[TrumpCard]

U.S. News has Stanford tied for 4th with Columbia and Chicago, a slight uptick over the past couple of years.  http://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-r...t-colleges

[TrumpCard]

U.S. News has Stanford tied for 4th with Columbia and Chicago, a slight uptick over the past couple of years.  http://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-r...t-colleges

[stupac2]

I can think of few things I care less about than where Stanford ranks on these pointless lists. I agree with this article, the universities should disarm and stop the nonsense: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6106807/coll...n-problems

[stupac2]

I can think of few things I care less about than where Stanford ranks on these pointless lists. I agree with this article, the universities should disarm and stop the nonsense: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6106807/coll...n-problems

[TrumpCard]

I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--Notre Dame, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

[TrumpCard]

I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--Notre Dame, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

[Farm93]

I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

That's reading way too much into the rankings and their relative value on the recruiting trail IMHO.

[Farm93]

I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

That's reading way too much into the rankings and their relative value on the recruiting trail IMHO.

[TrumpCard]

I know the rankings are far from gospel, but kids do look at them as one measure of which schools are the best academically.  I'm not saying that kids make fine distinctions between #4 and #8 or between #20 and #23.  Those schools are clearly in the same ballpark academically.  I'm even granting that many kids will say that #30 is good enough, despite having the option to attend #4.  I'm just saying that Shaw needs to be able to find a way to convince kids that the advantage of #4 over #48 should be decisive.  Shaw doesn't need to rely on U.S. News.  There are many ways to demonstrate the advantages Stanford has over schools like Penn State.  I'm just saying that Shaw needs to be able to close with the kids who are deciding between Stanford and the group of schools that I'm calling clearly inferior academically. 

[TrumpCard]

I know the rankings are far from gospel, but kids do look at them as one measure of which schools are the best academically.  I'm not saying that kids make fine distinctions between #4 and #8 or between #20 and #23.  Those schools are clearly in the same ballpark academically.  I'm even granting that many kids will say that #30 is good enough, despite having the option to attend #4.  I'm just saying that Shaw needs to be able to find a way to convince kids that the advantage of #4 over #48 should be decisive.  Shaw doesn't need to rely on U.S. News.  There are many ways to demonstrate the advantages Stanford has over schools like Penn State.  I'm just saying that Shaw needs to be able to close with the kids who are deciding between Stanford and the group of schools that I'm calling clearly inferior academically. 

[Roberton3]

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Nearly all of the top 15 have football (I believe that Caltech is the only one that doesn't, though I might be missing one or two others).  And a number of NFL players come from the schools that "don't have football."

Yes, I know what you meant was that they don't have FBS teams.  And if you're thinking about competition for elite recruits, not having an FBS team is essentially the same thing as not having football at all.  But saying they don't have football comes across as a bit obnoxious.  It's like saying that most colleges in the US don't have academics, when what you mean is that they don't have top-tier academics.

[Roberton3]

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Nearly all of the top 15 have football (I believe that Caltech is the only one that doesn't, though I might be missing one or two others).  And a number of NFL players come from the schools that "don't have football."

Yes, I know what you meant was that they don't have FBS teams.  And if you're thinking about competition for elite recruits, not having an FBS team is essentially the same thing as not having football at all.  But saying they don't have football comes across as a bit obnoxious.  It's like saying that most colleges in the US don't have academics, when what you mean is that they don't have top-tier academics.

[burger]

Whatever the rankings say, is there a more desirable school than Stanford right now?  Is there a school that gets more positive mentions in the press and in Hollywood?  I can't even recall the number of times in the last few years that I've seen movies or tv shows that have a young, smart character heading to Stanford or a smart person who's an alum.  It must be in the dozens.  (The latest that comes to mind is HBO's terrific Silicon Valley, where the lead character is a Stanford grad).

Also, graduating high school seniors are voting with their feet.  This article (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...&abg=1#s=3) showed that seniors admitted to Stanford and <insert name of any top school here> picked Stanford over that school.  That includes Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Yale and a bunch of others.

BTW, is US News even a magazine anymore?  Why does anyone pay attention to these rankings?  A bunch of schools have been caught juicing their numbers or lying outright to up their stats.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14...1891.html  (and there are others)

[burger]

Whatever the rankings say, is there a more desirable school than Stanford right now?  Is there a school that gets more positive mentions in the press and in Hollywood?  I can't even recall the number of times in the last few years that I've seen movies or tv shows that have a young, smart character heading to Stanford or a smart person who's an alum.  It must be in the dozens.  (The latest that comes to mind is HBO's terrific Silicon Valley, where the lead character is a Stanford grad).

Also, graduating high school seniors are voting with their feet.  This article (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...&abg=1#s=3) showed that seniors admitted to Stanford and <insert name of any top school here> picked Stanford over that school.  That includes Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Yale and a bunch of others.

BTW, is US News even a magazine anymore?  Why does anyone pay attention to these rankings?  A bunch of schools have been caught juicing their numbers or lying outright to up their stats.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14...1891.html  (and there are others)

[TrumpCard]

Nearly all of the top 15 have football (I believe that Caltech is the only one that doesn't, though I might be missing one or two others).  And a number of NFL players come from the schools that "don't have football."

[/quote]

Yes, that's what I meant.  If a guy chooses to play at Harvard, he's generally not a kid that Stanford should want anyway.  E.g. Blake Barker.  Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. 

[TrumpCard]

Nearly all of the top 15 have football (I believe that Caltech is the only one that doesn't, though I might be missing one or two others).  And a number of NFL players come from the schools that "don't have football."

[/quote]

Yes, that's what I meant.  If a guy chooses to play at Harvard, he's generally not a kid that Stanford should want anyway.  E.g. Blake Barker.  Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. 

[Mick]

[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=10603.msg97655#msg97655 date=1410298702]
I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

That's reading way too much into the rankings and their relative value on the recruiting trail IMHO.
[/quote]

I wonder about that.  While I absolutely agree that the rankings are based upon statistical irrelevancies and that they aren't important to you and me, I suspect that both students and parents pay a lot of attention to those rankings.  For them, it may be the only way to "objectively" evaluate differences between the schools, apart from visual aspects of the campus and what they hear and read from students and recent alumni.  Or they listen to Richard Sherman tussling with that idiot Skip Bayless and the first thing Sherman says "Skip, you can say whatever you want to about me, you can refer to me any way you want, but address me as 'Richard Sherman, all-Pro Stanford graduate because those are accomplishments you can aspire to but will never accomplish.'"  Within the context of the interview, only the All-Pro part is really important, but Sherman doesn't add the "Stanford" part gratuitously.  It's a heck of an achievement, graduating from Stanford.  And that's why Stanford gets so many applications and has such high yield and acceptance rates. 

And in certain businesses, they follow you throughout your life.  Look at any law firm web site, virtually all of the 50 year old attorneys cite their undergrad and law schools.

[Mick]

[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=10603.msg97655#msg97655 date=1410298702]
I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

That's reading way too much into the rankings and their relative value on the recruiting trail IMHO.
[/quote]

I wonder about that.  While I absolutely agree that the rankings are based upon statistical irrelevancies and that they aren't important to you and me, I suspect that both students and parents pay a lot of attention to those rankings.  For them, it may be the only way to "objectively" evaluate differences between the schools, apart from visual aspects of the campus and what they hear and read from students and recent alumni.  Or they listen to Richard Sherman tussling with that idiot Skip Bayless and the first thing Sherman says "Skip, you can say whatever you want to about me, you can refer to me any way you want, but address me as 'Richard Sherman, all-Pro Stanford graduate because those are accomplishments you can aspire to but will never accomplish.'"  Within the context of the interview, only the All-Pro part is really important, but Sherman doesn't add the "Stanford" part gratuitously.  It's a heck of an achievement, graduating from Stanford.  And that's why Stanford gets so many applications and has such high yield and acceptance rates. 

And in certain businesses, they follow you throughout your life.  Look at any law firm web site, virtually all of the 50 year old attorneys cite their undergrad and law schools.

[Farm93]

The rankings matter because rankings matter.  My point was that at some level I doubt they influence choices as much as was implied, or that football staffs can rest easy knowing they are recruiting an academically focused recruit with other choices 20 or even 40 slots down the list.

U of Texas, for example, is not that high on that list and yet I doubt they fear losing kids to UCLA based on academic rankings simply because UCLA is a few spots higher on this US News list.

I suspect that your average Michigan football player believes their education at Michigan will be superior to the education, or lack thereof, that a UCB football player will get at UCB.  I definitely believe the football staff at Michigan will go toe to toe with UCBs academic services for athletes.  And yet Michigan is several slots down the list.  So even if one believes the rankings, I think a very credible argument could be made that the quality of academic experiences for players would create a very different set of rankings.  At a minimum, that is what those staffs would tell recruits.

I also suspect that any of the top 50 would challenge the notion that their academics are inferior to any other school in the top 50.  That assessment of the programs deeper down the list bothered me a touch.

Collectively that is what I meant by way too much.  My guess is any staff with a program in the top 50 can illustrate a sufficiently compelling academic mission to land most athletes that might have offers from programs in the top 25.

[Farm93]

The rankings matter because rankings matter.  My point was that at some level I doubt they influence choices as much as was implied, or that football staffs can rest easy knowing they are recruiting an academically focused recruit with other choices 20 or even 40 slots down the list.

U of Texas, for example, is not that high on that list and yet I doubt they fear losing kids to UCLA based on academic rankings simply because UCLA is a few spots higher on this US News list.

I suspect that your average Michigan football player believes their education at Michigan will be superior to the education, or lack thereof, that a UCB football player will get at UCB.  I definitely believe the football staff at Michigan will go toe to toe with UCBs academic services for athletes.  And yet Michigan is several slots down the list.  So even if one believes the rankings, I think a very credible argument could be made that the quality of academic experiences for players would create a very different set of rankings.  At a minimum, that is what those staffs would tell recruits.

I also suspect that any of the top 50 would challenge the notion that their academics are inferior to any other school in the top 50.  That assessment of the programs deeper down the list bothered me a touch.

Collectively that is what I meant by way too much.  My guess is any staff with a program in the top 50 can illustrate a sufficiently compelling academic mission to land most athletes that might have offers from programs in the top 25.

[yvonne]

Could someone please explain the difference to me between circular logic and begging the question?

[yvonne]

Could someone please explain the difference to me between circular logic and begging the question?

[stupac2]

Could someone please explain the difference to me between circular logic and begging the question?

Circular logic is something like:

Why is the sky blue? Because the ocean is blue. Why is the ocean blue? Because the sky is blue.

Begging the question is more like:

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

[stupac2]

Could someone please explain the difference to me between circular logic and begging the question?

Circular logic is something like:

Why is the sky blue? Because the ocean is blue. Why is the ocean blue? Because the sky is blue.

Begging the question is more like:

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

[TrumpCard]

Farm93, it sounds like you acknowledge that academics are important and that the rankings do impact kids' perception of schools' academic quality.  So we are really just talking about where kids probably end up drawing the line.  I broke it down into tiers of 15, i.e. 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, etc.  I said that Stanford has a big advantage over schools outside the top 45.  You said that any school in the top 50 can compete with any other, so the difference is that you want to add Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, and Washington.  I disagree that people think that those schools are in the same universe as Stanford in terms of academic quality, but even if we move the line back 5 spots, the principle is the same.  My point is that Stanford needs to find a way to land the next Devon Allen.

[TrumpCard]

Farm93, it sounds like you acknowledge that academics are important and that the rankings do impact kids' perception of schools' academic quality.  So we are really just talking about where kids probably end up drawing the line.  I broke it down into tiers of 15, i.e. 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, etc.  I said that Stanford has a big advantage over schools outside the top 45.  You said that any school in the top 50 can compete with any other, so the difference is that you want to add Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, and Washington.  I disagree that people think that those schools are in the same universe as Stanford in terms of academic quality, but even if we move the line back 5 spots, the principle is the same.  My point is that Stanford needs to find a way to land the next Devon Allen.

[Rally]

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

It's not???

[Rally]

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

It's not???

[Farm93]

Farm93, it sounds like you acknowledge that academics are important and that the rankings do impact kids' perception of schools' academic quality.  So we are really just talking about where kids probably end up drawing the line.  I broke it down into tiers of 15, i.e. 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, etc.  I said that Stanford has a big advantage over schools outside the top 45.  You said that any school in the top 50 can compete with any other, so the difference is that you want to add Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, and Washington.  I disagree that people think that those schools are in the same universe as Stanford in terms of academic quality, but even if we move the line back 5 spots, the principle is the same.  My point is that Stanford needs to find a way to land the next Devon Allen.

Big advantage - No, I don't agree.  Stanford has an advantage because of its approach to recruiting, but it is not that big.  Also UCB at #20 has no real advantage over Texas, several notches below.  So clearly the rankings themselves don't fit neatly into tiers for football recruits.

Still my biggest problem was with the use of inferior.
Bottom Line - I don't expect Shaw to land any recruit because of some implied academic superiority in a ranking system.  To imply that Shaw needs to close the deal against schools that "are so far inferior" to Stanford was rather elitist.  IMHO.  If an athlete selects Penn State, San Jose State or Cincinnati I might wonder a touch, but I would not immediate conclude that Shaw failed to close and/or that the kid must not care about getting the best possible education.

So, while I agree with the idea that Stanford is a great experience, I am not willing or able to subscribe to the ideas of far inferior academics or that a coach at Stanford needs to close merely because Stanford is 10, 20 or even 100 positions higher than a recruits' other options in the US News report.

[Farm93]

Farm93, it sounds like you acknowledge that academics are important and that the rankings do impact kids' perception of schools' academic quality.  So we are really just talking about where kids probably end up drawing the line.  I broke it down into tiers of 15, i.e. 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, etc.  I said that Stanford has a big advantage over schools outside the top 45.  You said that any school in the top 50 can compete with any other, so the difference is that you want to add Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, and Washington.  I disagree that people think that those schools are in the same universe as Stanford in terms of academic quality, but even if we move the line back 5 spots, the principle is the same.  My point is that Stanford needs to find a way to land the next Devon Allen.

Big advantage - No, I don't agree.  Stanford has an advantage because of its approach to recruiting, but it is not that big.  Also UCB at #20 has no real advantage over Texas, several notches below.  So clearly the rankings themselves don't fit neatly into tiers for football recruits.

Still my biggest problem was with the use of inferior.
Bottom Line - I don't expect Shaw to land any recruit because of some implied academic superiority in a ranking system.  To imply that Shaw needs to close the deal against schools that "are so far inferior" to Stanford was rather elitist.  IMHO.  If an athlete selects Penn State, San Jose State or Cincinnati I might wonder a touch, but I would not immediate conclude that Shaw failed to close and/or that the kid must not care about getting the best possible education.

So, while I agree with the idea that Stanford is a great experience, I am not willing or able to subscribe to the ideas of far inferior academics or that a coach at Stanford needs to close merely because Stanford is 10, 20 or even 100 positions higher than a recruits' other options in the US News report.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10603.msg97917#msg97917 date=1410459226]

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

It's not???
[/quote]

I know you're not serious, but whatever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10603.msg97917#msg97917 date=1410459226]

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

It's not???
[/quote]

I know you're not serious, but whatever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=10603.msg97912#msg97912 date=1410456625]Could someone please explain the difference to me between circular logic and begging the question?

Circular logic is something like:

Why is the sky blue? Because the ocean is blue. Why is the ocean blue? Because the sky is blue.

Begging the question is more like:

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)
[/quote]

That's not entirely correct.  Begging the question is a form of circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=10603.msg97912#msg97912 date=1410456625]Could someone please explain the difference to me between circular logic and begging the question?

Circular logic is something like:

Why is the sky blue? Because the ocean is blue. Why is the ocean blue? Because the sky is blue.

Begging the question is more like:

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)
[/quote]

That's not entirely correct.  Begging the question is a form of circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

BC

[stupac2]

That's not entirely correct.  Begging the question is a form of circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

And a square is a rectangle, but you can explain the difference between the two. Which part of my illustration wasn't actually correct?

[stupac2]

That's not entirely correct.  Begging the question is a form of circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

And a square is a rectangle, but you can explain the difference between the two. Which part of my illustration wasn't actually correct?

[BostonCard]

Your example of "begging the question" was an example of a false premise, but technically not begging the question.  Your question was "why does the ocean make the sky blue?".  It starts with the assumption that the ocean makes the sky blue.  But you are not trying to lead to the conclusion that the ocean makes the sky blue (whose [incorrect] answer was posited as part of the question), but rather you are asking why.

There are some good examples of begging the question here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...stion.html

BC

[BostonCard]

Your example of "begging the question" was an example of a false premise, but technically not begging the question.  Your question was "why does the ocean make the sky blue?".  It starts with the assumption that the ocean makes the sky blue.  But you are not trying to lead to the conclusion that the ocean makes the sky blue (whose [incorrect] answer was posited as part of the question), but rather you are asking why.

There are some good examples of begging the question here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...stion.html

BC

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10603.msg97923#msg97923 date=1410461904]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10603.msg97917#msg97917 date=1410459226]

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

It's not???
[/quote]

I know you're not serious, but whatever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
[/quote]

NOW I see.  It because a lasers!  Thanks.  NOW my degree has value.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10603.msg97923#msg97923 date=1410461904]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10603.msg97917#msg97917 date=1410459226]

Why does the ocean make the sky blue?

(Note: I actually knew people who in high school thought the sky was blue because of the ocean.)

It's not???
[/quote]

I know you're not serious, but whatever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
[/quote]

NOW I see.  It because a lasers!  Thanks.  NOW my degree has value.