[OutsiderFan]

So I have this friend who is a U.S.C. graduate alum.  He can't get over the fact his team is under Stanford control, so he claims the fact he's worked with former Stanford football players he finds intellectually unimpressive is proof Stanford's high admissions standards are a myth.  I'd love to be able to show evidence to shut his pie hole, but I have nothing really compelling to show.  I told him only Stanford among BCS schools requires athletes to have taken AP classes to gain admission, but he says that is B.S.

I can provide a link to the Stanford undergrad admissions page, but that does nothing to indicate what the minimum entrance requirements are for Stanford athletes.  So I am unable to show him evidence that demonstrates he is FOS.  I know there is no absolute minimum, and the application is taken as a whole, but surely there is some evidence that I can use to show this guy Stanford admissions is much tougher for athletes than any other school, an assertion he denies because there is no evidence to prove it.

Can someone here point me to some official source to demonstrate beyond any doubt that Stanford's entrance requirements for athletes are more strict than any other FBS school?

[OutsiderFan]

So I have this friend who is a U.S.C. graduate alum.  He can't get over the fact his team is under Stanford control, so he claims the fact he's worked with former Stanford football players he finds intellectually unimpressive is proof Stanford's high admissions standards are a myth.  I'd love to be able to show evidence to shut his pie hole, but I have nothing really compelling to show.  I told him only Stanford among BCS schools requires athletes to have taken AP classes to gain admission, but he says that is B.S.

I can provide a link to the Stanford undergrad admissions page, but that does nothing to indicate what the minimum entrance requirements are for Stanford athletes.  So I am unable to show him evidence that demonstrates he is FOS.  I know there is no absolute minimum, and the application is taken as a whole, but surely there is some evidence that I can use to show this guy Stanford admissions is much tougher for athletes than any other school, an assertion he denies because there is no evidence to prove it.

Can someone here point me to some official source to demonstrate beyond any doubt that Stanford's entrance requirements for athletes are more strict than any other FBS school?

[97fan]

You're not going to find any explicit admissions criteria. Stanford admissions emphasizes the totality of the application, and it doesn't set any official cut-offs for test scores or high school GPAs. That said, there are informal cut-offs for athletes, which are well known to Stanford coaches as well as recruiting mavens. Personally I don't know what those are.

The best you're likely to do in terms of proving that Stanford sets the bar higher than other D-1 football schools is by compiling a list of kids who got rejected by Stanford but admitted everywhere else, or virtually everywhere else. I'm sure this list could be compiled based on recruiting articles. The opposite list -- players who got admitted to Stanford but rejected by another school -- could also be compiled, but it would be a very short list. Can anyone here recall any recruits who got into Stanford but got rejected from Northwestern or Vanderbilt of ND?

[97fan]

You're not going to find any explicit admissions criteria. Stanford admissions emphasizes the totality of the application, and it doesn't set any official cut-offs for test scores or high school GPAs. That said, there are informal cut-offs for athletes, which are well known to Stanford coaches as well as recruiting mavens. Personally I don't know what those are.

The best you're likely to do in terms of proving that Stanford sets the bar higher than other D-1 football schools is by compiling a list of kids who got rejected by Stanford but admitted everywhere else, or virtually everywhere else. I'm sure this list could be compiled based on recruiting articles. The opposite list -- players who got admitted to Stanford but rejected by another school -- could also be compiled, but it would be a very short list. Can anyone here recall any recruits who got into Stanford but got rejected from Northwestern or Vanderbilt of ND?

[terry]

There are no published statistics that allow you to demonstrate Stanford's high admissions requirements. The NCAA used to publish average SAT scores for football players, but they stopped doing that years ago.

This article mentions that Stanford wants to see at least two AP classes for football applicants -- http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...recruiting

[terry]

There are no published statistics that allow you to demonstrate Stanford's high admissions requirements. The NCAA used to publish average SAT scores for football players, but they stopped doing that years ago.

This article mentions that Stanford wants to see at least two AP classes for football applicants -- http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...recruiting

[82 Card]

OutsiderFan may need to upgrade the quality of their friends. I've worked with several non-athlete U.S.C. graduates that I found intelectually unimpressive.  ;)

The fact that a U.S.C. alum finds a Stanford athlete intellectually unimpressive just shows that the standards are so high the U.S.C. alum can't keep up. The person probably says the same thing about other Stanford graduates when they are not around.

[82 Card]

OutsiderFan may need to upgrade the quality of their friends. I've worked with several non-athlete U.S.C. graduates that I found intelectually unimpressive.  ;)

The fact that a U.S.C. alum finds a Stanford athlete intellectually unimpressive just shows that the standards are so high the U.S.C. alum can't keep up. The person probably says the same thing about other Stanford graduates when they are not around.

[terry]

This article discusses the Stanford football admissions process. No quantitative comparisons, but a good description of the process --

http://www.buckcardinal.com/blog/feature...the-making

[terry]

This article discusses the Stanford football admissions process. No quantitative comparisons, but a good description of the process --

http://www.buckcardinal.com/blog/feature...the-making

[CompSci87]

All individual admissions decisions are confidential, and the admissions process isn't a mathematical formula that you plug grades, test scores, etc. into and then admit the top N to fill the class. So when you're faced with someone who insists on believing Stanford doesn't really have high admission standards for athletes and calls everything you say "BS", you really can't convince them differently. As they say, "My mind is made up -- don't confuse me with the facts."

[CompSci87]

All individual admissions decisions are confidential, and the admissions process isn't a mathematical formula that you plug grades, test scores, etc. into and then admit the top N to fill the class. So when you're faced with someone who insists on believing Stanford doesn't really have high admission standards for athletes and calls everything you say "BS", you really can't convince them differently. As they say, "My mind is made up -- don't confuse me with the facts."

[Redrum]

The logic would go something like this:  "OK,  so assume we accept your (stupid USC-biased) premise that Stanford football players are not so academically special and that Stanford's curriculum is really just the same standard difficulty as other schools throughout the conference. 

Why is it that in 2012 STANFORD football players hold the highest graduation success rate in the Pac-12  [90%] and is among the top 10 schools of NCAA Div. 1    vs.  USC placing 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] for its football players? 

Now, think several moves ahead, like a good chess player.

When he says:  Those figures aren't relevant because so many of USC's players leave early for the NFL... You say:  No, these figures are the NCAA Graduation Success Rate, which already accounts  for NFL departures without penalty providing the players leaving were in good academic standing when they left.  i.e. U.SC already got the most generous Grad Rate calculation the NCAA rules allowed.

When he says:  Those figures were just one year that was cherrypicked to make USC look bad...  You say:  No, those were for 2012 the most recent figures available, let's go back and see how USC did over time:
---2012 the GSR scores were  Stanford  1st in Pac-12 [90%] ,USC 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] 
---2011 the GSR scores were  Stanford: 1st in Pac-12 [87%] ,  USC  7th in Pac-12 [61%] 
---2010   the first year of cumulative GSR reporting,  Stanford  1st in the Pac-10  [86%] , USC [ranking not calculated] graduated  61%   

To summarize.  Over the lifetime of the new, more generous GSR methodology,  Stanford, already on top, steadily got better.  USC, always in the bottom half of the conference, steadily got worse.

When he says: Well, of course those are just figures for the Pac-10/ Pac-12 and Stanford just skews the perceptions. When you look at the national scores,  USC doesn't look as bad... You say:  No  Nationally, the average Graduation Success Rate for football players in Div. 1  varied between 67- 69%.
--- Stanford was consistently in the top 10 nationally
--- USC was always below the national average and getting worse.

This summary alone won't put an end to his rant,  but it does set the stage to ask the question:  if Stanford and Stanford student football players are nothing special,  how does he explain such a great disparity in graduation performance?  Same standards,  h.uge performance difference.    Could it be that Stanford actually does get higher performing academically oriented student athletes?  Or, does he believe that an analysis based on ten thousand national football players is somehow less valid than his anecdotal, small sample of Stanford athletes?

[Redrum]

The logic would go something like this:  "OK,  so assume we accept your (stupid USC-biased) premise that Stanford football players are not so academically special and that Stanford's curriculum is really just the same standard difficulty as other schools throughout the conference. 

Why is it that in 2012 STANFORD football players hold the highest graduation success rate in the Pac-12  [90%] and is among the top 10 schools of NCAA Div. 1    vs.  USC placing 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] for its football players? 

Now, think several moves ahead, like a good chess player.

When he says:  Those figures aren't relevant because so many of USC's players leave early for the NFL... You say:  No, these figures are the NCAA Graduation Success Rate, which already accounts  for NFL departures without penalty providing the players leaving were in good academic standing when they left.  i.e. U.SC already got the most generous Grad Rate calculation the NCAA rules allowed.

When he says:  Those figures were just one year that was cherrypicked to make USC look bad...  You say:  No, those were for 2012 the most recent figures available, let's go back and see how USC did over time:
---2012 the GSR scores were  Stanford  1st in Pac-12 [90%] ,USC 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] 
---2011 the GSR scores were  Stanford: 1st in Pac-12 [87%] ,  USC  7th in Pac-12 [61%] 
---2010   the first year of cumulative GSR reporting,  Stanford  1st in the Pac-10  [86%] , USC [ranking not calculated] graduated  61%   

To summarize.  Over the lifetime of the new, more generous GSR methodology,  Stanford, already on top, steadily got better.  USC, always in the bottom half of the conference, steadily got worse.

When he says: Well, of course those are just figures for the Pac-10/ Pac-12 and Stanford just skews the perceptions. When you look at the national scores,  USC doesn't look as bad... You say:  No  Nationally, the average Graduation Success Rate for football players in Div. 1  varied between 67- 69%.
--- Stanford was consistently in the top 10 nationally
--- USC was always below the national average and getting worse.

This summary alone won't put an end to his rant,  but it does set the stage to ask the question:  if Stanford and Stanford student football players are nothing special,  how does he explain such a great disparity in graduation performance?  Same standards,  h.uge performance difference.    Could it be that Stanford actually does get higher performing academically oriented student athletes?  Or, does he believe that an analysis based on ten thousand national football players is somehow less valid than his anecdotal, small sample of Stanford athletes?

[dabigv13]

I'll try to play the devil's advocate here, to a point. If he cared to, he could make the argument that the average USC freshman's GPA and SATs likely compare favorably to the average Stanford football admit's. Average GPA 3.70. The 25% SAT scores are 620, 650, 640 (reading, math, writing, respectively). Of course these numbers are all much much higher than they likely were when your friend attended USC. And the gap between the USC football players averages and their regular admits is probably much greater than Stanford's.

So maybe the Stanford football graduates he's met are not the intellectual giants he'd expect from Stanford. Then again, I don't see anybody the caliber of Cory Booker coming out of USC's football program.

[dabigv13]

I'll try to play the devil's advocate here, to a point. If he cared to, he could make the argument that the average USC freshman's GPA and SATs likely compare favorably to the average Stanford football admit's. Average GPA 3.70. The 25% SAT scores are 620, 650, 640 (reading, math, writing, respectively). Of course these numbers are all much much higher than they likely were when your friend attended USC. And the gap between the USC football players averages and their regular admits is probably much greater than Stanford's.

So maybe the Stanford football graduates he's met are not the intellectual giants he'd expect from Stanford. Then again, I don't see anybody the caliber of Cory Booker coming out of USC's football program.

[CompSci87]

The Stanford hater will just pull out the standard line Kal fans use, claiming with no evidence that Stanford makes sure its athletes graduate, by making things easy for them. They'll probably pull out the old "list of courses of interest to athletes" that the press painted as a list of easy courses. By this logic, Stanford having a high graduation rate for athletes is a negative instead of a positive.

Sigh.

[CompSci87]

The Stanford hater will just pull out the standard line Kal fans use, claiming with no evidence that Stanford makes sure its athletes graduate, by making things easy for them. They'll probably pull out the old "list of courses of interest to athletes" that the press painted as a list of easy courses. By this logic, Stanford having a high graduation rate for athletes is a negative instead of a positive.

Sigh.

[fullmetal]

You could look at the undergraduate majors selected by football players from both teams over a 5-year period.  Guarantee you'll find a more impressive spread from the Stanford team than the spoiled children.

[fullmetal]

You could look at the undergraduate majors selected by football players from both teams over a 5-year period.  Guarantee you'll find a more impressive spread from the Stanford team than the spoiled children.

[Bruce Wang]

One potential point of comparison is the Wonderlic scores of NFLers who went to $C compared to Stanford.

Another comparison to make is their most famous football player alumnus (OJ Simpson) and ours (take your pick of John Elway, Jim Plunkett, or Andrew Luck).

There is one Stanford football player (I wish I could remember who) said Stanford was the only school that recruited him that required him to not just write an essay but actually fill out an application.

[Bruce Wang]

One potential point of comparison is the Wonderlic scores of NFLers who went to $C compared to Stanford.

Another comparison to make is their most famous football player alumnus (OJ Simpson) and ours (take your pick of John Elway, Jim Plunkett, or Andrew Luck).

There is one Stanford football player (I wish I could remember who) said Stanford was the only school that recruited him that required him to not just write an essay but actually fill out an application.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Your first problem is you talk to someone who went to U$C.

Your second problem is that every time he says something to you you don't just respond with something along the lines of: "Don't you have some business you need to go finish?"

[CrazedZooChimp]

Your first problem is you talk to someone who went to U$C.

Your second problem is that every time he says something to you you don't just respond with something along the lines of: "Don't you have some business you need to go finish?"

[fullmetal]

Ask him how much more enjoyable his breakfast is now that he can have a bowl in which to hold his cereal.

[fullmetal]

Ask him how much more enjoyable his breakfast is now that he can have a bowl in which to hold his cereal.

[Gauss]

As they've said before, it's impossible to find quantitative data anymore, because the universities complained, and the NCAA stopped publishing it.
If you're willing to accept that the requirements did not change too much under Harbaugh (which is far from assured), then it'd be easy to prove Stanford's standards.

- In 1997 Stanford had the highest SAT average for football players in the nation

Stanford	1,051
Northwestern	1,037
Duke	1,012
Vanderbilt	974
Rice	969

- From the late 90's to the mid 2000's, the average SAT went even further up (I think, averaged with basketball players)

SATs

Stanford: 1176
UCLA: 990
Cal: 984
Ore: 969
Wash: 963
U.SC: 955
Ariz: 948
Ariz St: 937
Ore St: 928
Wash St: 920


GPAs

Stanford: 3.63
UCLA: 3.15
Oregon: 2.94
Cal: 2.93
Wash: 2.86
Ore St: 2.84
U.SC: 2.80
Wash St: 2.80
Ariz: 2.76
Ariz St: 2.76

[Gauss]

As they've said before, it's impossible to find quantitative data anymore, because the universities complained, and the NCAA stopped publishing it.
If you're willing to accept that the requirements did not change too much under Harbaugh (which is far from assured), then it'd be easy to prove Stanford's standards.

- In 1997 Stanford had the highest SAT average for football players in the nation

Stanford	1,051
Northwestern	1,037
Duke	1,012
Vanderbilt	974
Rice	969

- From the late 90's to the mid 2000's, the average SAT went even further up (I think, averaged with basketball players)

SATs

Stanford: 1176
UCLA: 990
Cal: 984
Ore: 969
Wash: 963
U.SC: 955
Ariz: 948
Ariz St: 937
Ore St: 928
Wash St: 920


GPAs

Stanford: 3.63
UCLA: 3.15
Oregon: 2.94
Cal: 2.93
Wash: 2.86
Ore St: 2.84
U.SC: 2.80
Wash St: 2.80
Ariz: 2.76
Ariz St: 2.76

[Oasis]

  He can't get over the fact his team is under Stanford control, so he claims the fact he's worked with former Stanford football players he finds intellectually unimpressive is proof Stanford's high admissions standards are a myth.

During the quarterback controversy, didn't somebody post something about Nunes's, Nottingham's and Hogan's HS GPAs?  Is there more where that info came from?

And what does your friend (sic) know about what smart is? He went to the Figueroa Institute.  People still get shot down there. 

I like Redrum's reference to orcs on another thread.

[Oasis]

  He can't get over the fact his team is under Stanford control, so he claims the fact he's worked with former Stanford football players he finds intellectually unimpressive is proof Stanford's high admissions standards are a myth.

During the quarterback controversy, didn't somebody post something about Nunes's, Nottingham's and Hogan's HS GPAs?  Is there more where that info came from?

And what does your friend (sic) know about what smart is? He went to the Figueroa Institute.  People still get shot down there. 

I like Redrum's reference to orcs on another thread.

[doug]

The Wall Street Journal published an article last year to the effect that Stanford is cornering the market in smarts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...50500.html

[doug]

The Wall Street Journal published an article last year to the effect that Stanford is cornering the market in smarts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...50500.html

[slide]

As they've said before, it's impossible to find quantitative data anymore, because the universities complained, and the NCAA stopped publishing it.
If you're willing to accept that the requirements did not change too much under Harbaugh (which is far from assured), then it'd be easy to prove Stanford's standards.

- In 1997 Stanford had the highest SAT average for football players in the nation

Stanford	1,051
Northwestern	1,037
Duke	1,012
Vanderbilt	974
Rice	969

- From the late 90's to the mid 2000's, the average SAT went even further up (I think, averaged with basketball players)

SATs

Stanford: 1176
UCLA: 990
Low APR U: 984
Ore: 969
Wash: 963
U.SC: 955
Ariz: 948
Ariz St: 937
Ore St: 928
Wash St: 920

football I believe peaked at a 1274 average in 2002 during the height of Mamlet's reign of terror

[slide]

As they've said before, it's impossible to find quantitative data anymore, because the universities complained, and the NCAA stopped publishing it.
If you're willing to accept that the requirements did not change too much under Harbaugh (which is far from assured), then it'd be easy to prove Stanford's standards.

- In 1997 Stanford had the highest SAT average for football players in the nation

Stanford	1,051
Northwestern	1,037
Duke	1,012
Vanderbilt	974
Rice	969

- From the late 90's to the mid 2000's, the average SAT went even further up (I think, averaged with basketball players)

SATs

Stanford: 1176
UCLA: 990
Low APR U: 984
Ore: 969
Wash: 963
U.SC: 955
Ariz: 948
Ariz St: 937
Ore St: 928
Wash St: 920

football I believe peaked at a 1274 average in 2002 during the height of Mamlet's reign of terror

[Bruce Wang]

Wow getting in a debate about relative intellectual merits of $C footballers v Stanford against a CARDboarder with the backing of the entire board really is bringing a knife to a gun fight.  Ammo was definitely the right choice of words. :D

[Bruce Wang]

Wow getting in a debate about relative intellectual merits of $C footballers v Stanford against a CARDboarder with the backing of the entire board really is bringing a knife to a gun fight.  Ammo was definitely the right choice of words. :D

[Spiny_Norman]

So I have this friend who is a U.S.C. graduate alum.  He can't get over the fact his team is under Stanford control, so he claims the fact he's worked with former Stanford football players he finds intellectually unimpressive is proof Stanford's high admissions standards are a myth.

OutsiderFan, your friend with the graduate U.S.C. degree should have the academic training to recognize that a few anecdotal data points are not a sound basis for drawing broad conclusions.

However if all of the data provided here is not sufficient to counter his "proof that Stanford's high admission standards are a myth," I would just shrug my shoulders and say "scoreboard."

[Spiny_Norman]

So I have this friend who is a U.S.C. graduate alum.  He can't get over the fact his team is under Stanford control, so he claims the fact he's worked with former Stanford football players he finds intellectually unimpressive is proof Stanford's high admissions standards are a myth.

OutsiderFan, your friend with the graduate U.S.C. degree should have the academic training to recognize that a few anecdotal data points are not a sound basis for drawing broad conclusions.

However if all of the data provided here is not sufficient to counter his "proof that Stanford's high admission standards are a myth," I would just shrug my shoulders and say "scoreboard."

[fullmetal]

Makes you wonder what other aspects of reality in which this friend might be perceptually deficient... :p

[fullmetal]

Makes you wonder what other aspects of reality in which this friend might be perceptually deficient... :p