclair is behind them at 10th.  Mangum-Farrar is 15th, Fox is 18th, and the NFL's second leading tackler (Blake Martinez) was tied for 18th.   

DB: Seven of the top 10 regarded defensive backs are either on the roster now or will be in the fall, including Adebo (3), Buncom (4), Turner-Muhammad (5),  Simmons (6), Butler (8), Pryts (9), Edwards (10), and for good measure Eboh (11).

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

By position:
QB: 2 out of the top 6 are on the roster now and a third will be when he gets back from his mission. However, crazy that Costello is sandwiched between Chryst and Nunes and Hogan is our 13th most highly regarded recruit since 2000, behind two guys he beat out (Nunes and Nottingham), and sandwiched between a guy who moved to safety (Lloyd) and a guy who never played (Kiilsgard)

RB: Bryce Love is 8th, Sione Lund is 7th, and Austin Jones is 4th.  Hard to believe that JR Lemon is our most highly regarded recruit at the position as McCaffrey is 4th, Stepfan Taylor is 11th, Gaffney is 13th, and Toby Gerhart is 17th

WR/TE: The top 2 (Parkinson and Smith) are on the roster now, as is the 4th highest rated recruit (Irwin), 6th (St. Brown), 8th (Fehoko), and the 9th is a 2020 signee (Farrell).  Wilson is 13th, Bowman is 14th, and Archer is 23rd.  But man, JJ Arcega-Whiteside is 30th, Coby Fleener is tied for 38th, and Doug Baldwin is 49th, out of 50.  No wonder the guy plays with a giant chip on his shoulder.

OL: Sarrell and Little are 2 and 3 (Kwame Harris was #1).  The Big 3 in the class of 2012 (Murphy, Peat, Garnett) are 4 - 6.  Incoming recruit Branson Bragg is 9, Hamilton is 13, Fanaika and Wilson are 16 and 17, and we have a couple of incoming recruits in the 20's.

DL: A couple of incoming DLinemen are in the top 10 (Pekola and Herron); FOx and Booker are 14 and 15, Williams and DWP are 18 and 19. Amazing that Ben Gardner was ranked lower than a 2018 walk-on.

LB: Our top recruit was Michael Craven.  Curtis Robinson is the top recruit currently on the roster, at 4th.  Okeriki and Alfieri are 8th and 9th, and incoming recruit Sinclair is behind them at 10th.  Mangum-Farrar is 15th, Fox is 18th, and the NFL's second leading tackler (Blake Martinez) was tied for 18th.   

DB: Seven of the top 10 regarded defensive backs are either on the roster now or will be in the fall, including Adebo (3), Buncom (4), Turner-Muhammad (5),  Simmons (6), Butler (8), Pryts (9), Edwards (10), and for good measure Eboh (11).

BC

[CTcard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

[CTcard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

[stupac2]

- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?

That's what I'd pick. On average you'd expect more highly regarded recruits to be more highly regarded players in college and the NFL, but that's going to require a lot of averaging given the inherent uncertainty and randomness involved.

In fact, I think the role of randomness in outcomes in sports is wildly underappreciated, as in the classic XKCD:

[stupac2]

- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?

That's what I'd pick. On average you'd expect more highly regarded recruits to be more highly regarded players in college and the NFL, but that's going to require a lot of averaging given the inherent uncertainty and randomness involved.

In fact, I think the role of randomness in outcomes in sports is wildly underappreciated, as in the classic XKCD:

[CardinalSagehen]

- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?

That's what I'd pick. On average you'd expect more highly regarded recruits to be more highly regarded players in college and the NFL, but that's going to require a lot of averaging given the inherent uncertainty and randomness involved.

In fact, I think the role of randomness in outcomes in sports is wildly underappreciated, as in the classic XKCD:

Agreed. The same can be said for college admissions in general. Kids from all over the country face different levels of difficulty, have different teachers, come from different home environments with different levels of access to resources, exhibit different levels of resilience when faced with greater challenges, and develop at different rates. To top it off, once you reach a certain level of observed performance, they’re all really good and it’s hard to draw reliable distinctions.  

But hey, I went to a “safety school” (sarcasm) because Stanford declined me 28 years ago, so I might have a small chip on my shoulder. ;-) For whatever it’s worth, I declined Cal.

[CardinalSagehen]

- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?

That's what I'd pick. On average you'd expect more highly regarded recruits to be more highly regarded players in college and the NFL, but that's going to require a lot of averaging given the inherent uncertainty and randomness involved.

In fact, I think the role of randomness in outcomes in sports is wildly underappreciated, as in the classic XKCD:

Agreed. The same can be said for college admissions in general. Kids from all over the country face different levels of difficulty, have different teachers, come from different home environments with different levels of access to resources, exhibit different levels of resilience when faced with greater challenges, and develop at different rates. To top it off, once you reach a certain level of observed performance, they’re all really good and it’s hard to draw reliable distinctions.  

But hey, I went to a “safety school” (sarcasm) because Stanford declined me 28 years ago, so I might have a small chip on my shoulder. ;-) For whatever it’s worth, I declined Cal.

[BostonCard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

Yes.  All of the above, though I would probably de-emphasize 2 and 3.  A lot of schools have examples of players with more modest recruiting profiles who went on to star.

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect guide.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to do well, but it is hardly guaranteed.  Of the top-10 recruits who have already graduated, only Craven is a clear bust.  Kwame Harris, Kyle Murphy, Trent Edwards, Solomon Thomas, Julian Jenkins, and Andrus Peat were all multi-year starters; most were all-Pac-12, and most were drafted into the NFL.

The bottom 10 include Denzel Franklin, JB Salem, and Tyler Mabry, but also Richard Sherman(!), Jarek Lancaster, Johny Caspers, and Josh Mauro.  Sherman I think is the only one to make it to the NFL (but probably has had the most impressive career of a Stanford alum since 2000).  Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.  Overall, the bottom 10 is not as accomplished as the top-10, but the difference is probably not as great as you might have thought it would be, and any given player has a shot at being a star.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

Yes.  All of the above, though I would probably de-emphasize 2 and 3.  A lot of schools have examples of players with more modest recruiting profiles who went on to star.

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect guide.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to do well, but it is hardly guaranteed.  Of the top-10 recruits who have already graduated, only Craven is a clear bust.  Kwame Harris, Kyle Murphy, Trent Edwards, Solomon Thomas, Julian Jenkins, and Andrus Peat were all multi-year starters; most were all-Pac-12, and most were drafted into the NFL.

The bottom 10 include Denzel Franklin, JB Salem, and Tyler Mabry, but also Richard Sherman(!), Jarek Lancaster, Johny Caspers, and Josh Mauro.  Sherman I think is the only one to make it to the NFL (but probably has had the most impressive career of a Stanford alum since 2000).  Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.  Overall, the bottom 10 is not as accomplished as the top-10, but the difference is probably not as great as you might have thought it would be, and any given player has a shot at being a star.

BC

[Langdude]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

Yes.  All of the above, though I would probably de-emphasize 2 and 3.  A lot of schools have examples of players with more modest recruiting profiles who went on to star.

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect guide.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to do well, but it is hardly guaranteed.  Of the top-10 recruits who have already graduated, only Craven is a clear bust.  Kwame Harris, Kyle Murphy, Trent Edwards, Solomon Thomas, Julian Jenkins, and Andrus Peat were all multi-year starters; most were all-Pac-12, and most were drafted into the NFL.

The bottom 10 include Denzel Franklin, JB Salem, and Tyler Mabry, but also Richard Sherman(!), Jarek Lancaster, Johny Caspers, and Josh Mauro.  Sherman I think is the only one to make it to the NFL (but probably has had the most impressive career of a Stanford alum since 2000).  Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.  Overall, the bottom 10 is not as accomplished as the top-10, but the difference is probably not as great as you might have thought it would be, and any given player has a shot at being a star.

BC

Josh Mauro played in the NFL (though, I think, did not start at Stanford, but was definitely a significant contributor).

I think Tyler Mabry was a contributor at Stanford.

-m.

[Langdude]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

Yes.  All of the above, though I would probably de-emphasize 2 and 3.  A lot of schools have examples of players with more modest recruiting profiles who went on to star.

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect guide.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to do well, but it is hardly guaranteed.  Of the top-10 recruits who have already graduated, only Craven is a clear bust.  Kwame Harris, Kyle Murphy, Trent Edwards, Solomon Thomas, Julian Jenkins, and Andrus Peat were all multi-year starters; most were all-Pac-12, and most were drafted into the NFL.

The bottom 10 include Denzel Franklin, JB Salem, and Tyler Mabry, but also Richard Sherman(!), Jarek Lancaster, Johny Caspers, and Josh Mauro.  Sherman I think is the only one to make it to the NFL (but probably has had the most impressive career of a Stanford alum since 2000).  Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.  Overall, the bottom 10 is not as accomplished as the top-10, but the difference is probably not as great as you might have thought it would be, and any given player has a shot at being a star.

BC

Josh Mauro played in the NFL (though, I think, did not start at Stanford, but was definitely a significant contributor).

I think Tyler Mabry was a contributor at Stanford.

-m.

[Phogge]

Mauro played for the Cardinals for years and started on the Giants DL this year against the Niners.

[Phogge]

Mauro played for the Cardinals for years and started on the Giants DL this year against the Niners.

[stupac2]

Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.

IIRC it was a surprise that Caspers didn't even try the NFL and instead went to Y2E2. In a fun coincidence he now works at my wife's company and I met him at their holiday party. I had meant to ask about that decision but then the open bar with Fieldwork on tap made me forget.

[stupac2]

Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.

IIRC it was a surprise that Caspers didn't even try the NFL and instead went to Y2E2. In a fun coincidence he now works at my wife's company and I met him at their holiday party. I had meant to ask about that decision but then the open bar with Fieldwork on tap made me forget.

[SamuelMcF]

Michael Rector isn't even on 247sports.com's "all time Stanford recruits list" - that's how sparse his recruiting profile was. He was the only player in the 2012 class ranked lower than Johnny Caspers. Contributed MUCH more than that ranking would indicate.

Also way down the list are Nate Herbig, David Bright, Casey Toohill, and Devon Cajuste.

[SamuelMcF]

Michael Rector isn't even on 247sports.com's "all time Stanford recruits list" - that's how sparse his recruiting profile was. He was the only player in the 2012 class ranked lower than Johnny Caspers. Contributed MUCH more than that ranking would indicate.

Also way down the list are Nate Herbig, David Bright, Casey Toohill, and Devon Cajuste.

[BobK]

Back to 2019 recruiting. Now feeling very good about Higgins and two others.

[BobK]

Back to 2019 recruiting. Now feeling very good about Higgins and two others.

[CTcard]

Michael Rector isn't even on 247sports.com's "all time Stanford recruits list" - that's how sparse his recruiting profile was. He was the only player in the 2012 class ranked lower than Johnny Caspers. Contributed MUCH more than that ranking would indicate.

Others not even on the list include:
Coby Fleener  2007
Jeremy Stewart  2007
Owen Marecic   2007
Thomas Keiser   2007
Doug Baldwin    2007
Johnson Bademosi 2008
Ben Gardner  2008
Trent Murphy  2009
David Parry  2010

I think all these guys either played in the NFL or were at least drafted.
2007 was quite a year.
Stanford has had fewer diamonds in the rough as their recruiting got better and they had less rough.

Took me awhile to understand where they capped the list - at 247 players.

[CTcard]

Michael Rector isn't even on 247sports.com's "all time Stanford recruits list" - that's how sparse his recruiting profile was. He was the only player in the 2012 class ranked lower than Johnny Caspers. Contributed MUCH more than that ranking would indicate.

Others not even on the list include:
Coby Fleener  2007
Jeremy Stewart  2007
Owen Marecic   2007
Thomas Keiser   2007
Doug Baldwin    2007
Johnson Bademosi 2008
Ben Gardner  2008
Trent Murphy  2009
David Parry  2010

I think all these guys either played in the NFL or were at least drafted.
2007 was quite a year.
Stanford has had fewer diamonds in the rough as their recruiting got better and they had less rough.

Took me awhile to understand where they capped the list - at 247 players.

[nik6]

Back to 2019 recruiting.   Now feeling very good about Higgins and two others.

Elijah Higgins
Johnathan McGill

Whose the third?

[nik6]

Back to 2019 recruiting.   Now feeling very good about Higgins and two others.

Elijah Higgins
Johnathan McGill

Whose the third?

[JohnR34231]

USC will probably sign a couple 5 stars and pass Stanford rather easily.

I just think it's amazing that nobody can think of even three more potential candidates for Stanford after Higgins, now that we know Sanguinetti, McDuffie, and Johnson are off the board.

Good news: Two of the top ten (according to 247 Sports) California recruits who favor U$C may not end up there.
Bad news: They may end up at Washington.
Choose your poison. They go to Washington and the Huskies will end up with one monster recruiting class.

[JohnR34231]

USC will probably sign a couple 5 stars and pass Stanford rather easily.

I just think it's amazing that nobody can think of even three more potential candidates for Stanford after Higgins, now that we know Sanguinetti, McDuffie, and Johnson are off the board.

Good news: Two of the top ten (according to 247 Sports) California recruits who favor U$C may not end up there.
Bad news: They may end up at Washington.
Choose your poison. They go to Washington and the Huskies will end up with one monster recruiting class.

[Mick]

- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?

That's what I'd pick. On average you'd expect more highly regarded recruits to be more highly regarded players in college and the NFL, but that's going to require a lot of averaging given the inherent uncertainty and randomness involved.

In fact, I think the role of randomness in outcomes in sports is wildly underappreciated, as in the classic XKCD:

Agreed. The same can be said for college admissions in general. Kids from all over the country face different levels of difficulty, have different teachers, come from different home environments with different levels of access to resources, exhibit different levels of resilience when faced with greater challenges, and develop at different rates. To top it off, once you reach a certain level of observed performance, they’re all really good and it’s hard to draw reliable distinctions.  

But hey, I went to a “safety school” (sarcasm) because Stanford declined me 28 years ago, so I might have a small chip on my shoulder. ;-) For whatever it’s worth, I declined Cal.

A good friend of mine was a 4.0 at SCU (difficult because the average back then was a 2.68) and received offers from seven of the Big Eight.  In his final interview with Ernst & Whinney, the OMP of the SJ office asked him "What did you find different from what you had expected about college?"  His reply?  "Grades are completely meaningless."  The OMP, as credentialistic as any lawyer sputtered "How can you say that?  You have a 4.0?"

My friend touched on all the variables you mentioned; e.g., different teachers and different grading systems, whether one had a second job or a sport, the grading differences between majors, etc.

[Mick]

- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?

That's what I'd pick. On average you'd expect more highly regarded recruits to be more highly regarded players in college and the NFL, but that's going to require a lot of averaging given the inherent uncertainty and randomness involved.

In fact, I think the role of randomness in outcomes in sports is wildly underappreciated, as in the classic XKCD:

Agreed. The same can be said for college admissions in general. Kids from all over the country face different levels of difficulty, have different teachers, come from different home environments with different levels of access to resources, exhibit different levels of resilience when faced with greater challenges, and develop at different rates. To top it off, once you reach a certain level of observed performance, they’re all really good and it’s hard to draw reliable distinctions.  

But hey, I went to a “safety school” (sarcasm) because Stanford declined me 28 years ago, so I might have a small chip on my shoulder. ;-) For whatever it’s worth, I declined Cal.

A good friend of mine was a 4.0 at SCU (difficult because the average back then was a 2.68) and received offers from seven of the Big Eight.  In his final interview with Ernst & Whinney, the OMP of the SJ office asked him "What did you find different from what you had expected about college?"  His reply?  "Grades are completely meaningless."  The OMP, as credentialistic as any lawyer sputtered "How can you say that?  You have a 4.0?"

My friend touched on all the variables you mentioned; e.g., different teachers and different grading systems, whether one had a second job or a sport, the grading differences between majors, etc.

[Bruce Wang]

During my final round interview at Goldman, my interviewer asked me why everybody from Stanford seems to have close to a 4.0 GPA.  My reponse:

"Grade inflation"

I didn't get the job.

[Bruce Wang]

During my final round interview at Goldman, my interviewer asked me why everybody from Stanford seems to have close to a 4.0 GPA.  My reponse:

"Grade inflation"

I didn't get the job.

[BostonCard]

Apropos grades and the relevance thereof:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opini...ccess.html

Getting straight A’s requires conformity. Having an influential career demands originality. In a study of students who graduated at the top of their class, the education researcher Karen Arnold found that although they usually had successful careers, they rarely reached the upper echelons. “Valedictorians aren’t likely to be the future’s visionaries,” Dr. Arnold explained. “They typically settle into the system instead of shaking it up.”

Also, interesting article on the effect of going to an elite college, like, ahem, Stanford:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ge/577816/

For most students, the salary boost from going to a super-selective school is “generally indistinguishable from zero” after adjusting for student characteristics, such as test scores. In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn’t, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers. Despite Harvard’s international fame and energetic alumni outreach, somebody like Mike would not experience an observable “Harvard effect.” Dale and Krueger even found that the average SAT scores of all the schools a student applies to is a more powerful predictor of success than the school that student actually attends.

BC

[BostonCard]

Apropos grades and the relevance thereof:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opini...ccess.html

Getting straight A’s requires conformity. Having an influential career demands originality. In a study of students who graduated at the top of their class, the education researcher Karen Arnold found that although they usually had successful careers, they rarely reached the upper echelons. “Valedictorians aren’t likely to be the future’s visionaries,” Dr. Arnold explained. “They typically settle into the system instead of shaking it up.”

Also, interesting article on the effect of going to an elite college, like, ahem, Stanford:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ge/577816/

For most students, the salary boost from going to a super-selective school is “generally indistinguishable from zero” after adjusting for student characteristics, such as test scores. In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn’t, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers. Despite Harvard’s international fame and energetic alumni outreach, somebody like Mike would not experience an observable “Harvard effect.” Dale and Krueger even found that the average SAT scores of all the schools a student applies to is a more powerful predictor of success than the school that student actually attends.

BC

[CompSci87]

Of course salary is all that matters. No one would want to go to a top school just to have more learning opportunities...

[CompSci87]

Of course salary is all that matters. No one would want to go to a top school just to have more learning opportunities...