[CTcard]

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

This might be a good time to post a reminder about the rather serious issues with studies such as these.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/scien...ility.html

A few further comments:

"Getting straight A's requires conformity."
The basis for that statement seems to be the writers own head.
In my experience there are areas where there is some tendency in that direction, others not at all.

"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."
My understanding is that the salary information data bases that exist are unreliable to the extreme. And from this article, who knows if "adjusting for student characteristics" is done effectively or not.
[Though I have no particular reason to doubt the conclusion. It does, however, imply that the SAT actually measures something real - which counters a different but very large theme of social science research.]

[CTcard]

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

This might be a good time to post a reminder about the rather serious issues with studies such as these.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/scien...ility.html

A few further comments:

"Getting straight A's requires conformity."
The basis for that statement seems to be the writers own head.
In my experience there are areas where there is some tendency in that direction, others not at all.

"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."
My understanding is that the salary information data bases that exist are unreliable to the extreme. And from this article, who knows if "adjusting for student characteristics" is done effectively or not.
[Though I have no particular reason to doubt the conclusion. It does, however, imply that the SAT actually measures something real - which counters a different but very large theme of social science research.]

[stupac2]

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

It's tricky to look for that in a systematic manner, though.

[stupac2]

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

It's tricky to look for that in a systematic manner, though.

[donkey687]

Very Stanfordesque and Cardboardesque to have more posts debating an Atlantic article than posts on who  our final recruits will be, but I will try and shift the conversation back to the Class of 2019.

I saw a tweet last night from Stanford Football that showed 20 FedEx packages going out for signing day.  I assume they are sending a package to anyone who has the possibility of signing with us next week. Thus, 20 would appear to be the upper bound of signees that we will get next week. The tweet appears to have disappeared (probably due to the risk of someone reading the barcodes on the Fedexes to see where they are going).

[donkey687]

Very Stanfordesque and Cardboardesque to have more posts debating an Atlantic article than posts on who  our final recruits will be, but I will try and shift the conversation back to the Class of 2019.

I saw a tweet last night from Stanford Football that showed 20 FedEx packages going out for signing day.  I assume they are sending a package to anyone who has the possibility of signing with us next week. Thus, 20 would appear to be the upper bound of signees that we will get next week. The tweet appears to have disappeared (probably due to the risk of someone reading the barcodes on the Fedexes to see where they are going).

[newguy]

McDuffie has officially committed to Washington.
https://247sports.com/player/trent-mcduffie-46037884/

[newguy]

McDuffie has officially committed to Washington.
https://247sports.com/player/trent-mcduffie-46037884/

[BobK]

I believe and Stanford believes we will sign 20 next week. All 20 accepted

Yes back to recruiting .

[BobK]

I believe and Stanford believes we will sign 20 next week. All 20 accepted

Yes back to recruiting .

[BostonCard]

This might be a good time to post a reminder about the rather serious issues with studies such as these.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/scien...ility.html

A few further comments:

"Getting straight A's requires conformity."
The basis for that statement seems to be the writers own head.
In my experience there are areas where there is some tendency in that direction, others not at all.

"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."
My understanding is that the salary information data bases that exist are unreliable to the extreme. And from this article, who knows if "adjusting for student characteristics" is done effectively or not.
[Though I have no particular reason to doubt the conclusion. It does, however, imply that the SAT actually measures something real - which counters a different but very large theme of social science research.]

Helpfully, the Atlantic actually has a link to the Dale/Kruger article:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322.pdf

They also cited a second paper, which partially replicates the findings (in men, but seems to find an effect of selectivity on women), also helpfully linked (at least the abstract is):

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25315

Using College and Beyond data and a variant on Dale and Krueger's (2002) matched-applicant approach, this paper revisits the question of how attending an elite college affects later-life outcomes. We expand the scope along two dimensions: we do not restrict the sample to full-time full-year workers and we examine labor force participation, human capital, and family formation. For men, our findings echo those in Dale and Krueger (2002): controlling for selection eliminates the positive relationship between college selectivity and earnings. We also find no significant effects on men's educational or family outcomes. The results are quite different for women: we find effects on both career and family outcomes. Attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score increases women's probability of advanced degree attainment by 5 percentage points and earnings by 14 percent, while reducing their likelihood of marriage by 4 percentage points. The effect of college selectivity on own earnings is significantly larger for married than for single women. Among married women, selective college attendance significantly increases spousal education.

I tried to find other sources of replication, just in case the Atlantic article was cherry picking their results.  This paper suggests that an effect exists, but is small

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

Using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, we estimate various early, mid-, and late career outcomes. Results suggest that any premium associated with elite college attendance occurs in the early career, and wanes thereafter. 

My instinct is that this is right, given other literature that I've seen about, for example, elite high schools in New York on college admissions (comparing students just above and just below the exam score cutline)

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/...7_2013.pdf

Applicants just eligible for an exam school have peers that score 0.17 to 0.36 standard deviations higher on eighth grade state tests and that are 6.4 to 9.5 percentage points less likely to be black or Hispanic. However, exposure to these higher-achieving and more homogeneous peers has little impact on college enrollment, college graduation, or college quality.

There are two ways to look at the data.  The first is to say that there is very little difference between the students admitted to an elite school and those who just miss whatever cutoff is needed to make it.  This makes sense given the fact that most elite schools have more applicants that could thrive than they have spots in their admitting class.

The second way to look at the data is that anyone good enough to get into an elite school is good enough to thrive in college, no matter where they actually go. That's not answered directly by the studies above, but it is a plausible conclusion from them and it would be interesting, if one had individual level data, to see what happens to students who chose a second tier school over an elite college.  My guess is that those students would do just fine as well.

BC

[BostonCard]

This might be a good time to post a reminder about the rather serious issues with studies such as these.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/scien...ility.html

A few further comments:

"Getting straight A's requires conformity."
The basis for that statement seems to be the writers own head.
In my experience there are areas where there is some tendency in that direction, others not at all.

"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."
My understanding is that the salary information data bases that exist are unreliable to the extreme. And from this article, who knows if "adjusting for student characteristics" is done effectively or not.
[Though I have no particular reason to doubt the conclusion. It does, however, imply that the SAT actually measures something real - which counters a different but very large theme of social science research.]

Helpfully, the Atlantic actually has a link to the Dale/Kruger article:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322.pdf

They also cited a second paper, which partially replicates the findings (in men, but seems to find an effect of selectivity on women), also helpfully linked (at least the abstract is):

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25315

Using College and Beyond data and a variant on Dale and Krueger's (2002) matched-applicant approach, this paper revisits the question of how attending an elite college affects later-life outcomes. We expand the scope along two dimensions: we do not restrict the sample to full-time full-year workers and we examine labor force participation, human capital, and family formation. For men, our findings echo those in Dale and Krueger (2002): controlling for selection eliminates the positive relationship between college selectivity and earnings. We also find no significant effects on men's educational or family outcomes. The results are quite different for women: we find effects on both career and family outcomes. Attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score increases women's probability of advanced degree attainment by 5 percentage points and earnings by 14 percent, while reducing their likelihood of marriage by 4 percentage points. The effect of college selectivity on own earnings is significantly larger for married than for single women. Among married women, selective college attendance significantly increases spousal education.

I tried to find other sources of replication, just in case the Atlantic article was cherry picking their results.  This paper suggests that an effect exists, but is small

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

Using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, we estimate various early, mid-, and late career outcomes. Results suggest that any premium associated with elite college attendance occurs in the early career, and wanes thereafter. 

My instinct is that this is right, given other literature that I've seen about, for example, elite high schools in New York on college admissions (comparing students just above and just below the exam score cutline)

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/...7_2013.pdf

Applicants just eligible for an exam school have peers that score 0.17 to 0.36 standard deviations higher on eighth grade state tests and that are 6.4 to 9.5 percentage points less likely to be black or Hispanic. However, exposure to these higher-achieving and more homogeneous peers has little impact on college enrollment, college graduation, or college quality.

There are two ways to look at the data.  The first is to say that there is very little difference between the students admitted to an elite school and those who just miss whatever cutoff is needed to make it.  This makes sense given the fact that most elite schools have more applicants that could thrive than they have spots in their admitting class.

The second way to look at the data is that anyone good enough to get into an elite school is good enough to thrive in college, no matter where they actually go. That's not answered directly by the studies above, but it is a plausible conclusion from them and it would be interesting, if one had individual level data, to see what happens to students who chose a second tier school over an elite college.  My guess is that those students would do just fine as well.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I believe and Stanford believes we will sign 20 next week.    All 20 accepted

Yes back to recruiting .

Aside from begging the question who the final three of these 20 will be, the next one is will there be any additional signees by February signing day?

18. WR Higgins
19. DB McGill
20. ?

I'm going to guess the coaches love the idea of two signing days in part because they can get most of their classes signed by mid-December, and then they will have time after the season is over to determine who is leaving/staying, so they can adjust accordingly.

Of course, Stanford can't just offer guys out of the blue in January, when they learn someone decides to leave that wasn't expected, like other schools can.

So will the 2019 class only have 20 in it, or might it end up at 21-22 in February?

[OutsiderFan]

I believe and Stanford believes we will sign 20 next week.    All 20 accepted

Yes back to recruiting .

Aside from begging the question who the final three of these 20 will be, the next one is will there be any additional signees by February signing day?

18. WR Higgins
19. DB McGill
20. ?

I'm going to guess the coaches love the idea of two signing days in part because they can get most of their classes signed by mid-December, and then they will have time after the season is over to determine who is leaving/staying, so they can adjust accordingly.

Of course, Stanford can't just offer guys out of the blue in January, when they learn someone decides to leave that wasn't expected, like other schools can.

So will the 2019 class only have 20 in it, or might it end up at 21-22 in February?

[BobK]

Stanford coaches don’t like the early signing period because grades for the 7th semester aren’t available. The pressure to sign in December at all other schools is great. So a flip would be almost impossible after Christmas

Maybe there’s an offer out there to a player not committed elsewhere who won’t sign. However I can’t guess who.

I will attend the February LOI reception and hear the words “I don’t like the early signing period”

Plus I’m now wavering on # 20.

[BobK]

Stanford coaches don’t like the early signing period because grades for the 7th semester aren’t available. The pressure to sign in December at all other schools is great. So a flip would be almost impossible after Christmas

Maybe there’s an offer out there to a player not committed elsewhere who won’t sign. However I can’t guess who.

I will attend the February LOI reception and hear the words “I don’t like the early signing period”

Plus I’m now wavering on # 20.

[newguy]

the top recruit in the country, Kayvon Thibodeaux, has made a solid verbal commitment to attend the University of Oregon.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...its-oregon

and the top recruit in the country a couple years ago has medically retired from the game of football.  one can only wonder what his future would look like if he had chosen Stanford instead.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...g-injuries

[newguy]

the top recruit in the country, Kayvon Thibodeaux, has made a solid verbal commitment to attend the University of Oregon.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...its-oregon

and the top recruit in the country a couple years ago has medically retired from the game of football.  one can only wonder what his future would look like if he had chosen Stanford instead.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...g-injuries

[OutsiderFan]

Cal DB commit from Upland, Zarhan Manley, flipping to Stanford?

[OutsiderFan]

Cal DB commit from Upland, Zarhan Manley, flipping to Stanford?

[newguy]

Cal DB commit from Upland, Zarhan Manley, flipping to Stanford?

that would work for me.

[newguy]

Cal DB commit from Upland, Zarhan Manley, flipping to Stanford?

that would work for me.

[SamuelMcF]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

[SamuelMcF]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

And we need safeties.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

And we need safeties.

BC

[Langdude]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

And we need safeties.

BC

Looks like we have a quality walk-on safety coming in Brock Jones, out of Clovis. He had a scholarship offers from ASU and Fresno St.

Speaking of potential walk-on safeties, does anyone know anything about Evan Williams at St. Francis? Seems he would be an ideal walk-on candidate. Academically minded with a set of offers you'd expect from a Stanford walk-on.

-m.

[Langdude]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

And we need safeties.

BC

Looks like we have a quality walk-on safety coming in Brock Jones, out of Clovis. He had a scholarship offers from ASU and Fresno St.

Speaking of potential walk-on safeties, does anyone know anything about Evan Williams at St. Francis? Seems he would be an ideal walk-on candidate. Academically minded with a set of offers you'd expect from a Stanford walk-on.

-m.

[SamuelMcF]

https://twitter.com/zahranmanley/status/...3379518464

There's Zahran Manley, as someone speculated earlier. Long 6'2" CB flipped from Cal.

Re: Evan Williams, he's at least on our radar as coaches Anderson and Akina both follow him on Twitter, he camped at Stanford this past summer (earning an offer from Princeton), and he's teammates with Josh Pakola.

[SamuelMcF]

https://twitter.com/zahranmanley/status/...3379518464

There's Zahran Manley, as someone speculated earlier. Long 6'2" CB flipped from Cal.

Re: Evan Williams, he's at least on our radar as coaches Anderson and Akina both follow him on Twitter, he camped at Stanford this past summer (earning an offer from Princeton), and he's teammates with Josh Pakola.

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/zahranmanley/status/...3379518464

There's Zahran Manley, as someone speculated earlier. Long 6'2" CB flipped from Cal.

Re: Evan Williams, he's at least on our radar as coaches Anderson and Akina both follow him on Twitter, he camped at Stanford this past summer (earning an offer from Princeton), and he's teammates with Josh Pakola.

That’s the second Cal commit we’ve flipped!

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/zahranmanley/status/...3379518464

There's Zahran Manley, as someone speculated earlier. Long 6'2" CB flipped from Cal.

Re: Evan Williams, he's at least on our radar as coaches Anderson and Akina both follow him on Twitter, he camped at Stanford this past summer (earning an offer from Princeton), and he's teammates with Josh Pakola.

That’s the second Cal commit we’ve flipped!

BC

[BobK]

Great guess Outsider Fan.

There’s a real long shot that just surfaced. We will know more if he doesn’t sign elsewhere next Week. However adding another is a real long shot

[BobK]

Great guess Outsider Fan.

There’s a real long shot that just surfaced. We will know more if he doesn’t sign elsewhere next Week. However adding another is a real long shot

[OutsiderFan]

Is Higgins waiting until Wednesday to make his commitment public?

[OutsiderFan]

Is Higgins waiting until Wednesday to make his commitment public?

[newguy]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

so he earned it.  and 247 listed Oklahoma State on his offer sheet:  https://247sports.com/Recruitment/Jonath...Interests/

this is looking like a good day.

[newguy]

https://twitter.com/OriginalMcGill3/stat...1218836480

Jonathan McGill has committed. He did so much work to get accepted and it paid off. Incredibly happy for him.

so he earned it.  and 247 listed Oklahoma State on his offer sheet:  https://247sports.com/Recruitment/Jonath...Interests/

this is looking like a good day.

[OutsiderFan]

Great guess Outsider Fan.

There’s a real long shot that just surfaced.   We will know more if he doesn’t sign elsewhere next Week.    However adding another is a real long shot

So is 4 star DE Ty Robinson potentially not signing this week to wait on Stanford admissions and go to the January big visit weekend, sort of like Dax Hollifield last year?

[OutsiderFan]

Great guess Outsider Fan.

There’s a real long shot that just surfaced.   We will know more if he doesn’t sign elsewhere next Week.    However adding another is a real long shot

So is 4 star DE Ty Robinson potentially not signing this week to wait on Stanford admissions and go to the January big visit weekend, sort of like Dax Hollifield last year?