USNews continues to under-rank Stanford

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
101

<p>The Stanford Stadium may be somewhat bigger than Harvard Stadium, currently, but it is hardly more "functional".</p>

<p>Harvard Stadium, a National Historic Landmark, is in a high state of repair. As Harvard left the world of "bigtime" football, it was downsized from 60,000 to 35,000, but systems have been continually upgraded.</p>

<p>The Stanford Stadium, on the other hand is woefully out of date, and, embarassingly, hardly ever filled.</p>

<p>The situation is so bad that plans are afoot to tear the place down and build a smaller venue in its place, more suited to the diminished demand for seats.</p>

<p>I rather doubt the capital costs of the smaller replacement structure will come out of the "profits" of the Department of Athletics.</p>

102

<p>So that makes Harvard...a more athletically focused school?</p>

<p>And again, the prime attraction at Stanford is basketball, not football. I'm sure Duke, and Princeton, don't fill all of their football seats either. I, however, wouldn't want to be an opposing player in Cameron Indoor Stadium, for example. </p>

<p>Is that really your argument?</p>

103

<p>The "argument" is that it is disgraceful for an allegedly "elite" academic institution like Stanford to pay salaries to athletic performers, and to admit people substantially below the median academic level applicable for other applicants.</p>

<p>To be sure, the Ivies also recruit, and allow in some athletes below the level typial for other applicants, but there is a world of difference between the Ivies' self-imposed "AI" guidlines and the NCAA minimum standards with which Stanford must comply.</p>

<p>The "argument" is also that it is irrelevant whether the athletic program at Stanford may be "self-funding" - to use the euphemism. This is all a phony shell game anyway ... the athletic program doesn't make a profit, but hits up grads and sponsors to make up the deficit. This doesn't make it "self-funding" IMHO. (See "The Shape of the River".)</p>

<p>Moreover, it is wrong for the jocks and their allies in the Department of Athletics to be setting university funding priorities just because they are successful in caging a disproportionate share of alumni contributions.</p>

<p>Hell, any athletic department can out-raise the math department head-to-head with the alumni if you allow them to do so.</p>

<p>No, Stanford will always fall short of what it could be by overemphasizing athletics, letting the tail wag the dog in fundraising, and giving short shrift to need-based financial aid. </p>

<p>They took a positive step three years ago when they gave up the crutch of so-called "Presidential Scholarships" in an effortto buy top students with "merit aid" awards. The powers that be concluded that it was beneath Stanford to stoop to such a device. If you don't have to "pay" real students to attend - because your school is good enough to attract them without a bribe - then the same thing should be true with jocks.</p>

<p>And we're not only talking about the salaries paid to the jocks, either. By "bribing" 1 out of 20 matriculants with an "athletic scholarship" Stanford gives a phony boost to both its admit rate and its yield - making it appear far more selective relative to the Ivies + MIT than is actually the case. (The same thing is true at Duke.)</p>

<p>This is especially true since the main "business" of Stanford is presumably education, and the "business" of football more properly can be left to the 49-ers and the Chargers to entertain the Cali masses.</p>

104

<p>In this thread I would still like to see actual figures about how low is low in the admissions statistics of Stanford athletes. My anecdotal evidence (n=1) is that the guy from my high school who got into Stanford on an athletic scholarship was NOWHERE NEAR being Ivy League material academically. Michele Hernandez, who has seen a considerably broader array of real-world instances than most of us posting in this thread, says explicitly in her book A Is for Admission that Stanford (then) routinely admitted athletes who were unqualified academically for ANY school in the Ivy League. Maybe that's what drags down the national reputation of Stanford--which is the subject of this thread. </p>

<p>Where are the figures about the MINIMUM admission file statistics that can get a person into Stanford if that person can play a sport?</p>

105

<p>This is from a 2002 Chicago Tribune article re: Stanford’s football program:</p>

<p>"According to the most recent NCAA statistics, Stanford football players enter school with an <em>average</em> SAT score of 1,176."</p>

<p>1200 is a MINIMUM cutoff at HYP, and only 1 or two recruits are permitted at that level under AI formula.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
To be sure, the Ivies also recruit, and allow in some athletes below the level typial for other applicants, but there is a world of difference between the Ivies' self-imposed "AI" guidlines and the NCAA minimum standards with which Stanford must comply.

[/quote]

Stanford's athletes SAT score is in the top 3 among D-1 school and is significantly higher than the NCAA minimum standards. Please don't intentionally imply Stanford is the same as some D-1 schools where only 20% of athletes graduated.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The "argument" is also that it is irrelevant whether the athletic program at Stanford may be "self-funding" - to use the euphemism. This is all a phony shell game anyway ... the athletic program doesn't make a profit, but hits up grads and sponsors to make up the deficit. This doesn't make it "self-funding" IMHO. (See "The Shape of the River".)

[/quote]

First of all, what is "The Shape of the River" anyway? Just because you put out a title of a book that 99% of us haven't read doesn't make your statement right, does it? I did do a search on Amazon and found that it got mediocre rating. The definition of "self-funding" is already provided in <a href="http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/julaug/articles/searscup.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/julaug/articles/searscup.html&lt;/a>. In terms of "hitting up grads", I have yet received any mail from the athletic department since I graduated 4 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if alums who were student-athletes make most of the contributions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, it is wrong for the jocks and their allies in the Department of Athletics to be setting university funding priorities just because they are successful in caging a disproportionate share of alumni contributions.
Hell, any athletic department can out-raise the math department head-to-head with the alumni if you allow them to do so.

[/quote]

Stanford has more top ranked graduate programs than just about any school except Berkeley. Doesn't look to me the academics is starved of alumni contribution. If the acadmeics aren't adversely affected, at least not that people can tell, THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. You are stirring up something out of nothing. By the way, if the athletics department is successful in fund-raising, power to them. This is a free and market-driven society; Stanford alums are free to donate their money to whatever program they want. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No, Stanford will always fall short of what it could be by overemphasizing athletics, letting the tail wag the dog in fundraising, and giving short shrift to need-based financial aid.

[/quote]

Stanford students are mostly very proud and supportive of their athletics. Maybe it "falls short" to you but not to Stanford community and nobody there cares what you think honestly. You keep insisting Stanford need-based financial aid competes with athletic scholarship WITHOUT ANY PROOF. Show us Stanford's finanical statements and balance sheets..etc. I did show you two links that said Stanford's financial aid for low-income student were better than Harvard until its new policy was adopted and since then, they have been comparable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And we're not only talking about the salaries paid to the jocks, either. By "bribing" 1 out of 20 matriculants with an "athletic scholarship" Stanford gives a phony boost to both its admit rate and its yield - making it appear far more selective relative to the Ivies + MIT than is actually the case. (The same thing is true at Duke.)

[/quote]

I thought you said Stanford athletes were admitted with substantially lower stats. Wouldn't that drag down Stanford's overall stats? How is that "making it appear far more selective relative to the Ivies"? This is getting ridiculous.</p>

<p>You also have problem with schools giving merit-aids even some of them meet 100% of demonstrated needs. I guess you are pretty negative about many things.</p>

<p>By the way, if you truly cares about the low-income students, you should ask Harvard to not only just match YP but do much more in helping them since Harvard is a much wealthier school. Also you should ask Harvard to stop admitting children of rich donors because they not only gain admission with lower standard but also take up the spots that could have been available to low-income students. Not that Stanford doesn't have legacy thing but I am not the one getting fuzzy about "disgraceful" act. So write your letter!</p>

107

<p>tokenadult,</p>

<p>Stanford's national reputation is not dragged down. It's peer assessment score is 4.9/5.0, same as Harvard. Stanford is ranked where it is because of other factors used by US News.</p>

108

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>Stanford athletes are no more paid than students with academic scholarships elsewhere. They do not receive a check for thier services. There is a market for their skills and it is often in their best interest to forgo the additional expense of paying full freight for an education in exchange for an athletic scholarship.</p>

<p>Academic merit scholarships are similar, students that accept them forgo the additional expense of going to a school with more "prestige" in exchange for attaining a certain GPA and raising the "prestige" of their chosen university, i.e. U of Chicago. </p>

<p>I think no less of the University of Chicago as an academic institution because they provide merit aid for academics but not for athletics (Division 3). If the athletic programs help to get the alumni to give then more power to them, just apply an appropriate academic standard for their admission. Just like anyone else with a special talent, i.e. music, art, mathematics or the child of a politician, celebrity or large donor. BTW, I use the U of Chicago because I think that institution is way under-rated. See the links you provided to international rankings of schools to get a picture closer to where I think they belong.</p>

<p>I do not see why it is so noble for institutions with significant endowments to require students to pay to the point of mortgaging their own future earnings. I understand your point about financial aid and it is quite important. I would like to see Stanford to continue their athletic scholarships, provide for 100% of the financial need of their students and reinstitute their preseidential scholars program. Their endowment is large enough, otherwise it would not be growing in excess of the rate of inflation.</p>

<p>What I find interesting is that the argument about "dragging down the quality of students" is not applied more broadly. It is widely known that students at engineering schools (or engineering schools within a universtiy) have higher SAT scores than the broader student population. Let's stop admitting all those fuzzy liberal arts students that keep dragging down the quality of the students at all the schools. ;-)</p>

<p>Sam Lee,</p>

<p>Byerly isn't totally negative, as an attorney he is just zealously advocating the position of the schools he supports . . . however untenable that position may be. He is one of the few people who does not like merit aid of any kind. There is some rationale to that position because in some situations it takes away from the students with the most need. A worthy position.</p>

<p>However, I think that schools with such large endowments could have higher aspirations. For example, Stanford should more completely fund the financial need of all thier students. Harvard should recruit and provide scholarship money for their football team with the goal of becoming the best college football team in New England.</p>

109

<p>Actually, if you ask me, I think Stanford should not lower the academic bar for its recruited athletes. The same goes for Harvard and the rest of the top schools. Such a practice is shameful and embarrassing because colleges were meant to educate not entertain.</p>

<p>I think Byerly should complain a great deal about Harvard's preference for legacies, development cases, and recruited athletes just as hard as he complains about other schools. I am pretty sure Harvard has a massive legacy problem on its hands. And it's downright stupid.</p>

110

<p>Collegeperson,</p>

<p>No reason to single out athletes. Most schools will recruit certain types of students to fill their class, i.e. musicians. Many schools have said that if they only recruited the best academics they would become very boring places and the students would not want to attend.</p>

111

<p>Thursday, August 25, 2005</p>

<p>"According to CBS 5 News, the Santa Clara County Planning Office has deemed that Stanford Stadium does not have enough historical significance to prevent it from being torn down, a ruling that partially clears the way for an $85 million set of renovations scheduled to take place following the regular football season.</p>

<p>CBS reported that Stanford currently plans to change the stadium’s grass to artificial turf, update the restrooms and concession stands, renovate the Stadium’s seats, and eliminate the track and about 30,000 of its seats."</p>

112

<p>When this goal will be achieved is not yet clear.</p>

<p>From the President's annual address:</p>

<p>"Two long-term goals that Hennessy identified were the elimination of any current financial contribution requirements for families with annual income levels below $45,000 and the movement toward need-blind admission for international students. Hennessy believes these goals are “achievable with support of Stanford’s alumni and friends around the world.”</p>

<p>Excerpt from a May story in the student paper:</p>

<p>"Stanford President John Hennessy recently announced that by 2010, families earning less than $45,000 per year will not be asked to contribute any money to their child's undergraduate education ("Tuition to be waived for low-income admits," April 26).... </p>

<p>The decision reaffirms Stanford's commitment to providing a quality education to people regardless of economic backgrounds.</p>

<p>(T)his new policy will probably be most significant as a clever public relations move--in the best sense of the word. Stanford's sister institutions, such as Harvard, have had similar policies in place for several years, and Stanford might have appeared a little cold-hearted and stingy in comparison. Hennessy's announcement should show low-income students that they can get an undergraduate education without owing the University thousands of dollars in student loans. This, in turn, should encourage more low-income students--who may, understandably, have serious reservations about Stanford's hefty tuition bill--to apply and attend. And that, needless to say, is something to applaud."</p>

113

<p>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 61%<br>
California Institute of Technology 57%<br>
Case Western Reserve Univ. (OH) 57%<br>
University of Rochester (NY) 55%<br>
Harvard University (MA) 50%<br>
Princeton University (NJ) 50%<br>
University of Texas – Austin* 49%<br>
Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 48%<br>
Dartmouth College (NH) 48%
Texas A&M Univ. 48%
Brandeis University (MA) 46%<br>
University of Notre Dame (IN) 46%<br>
Cornell University (NY) 45%
University of Chicago 44%
Stanford University (CA) 44%</p>

114

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>I don't understand how admitting athletics with significantly lower stats would "make stanford seem far more selective than it is in reality." Yield has been taken out of USNews, and if anything, the recruiting of these athletes will hurt Stanford in SAT averages, class ranks, GPAs, four year graduation rates, admission rates, and a host of other academic factors.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I see no "disgrace" in letting a small percentage of the class enter through athletic achievement. At least these athletes make Stanford a fun place and entertain its academic students, where as the legacy and super rich admits at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (which surpass Stanford) do not. I actually don't see a disgrace in that either, because a school needs to keep a base of loyal and donating alumni.</p>

<p>So where is your academic mecca? Is it MIT? Or maybe Caltech? Oh wait no Caltech provides merit scholarships! It is paying and bribing students and is therefore full of shame and disgrace. Nonsense!</p>

115

<ol>
<li><p>The yield rate is the fraction of those admitted who enroll. 5% of those admitted to Stanford receive athletic scholarships, and the enducement results in a 100% yield rate (since athletic scholarship recipients are required to sign a "letter of intent" before they are granted admission.</p></li>
<li><p>The admit rate is simply a function of the anticipated yield. For example, a school projecting a freshman class of 1,000 and anticipating a yield of 50% must admit 2,000. Factors that skew the yield rate - such as the fraction admitted via Early Decision or the fraction who are athletes who have signed a "letter of intent" - thus serve to reduce the apparent admit rate.</p></li>
<li><p>There is no reason to believe that Stanford is any less generous in admitting "legacies" than any of the Ivies. They are just more secretive about it.</p></li>
</ol>

<p><a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=16799&repository=0001_article%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=16799&repository=0001_article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

116

<p>Princeton: $1,492,065
Harvard: $1,225,639
Yale: $1,133,431
Stanford: $744,618
Rice: $685,347
Caltech: $602,217
MIT: $580,479</p>

117

<p>"athletic scholarship recipients are required to sign a "letter of intent" before they are granted admission..."</p>

<p>While most of your points are not unreasonable, this quote is misleading. No athlete at Stanford is offered a scholarship, or can sign a letter of intent, without first being admitted through the regular admissions office (which involves completing the full application, etc). Having said that, the admissions office specifically reaches decisions about many athletes earlier than most other students to account for "letter of intent" timing requirements.</p>

<p>Clearly, the "scores" and "grades" of many Stanford athletes are lower than the student body average (as is true for any university in the country). On the other hand, I've seen Stanford reject <em>many</em> world-class athletes with 1300+ SAT scores (even before the scores were re-normalized several years ago).</p>

118

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>Your data just showed Stanford has significantly less endowment available on per capita basis (I think that's what FTE mean?). So why do you keep pounding Stanford on its financial aids???</p>

<p>
[quote]
At other top-tier universities like Harvard, Princeton and University of Pennsylvania, legacy students on average make up about 13 percent of the student body.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>13% is a lot bigger than 5% (actually it's more like 4%). I wonder why you've been so vocal against Stanford's admission for athletes while dead silent about legacy. Is that some kind of double-standard? As for me, neither makes the institution "disgraceful". </p>

<p>You apparently don't get what paulhomework says. You can say Stanford's yield rate is inflated but not its selectivity. Selectivity is not only a function of admit rate (which is tied to the yield and I can give you that) but also class rank, average test scores, GPA..etc. According to you, the athletes have lower credentials and therefore they drag down Stanford's stats except admit rate. So you were wrong when you said it "makes Stanford seem far more selective"</p>

119

<p>Sam Lee,</p>

<p>Byerly's point is that the funding for financial need should take priority over the athletic scholarships. Right now Stanford, and many other schools, gap the financial aid and do not provide for 100% of a student's financial need. Further, there are schools that are lower on the endowment per FTE that provide for both the 100% financial need of their students and provide athletic scholarships, i.e. ND & Duke.</p>

<p>Duke has some academic merit aid and ND has scholarships for band . . . and their leprecaun(usually a senior and only for one year). I guess my point is that many things can be accomodated by schools like Stanford, Harvard and others. If those lower on the endowment food chain can provide these things then Stanford and Harvard certainly can. I think they should have higher aspirations and try to live up to them. Not always an easy task with critics like us on the sidelines.</p>

<p>It should be noted that one of the criticisms of merit aid is that it helps schools "buy" thier way up the USNews rankings. I am not sure this is a bad thing.</p>

<p>Byerly, thanks for posting specific information. It helps to illustrate the points a bit more.</p>

120

<p>I also found that Byerly's position is rather awkward. According to him, Stanford's academic compromise in admission standard for athletes is "disgraceful". But the Ivies, despite its whatever AI index policy, also have their own version of academic compromise. Sure it's more stringent than Stanford's, but it's still a compromise. So both are doing the same thing, just a matter of how much. Most people see Stanford as admirable because it found the right balance of having a powerful athletics program and high% of student-athletes that do graduate. It's funny Byerly found it disgraceful when most people think the complete opposite. If one really wants to be completely "clean" about it (I don't call it dirty but Byerly does), we should all just get rid of athletics program completely! LOL! </p>

<p>Also, in comparing athletes test scores, I'd like to point out Stanford's athletes are a lot more accomplished in athletic achievement than Ivies'. While Ivies are happy to have someone fastest at his/her local swim club; one needs to be close to making the nationals for Stanford's consideration. This is similar to a math/musical award at a regional level vs the one at state/national level. To expect Stanford athletes' scores to be the same as Ivies' is ridiculous. </p>

<p>This also makes me think of another point. What's the alternative? If any of the Ivies being thrown to Pac-10, it's gonna to be kicked out very soon by other Pac-10 members. Years ago, Northwestern was in danger of being kicked out by Big10. While Harvard has other Ivies, Stanford is all alone by itself in the west coast if it does what Byerly wants. Clearly, it's not gonna happen. Perhaps no one except Byerly wants it to happen.</p>