[BostonCard]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

[BostonCard]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

[SkiBum80]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

[SkiBum80]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

[Mick]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

It was my event in high school, so I liked your 110m analogy. Are these the ten hurdles?

1. Handling the press
   
2. Alumni & fundraising
   
3. Athletic director & staff relations
   
4. Hiring coordinators & assistants
   
5. Recruiting
   
6. Nutrition, strength training & conditioning
   
7. Spring training
   
8. Mental preparation
   
9. Xs & Os / playbook / systems
   
10. Game day coaching
    

[Mick]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

It was my event in high school, so I liked your 110m analogy. Are these the ten hurdles?

1. Handling the press
   
2. Alumni & fundraising
   
3. Athletic director & staff relations
   
4. Hiring coordinators & assistants
   
5. Recruiting
   
6. Nutrition, strength training & conditioning
   
7. Spring training
   
8. Mental preparation
   
9. Xs & Os / playbook / systems
   
10. Game day coaching
    

[ADPinWDC]

And, now TP must top 4 wins, not just three.
Reich got us off the 3-9 Schneid, plus The Axe after losing it in 2021.  
Will we get any QBs in the Portal? And O-Line?
How much clout does Pritchard wield?  See in Jan.

[ADPinWDC]

And, now TP must top 4 wins, not just three.
Reich got us off the 3-9 Schneid, plus The Axe after losing it in 2021.  
Will we get any QBs in the Portal? And O-Line?
How much clout does Pritchard wield?  See in Jan.

[JohnR34231]

And, now TP must top 4 wins, not just three.
Reich got us off the 3-9 Schneid, plus The Axe after losing it in 2021.  
Will we get any QBs in the Portal? And O-Line?
How much clout does Pritchard wield?  See in Jan.

Well Dylan Lonergan is back in the pool, if we want another shot at him.

[JohnR34231]

And, now TP must top 4 wins, not just three.
Reich got us off the 3-9 Schneid, plus The Axe after losing it in 2021.  
Will we get any QBs in the Portal? And O-Line?
How much clout does Pritchard wield?  See in Jan.

Well Dylan Lonergan is back in the pool, if we want another shot at him.

[BostonCard]

Well Dylan Lonergan is back in the pool, if we want another shot at him.

While I always point out not to get too exclited about a getting a verbal from a highly rated recruit, I guess this is why the converse is also true; no reason to get too disappointed if a recruit verbals elsewhere.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well Dylan Lonergan is back in the pool, if we want another shot at him.

While I always point out not to get too exclited about a getting a verbal from a highly rated recruit, I guess this is why the converse is also true; no reason to get too disappointed if a recruit verbals elsewhere.

BC

[SkiBum80]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

It was my event in high school, so I liked your 110m analogy. Are these the ten hurdles?

1. Handling the press
   
2. Alumni & fundraising
   
3. Athletic director & staff relations
   
4. Hiring coordinators & assistants
   
5. Recruiting
   
6. Nutrition, strength training & conditioning
   
7. Spring training
   
8. Mental preparation
   
9. Xs & Os / playbook / systems
   
10. Game day coaching
    

Great list of hurdles!
Being Stanford, there may be a few extra bonus hurdles put in front of him

[SkiBum80]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

It was my event in high school, so I liked your 110m analogy. Are these the ten hurdles?

1. Handling the press
   
2. Alumni & fundraising
   
3. Athletic director & staff relations
   
4. Hiring coordinators & assistants
   
5. Recruiting
   
6. Nutrition, strength training & conditioning
   
7. Spring training
   
8. Mental preparation
   
9. Xs & Os / playbook / systems
   
10. Game day coaching
    

Great list of hurdles!
Being Stanford, there may be a few extra bonus hurdles put in front of him

[PVTree]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

It was my event in high school, so I liked your 110m analogy. Are these the ten hurdles?

1. Handling the press
   
2. Alumni & fundraising
   
3. Athletic director & staff relations
   
4. Hiring coordinators & assistants
   
5. Recruiting
   
6. Nutrition, strength training & conditioning
   
7. Spring training
   
8. Mental preparation
   
9. Xs & Os / playbook / systems
   
10. Game day coaching
    

Great list of hurdles!
Being Stanford, there may be a few extra bonus hurdles put in front of him

Communication (public relations) with fans or does that solely fall on AL? Opening up some practices to hibernating railbirds?

[PVTree]

So earlier, Marty had written “I'm impressed with him and more hopeful after listening to him.” and my response was, “I don’t think how someone handles themselves in an initial press conference is at all predictive of how they will do as a coach.”  I have the same response to your complaint about “word salad” and “coachspeek”, which is to say that it has no bearing on whether he will win at Stanford.  Sure, all else being equal, you love a guy who can give a great press conference (entertaining, informative, well spoken, etc.) but press conferences don’t win games.

BC

I see it like his first year is a 110 m hurdles race. The initial press conference is like the first hurdle. I think Tavita cleared it with ease. But he has 9 more to go and clearing the first one doesn’t guarantee anything much about winning the race. But if you don’t clear the first one cleanly then how likely are you gonna be to win the race? Tavita cleared the 1st hurdle & kept himself in the race. But there’s a bunch more hurdles to go before we know if he’s a winner.

It was my event in high school, so I liked your 110m analogy. Are these the ten hurdles?

1. Handling the press
   
2. Alumni & fundraising
   
3. Athletic director & staff relations
   
4. Hiring coordinators & assistants
   
5. Recruiting
   
6. Nutrition, strength training & conditioning
   
7. Spring training
   
8. Mental preparation
   
9. Xs & Os / playbook / systems
   
10. Game day coaching
    

Great list of hurdles!
Being Stanford, there may be a few extra bonus hurdles put in front of him

Communication (public relations) with fans or does that solely fall on AL? Opening up some practices to hibernating railbirds?

[Mick]

New 10-Hurdle Time & Pressure Map...sounds like a not-so-easy job, particularly at Stanford:

# Hurdle, Stanford-Specific Shift in Emphasis, % of Total Time
1 Handling the Press Less hostile, but risk of irrelevance. Requires proactive national narrative building rather than daily crisis defense. 5%
2 Alumni & Fundraising Critical but different posture: donors expect “education + leadership,” not just wins. Heavy NIL diplomacy with academic sensitivity. 14%
3 Athletic Director & Staff Relations AD relationship is filtered through presidents, provosts, and faculty. Internal politics heavier than at most schools. 10%
4 Strength & Conditioning Must sync with brutal academic loads; more focus on durability, sleep, recovery than sheer mass. 7%
5 Recruiting The hardest Stanford hurdle: admissions gating, high-academic pipeline building, slow portal access, life-after-football selling. 18%
6 Hiring Coordinators & Assistants High cost of living + mission fit = smaller talent pool. Retention and spousal employment matter heavily. 8%
7 Mental Preparation Dual pressure of elite academics + D-1 football makes sports psych, burnout prevention, and resilience core. 7%
8 Game Day Coaching Fewer “must-win at all costs” weeks than SEC, but outsized national visibility when games do matter. 9%
9 Spring Training Extremely important due to limited portal “patchability” and heavy redshirt/development model. 9%
10 Xs & Os / Playbook / Play Calling Must favor intelligence, versatility, and mistake-minimization over raw athletic advantage. 13%
✅ Total = 100%

What Gets HARDER at Stanford (Relative to Normal Power-5). These hurdles grow in difficulty weight, even if raw time doesn’t explode:

1. Recruiting (Hurdle #5) → hardest in the country structurally
   
2. Alumni & Fundraising (Hurdle #2) → NIL + donor skepticism
   
3. AD, President & Faculty Politics (Hurdle #3) → hidden risk zone
   
4. Mental Preparation (Hurdle #7) → academic + football burnout combo
   
5. Hiring & Retention (Hurdle #6) → Bay Area cost-of-living tax
   

What Gets EASIER

1. Handling the Press (Hurdle #1) → less daily hostility than SEC/Big Ten
   
2. Game Day Coaching Pressure (Hurdle #8) → fewer “career-ending Saturdays”
   

[Mick]

New 10-Hurdle Time & Pressure Map...sounds like a not-so-easy job, particularly at Stanford:

# Hurdle, Stanford-Specific Shift in Emphasis, % of Total Time
1 Handling the Press Less hostile, but risk of irrelevance. Requires proactive national narrative building rather than daily crisis defense. 5%
2 Alumni & Fundraising Critical but different posture: donors expect “education + leadership,” not just wins. Heavy NIL diplomacy with academic sensitivity. 14%
3 Athletic Director & Staff Relations AD relationship is filtered through presidents, provosts, and faculty. Internal politics heavier than at most schools. 10%
4 Strength & Conditioning Must sync with brutal academic loads; more focus on durability, sleep, recovery than sheer mass. 7%
5 Recruiting The hardest Stanford hurdle: admissions gating, high-academic pipeline building, slow portal access, life-after-football selling. 18%
6 Hiring Coordinators & Assistants High cost of living + mission fit = smaller talent pool. Retention and spousal employment matter heavily. 8%
7 Mental Preparation Dual pressure of elite academics + D-1 football makes sports psych, burnout prevention, and resilience core. 7%
8 Game Day Coaching Fewer “must-win at all costs” weeks than SEC, but outsized national visibility when games do matter. 9%
9 Spring Training Extremely important due to limited portal “patchability” and heavy redshirt/development model. 9%
10 Xs & Os / Playbook / Play Calling Must favor intelligence, versatility, and mistake-minimization over raw athletic advantage. 13%
✅ Total = 100%

What Gets HARDER at Stanford (Relative to Normal Power-5). These hurdles grow in difficulty weight, even if raw time doesn’t explode:

1. Recruiting (Hurdle #5) → hardest in the country structurally
   
2. Alumni & Fundraising (Hurdle #2) → NIL + donor skepticism
   
3. AD, President & Faculty Politics (Hurdle #3) → hidden risk zone
   
4. Mental Preparation (Hurdle #7) → academic + football burnout combo
   
5. Hiring & Retention (Hurdle #6) → Bay Area cost-of-living tax
   

What Gets EASIER

1. Handling the Press (Hurdle #1) → less daily hostility than SEC/Big Ten
   
2. Game Day Coaching Pressure (Hurdle #8) → fewer “career-ending Saturdays”
   

[StanUSwagU]

New 10-Hurdle Time & Pressure Map...sounds like a not-so-easy job, particularly at Stanford:

# Hurdle, Stanford-Specific Shift in Emphasis, % of Total Time
1 Handling the Press Less hostile, but risk of irrelevance. Requires proactive national narrative building rather than daily crisis defense. 5%
2 Alumni & Fundraising Critical but different posture: donors expect “education + leadership,” not just wins. Heavy NIL diplomacy with academic sensitivity. 14%
3 Athletic Director & Staff Relations AD relationship is filtered through presidents, provosts, and faculty. Internal politics heavier than at most schools. 10%
4 Strength & Conditioning Must sync with brutal academic loads; more focus on durability, sleep, recovery than sheer mass. 7%
5 Recruiting The hardest Stanford hurdle: admissions gating, high-academic pipeline building, slow portal access, life-after-football selling. 18%
6 Hiring Coordinators & Assistants High cost of living + mission fit = smaller talent pool. Retention and spousal employment matter heavily. 8%
7 Mental Preparation Dual pressure of elite academics + D-1 football makes sports psych, burnout prevention, and resilience core. 7%
8 Game Day Coaching Fewer “must-win at all costs” weeks than SEC, but outsized national visibility when games do matter. 9%
9 Spring Training Extremely important due to limited portal “patchability” and heavy redshirt/development model. 9%
10 Xs & Os / Playbook / Play Calling Must favor intelligence, versatility, and mistake-minimization over raw athletic advantage. 13%
✅ Total = 100%

What Gets HARDER at Stanford (Relative to Normal Power-5). These hurdles grow in difficulty weight, even if raw time doesn’t explode:

1. Recruiting (Hurdle #5) → hardest in the country structurally
   
2. Alumni & Fundraising (Hurdle #2) → NIL + donor skepticism
   
3. AD, President & Faculty Politics (Hurdle #3) → hidden risk zone
   
4. Mental Preparation (Hurdle #7) → academic + football burnout combo
   
5. Hiring & Retention (Hurdle #6) → Bay Area cost-of-living tax
   

What Gets EASIER

1. Handling the Press (Hurdle #1) → less daily hostility than SEC/Big Ten
   
2. Game Day Coaching Pressure (Hurdle #8) → fewer “career-ending Saturdays”
   

***********

Hi Mick,

(1) Nice list of Hurdles.

(2) I think you imply/allude to the fact that some of these hurdles are 'uniquely more challenging because We Are Stanford'.

(3) In my mind if we are 'self-imposing' non-value-added hurdles (because we are Stanford), that say Duke, Vanderbilt, NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech, Northwestern dont, ....then that is unacceptable & precisely what must change !

[StanUSwagU]

New 10-Hurdle Time & Pressure Map...sounds like a not-so-easy job, particularly at Stanford:

# Hurdle, Stanford-Specific Shift in Emphasis, % of Total Time
1 Handling the Press Less hostile, but risk of irrelevance. Requires proactive national narrative building rather than daily crisis defense. 5%
2 Alumni & Fundraising Critical but different posture: donors expect “education + leadership,” not just wins. Heavy NIL diplomacy with academic sensitivity. 14%
3 Athletic Director & Staff Relations AD relationship is filtered through presidents, provosts, and faculty. Internal politics heavier than at most schools. 10%
4 Strength & Conditioning Must sync with brutal academic loads; more focus on durability, sleep, recovery than sheer mass. 7%
5 Recruiting The hardest Stanford hurdle: admissions gating, high-academic pipeline building, slow portal access, life-after-football selling. 18%
6 Hiring Coordinators & Assistants High cost of living + mission fit = smaller talent pool. Retention and spousal employment matter heavily. 8%
7 Mental Preparation Dual pressure of elite academics + D-1 football makes sports psych, burnout prevention, and resilience core. 7%
8 Game Day Coaching Fewer “must-win at all costs” weeks than SEC, but outsized national visibility when games do matter. 9%
9 Spring Training Extremely important due to limited portal “patchability” and heavy redshirt/development model. 9%
10 Xs & Os / Playbook / Play Calling Must favor intelligence, versatility, and mistake-minimization over raw athletic advantage. 13%
✅ Total = 100%

What Gets HARDER at Stanford (Relative to Normal Power-5). These hurdles grow in difficulty weight, even if raw time doesn’t explode:

1. Recruiting (Hurdle #5) → hardest in the country structurally
   
2. Alumni & Fundraising (Hurdle #2) → NIL + donor skepticism
   
3. AD, President & Faculty Politics (Hurdle #3) → hidden risk zone
   
4. Mental Preparation (Hurdle #7) → academic + football burnout combo
   
5. Hiring & Retention (Hurdle #6) → Bay Area cost-of-living tax
   

What Gets EASIER

1. Handling the Press (Hurdle #1) → less daily hostility than SEC/Big Ten
   
2. Game Day Coaching Pressure (Hurdle #8) → fewer “career-ending Saturdays”
   

***********

Hi Mick,

(1) Nice list of Hurdles.

(2) I think you imply/allude to the fact that some of these hurdles are 'uniquely more challenging because We Are Stanford'.

(3) In my mind if we are 'self-imposing' non-value-added hurdles (because we are Stanford), that say Duke, Vanderbilt, NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech, Northwestern dont, ....then that is unacceptable & precisely what must change !

[norcard10]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

[norcard10]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, how dare we let the attached university get in the way of the football team, which is the real reason we have a university.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, how dare we let the attached university get in the way of the football team, which is the real reason we have a university.

BC

[Mick]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

[Mick]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

[Goose]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

The non-degree candidates are sometimes completing a "certificate" program. They get a piece of paper saying they are qualified in some particular subset of a larger body of knowledge. All the non-degree candidates do get "real" college credits that can be transferred to a degree granting program, at Stanford or elsewhere.
 
Of course, Stanford COULD reduce entrance requirements for these students, or all students for that matter. The question of should they reduce these requirements is a different one. It comes back to what is the purpose of the University and does reducing the entrance requirements serve that purpose. These non-degree candidates already have easier admissions requirements than "regular" students in many ways. I don't have a problem with that if these students are actually using excess capacity at Stanford that would otherwise be wasted. However, these programs (IMO) must not be used as a way to funnel athletes into the University preferentially to non-athletes. The playing field needs to be level. The individuals admitted must also actually complete the "program of study" successfully. It can't be a sham. If it is, the excess capacity is still being wasted to the detriment of those that would use it for its intended purpose.

[Goose]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

The non-degree candidates are sometimes completing a "certificate" program. They get a piece of paper saying they are qualified in some particular subset of a larger body of knowledge. All the non-degree candidates do get "real" college credits that can be transferred to a degree granting program, at Stanford or elsewhere.
 
Of course, Stanford COULD reduce entrance requirements for these students, or all students for that matter. The question of should they reduce these requirements is a different one. It comes back to what is the purpose of the University and does reducing the entrance requirements serve that purpose. These non-degree candidates already have easier admissions requirements than "regular" students in many ways. I don't have a problem with that if these students are actually using excess capacity at Stanford that would otherwise be wasted. However, these programs (IMO) must not be used as a way to funnel athletes into the University preferentially to non-athletes. The playing field needs to be level. The individuals admitted must also actually complete the "program of study" successfully. It can't be a sham. If it is, the excess capacity is still being wasted to the detriment of those that would use it for its intended purpose.

[BostonCard]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

[BostonCard]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

[norcard10]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

The non-degree candidates are sometimes completing a "certificate" program. They get a piece of paper saying they are qualified in some particular subset of a larger body of knowledge. All the non-degree candidates do get "real" college credits that can be transferred to a degree granting program, at Stanford or elsewhere.
 
Of course, Stanford COULD reduce entrance requirements for these students, or all students for that matter. The question of should they reduce these requirements is a different one. It comes back to what is the purpose of the University and does reducing the entrance requirements serve that purpose. These non-degree candidates already have easier admissions requirements than "regular" students in many ways. I don't have a problem with that if these students are actually using excess capacity at Stanford that would otherwise be wasted. However, these programs (IMO) must not be used as a way to funnel athletes into the University preferentially to non-athletes. The playing field needs to be level. The individuals admitted must also actually complete the "program of study" successfully. It can't be a sham. If it is, the excess capacity is still being wasted to the detriment of those that would use it for its intended purpose.

there were 18 incoming transfers this past year vs minimal to none prior years. Id argue whatever historic admissions hurdle has already been lowered in this new era

[norcard10]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

The non-degree candidates are sometimes completing a "certificate" program. They get a piece of paper saying they are qualified in some particular subset of a larger body of knowledge. All the non-degree candidates do get "real" college credits that can be transferred to a degree granting program, at Stanford or elsewhere.
 
Of course, Stanford COULD reduce entrance requirements for these students, or all students for that matter. The question of should they reduce these requirements is a different one. It comes back to what is the purpose of the University and does reducing the entrance requirements serve that purpose. These non-degree candidates already have easier admissions requirements than "regular" students in many ways. I don't have a problem with that if these students are actually using excess capacity at Stanford that would otherwise be wasted. However, these programs (IMO) must not be used as a way to funnel athletes into the University preferentially to non-athletes. The playing field needs to be level. The individuals admitted must also actually complete the "program of study" successfully. It can't be a sham. If it is, the excess capacity is still being wasted to the detriment of those that would use it for its intended purpose.

there were 18 incoming transfers this past year vs minimal to none prior years. Id argue whatever historic admissions hurdle has already been lowered in this new era

[PalmTree]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

The post-bacs aren't auditing - they're paying for and getting academic credits, but aren't in degree-seeking programs. The idea is to help them round out their academic records if they do want to pursue a degree program (even if not at Stanford), professional certification, etc.  Candidates/applicants currently need to meet admission requirements, and in the Faculty Senate discussion, it was pretty clear faculty expect the requirements to be equitable across the board, i.e. on a level playing field and not favoring student-athletes, for example. The Schools of Medicine and Engineering have pretty strong, income-generating post-bac programs already, so they have a vested interest in maintaining high admissions standards across the board institutionally.

---

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

Beat me to it, & +1, BC

[PalmTree]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

The post-bacs aren't auditing - they're paying for and getting academic credits, but aren't in degree-seeking programs. The idea is to help them round out their academic records if they do want to pursue a degree program (even if not at Stanford), professional certification, etc.  Candidates/applicants currently need to meet admission requirements, and in the Faculty Senate discussion, it was pretty clear faculty expect the requirements to be equitable across the board, i.e. on a level playing field and not favoring student-athletes, for example. The Schools of Medicine and Engineering have pretty strong, income-generating post-bac programs already, so they have a vested interest in maintaining high admissions standards across the board institutionally.

---

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

Beat me to it, & +1, BC

[Jamesy]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

The post-bac program seems like it'll be good for lower barriers to admission for grad transfers, but what about non-grad transfers? We had several of them this past year (Fattig, Neely, Rizk, Zach Johnson, Greer, etc) so it seems like admissions is more lenient for undergrad transfers as well (which I am okay with personally).

[Jamesy]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

The post-bac program seems like it'll be good for lower barriers to admission for grad transfers, but what about non-grad transfers? We had several of them this past year (Fattig, Neely, Rizk, Zach Johnson, Greer, etc) so it seems like admissions is more lenient for undergrad transfers as well (which I am okay with personally).

[PalmTree]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

The post-bac program seems like it'll be good for lower barriers to admission for grad transfers, but what about non-grad transfers? We had several of them this past year (Fattig, Neely, Rizk, Zach Johnson, Greer, etc) so it seems like admissions is more lenient for undergrad transfers as well (which I am okay with personally).

Though there was a higher # of undergrad FB transfers, do we know it was due to reduced admission standards, or to e.g. the university's growing admissions numbers as part of trying to increase undergrad enrollment? To me, the latter doesn't necessarily imply lowered standards for transfers as lots of seemingly highly qualified kids weren't always admitted in the past.

[PalmTree]

there’s been plenty of transfers including non degree candidates lately. I dont see why stanford shouldnt be operating at vandy’s level or better for admissions.

Then if they are non-degreed candidates, are they basically auditing courses? And if they are non-degree/audit candidates here for a year, couldn't Stanford greatly reduce entrance requirements for transfers?

Yes, Stanford has developed post-baccalaureate programs that are not degree-granting.  Traditionally, post-bac programs have been used to fulfill the requirements for a professional degree if they weren’t obtained as an undergraduate.  For example, say you were an English major and decided after graduation that you wanted to go to medical school.  You could enroll in a post-bac program to fulfill your pre-med requirements.

For many athletes, however, it is a way for them to enroll after they’ve already graduated from another university without having to apply and get into a master’s program.  For me it is not a problem if it is a means to their broader academic ambitions.  If it is just a way to matriculate them so they can play sportsball, what is the point?  Better dispense with the fiction and not have them enroll in school at all.

BC

The post-bac program seems like it'll be good for lower barriers to admission for grad transfers, but what about non-grad transfers? We had several of them this past year (Fattig, Neely, Rizk, Zach Johnson, Greer, etc) so it seems like admissions is more lenient for undergrad transfers as well (which I am okay with personally).

Though there was a higher # of undergrad FB transfers, do we know it was due to reduced admission standards, or to e.g. the university's growing admissions numbers as part of trying to increase undergrad enrollment? To me, the latter doesn't necessarily imply lowered standards for transfers as lots of seemingly highly qualified kids weren't always admitted in the past.

[old spanish trail]

The Commanders scored 0 points today. I guess they miss Pritchard :)

[old spanish trail]

The Commanders scored 0 points today. I guess they miss Pritchard :)