Does this university have it right????

Infielddad,
Good post.
I have mixed feelings on this.
I don't think as an student athlete my son has alot of priveledges in the classroom. I have heard that is usually reserved for football players.

He also attends a school where sports reign supreme, and small classes means that professors know their students.

As a student athlete he has access to a student athletic training center and an academic center that is off limits to non athletes. If things became equal this may become an issue down the line eventually. If everyone is treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities.

As an out of state student, high GPA, with average SAT, I am not sure he would have passed admissions without baseball. He is and has been on the academic honor roll for the university and ACC. So overall, he is a fine student.

At some schools, athletics is big money. Winning is VERY important. It's not even a matter of the difference in thousands, but millions of dollars. We all know admissions grants certain individuals a chance to attend because their talent and skills means lots of money for the program. I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with, is when the athlete has not kept up acadmeic standards, not taken advantage of resources available and still continues to play.

I remember readig a "Letter to the Editor" years ago in SI. A graduating high school senior was denied admission from Georgetown. He was an honor roll student in HS and had all the credentials to get in. But was denied. Accepted into the freshmen class were three basketball players who could not play as freshman due to low HS grades, they were Prop 48. How do you deny someone who has earned the right to attend a college and accept those that have not but can dunk or shoot the three.In my mind the NCAA is the most hypocritical organization in America.

infielddad - This is a really interesting topic IMO. I have so many thoughts about this.

I read a book a few years ago by the former Dean of Admissions at Stanford titled, "Questions and Admissions," by Jean Fetter. She didn't reveal the "secret formula" in the book, but there was about an 80-page chapter discussing admissions of athletes to a prestigious university.

That chapter opened my eyes quite a bit. I believe it began with a description of her passing by a tennis match early in her tenure between Roscoe Tanner (Stanford) and Raul Ramirez (USC). She went on to talk about how much the elite athletes at Stanford enhanced the overall academic and social life at the university. She argued that brainiac students need elite athletes, musicians, entrepreneurs to round out their view of the world...and conversely, elite athletes capable of high academic achievement should be pushed further by the brainiac students. In other words, both groups were good for each other.

"Yes," she says, admission to Stanford requires high academic achievement, but it also requires high something-else achievement too. Sometimes the athletic part weighs heavier than the academic part...and sometimes vice-versa. But no student at Stanford should only be great at one of the two.

I agree with that.

She goes on to discuss how their applications are evaluated. Applicants are graded on a scale of 1-5 in academics and in "other." A 4.0, 1600 SAT applicant will get a 5 in academics (obviously). An Olympic swimmer (e.g. Janet Evans) or a young novel author or a young entrepreneur will get a 5 in "other." Each year, they get about 15-20 5-5's. They are admitted immediately. You can't be a 5-1 or a 1-5 and get admitted.

But what does this mean when a provost says, "it would be a disaster" if one could tell who the athlete is? Why is it wrong to know who the athlete is, given the description by the former Admissions Dean? It seems to me she was arguing that the brainiacs need a little balance from the jocks...and vice versa? Maybe the jock gets a B or C, but has tons of leadership qualities...something the brainiac who gets the A needs to learn a little about? For certain jobs, maybe I'd rather hire the B/C jock with discipline, competitiveness and real-world experiences than the brainiac with tons of theoretical knowledge?

I don't know for sure...but in my line of work (research engineering) there's a place for both. Our "geeks" can't sell their ideas to the funders of our research, but they sure can invent things. Our "leaders" who are competitive and know how to perform in front of a crowd (i.e. the board room) are a critical part of our organization. Both groups have to collaborate to get the total job done. If they cannot understand each other, it will not work.

We have jocks (or their equivalent) and we have brainiacs and it works quite well. My own boss/mentor who is a world-famous scientist, considered the leading researcher in the world for his area...of all time...decorated with a Presidental Award for research, PhD from Cornell, winner of many, many awards gets this. Why can't others?

Its an interesting discussion that is ongoing at my favorite university. Their football team is headed towards an 0-12 season with no real hope of anything. Its miserable to watch. Alums are restless, angry. I suspect coaches are frustrated. Perhaps their previous admissions dean should be consulted on the value of diversity in skills and attributes. She seemed to me to have a good perspective.

Originally posted by justbaseball:

quote:

Perhaps their previous admissions dean should be consulted on the value of diversity in skills and attributes.

Gee, ya think?

I'll bet I know of a couple baseball coaches who'd completely agree with that one!

quote:

Perhaps their previous admissions dean should be consulted on the value of diversity in skills and attributes.

agree jbb ... pehaps if-dad's original quote is by the current provost at that 0 & 12 university - - sometimes university intellectuals are so smart they can't actually understand how things work in life


.

justbaseball, I found myself nodding at everything you said.

I'll bet most of us can agree that athletes should not be given leeway in what they need to accomplish in order to obtain a degree from their school. I'm referring to certain big universities who have allowed athletes (mainly football players) to graduate with certain degrees without having to attend classes, take tests, or do even a minimal amount of work for those degrees. That extreme should not be allowed.

But I believe the best schools look for diversity in the student body, and it's those schools that are most vibrant and stimulating to attend. They are not textureless brain factories, nor are they constant tail-gate parties. They bring together a community that encompases a variety of talents and interests to the benefit of the whole.

Yes there should be spaces reserved for students who have pursued mathmatics with a passion but never played on a team. And students who have a passion for drama, but aren't good at math theory. And those who have perfected a three point shot, but can't play the violin.

Every university should have a minimum admissions standard that all must meet, but once that minimum is achieved, other deciding factors should also apply. The admissions office looks at its present student body and asks itself, what do we most need here this go round, based on graduating seniors, attrition, and our university mission? Are science majors dwindling so that we need to give preferrence to applicants interested in those departments? Do we need a cellist in the orchestra? Does our baseball team need a catcher? Do we have far more women than men on campus, or vice versa? Let's do our best to balance things so that we have a healthy organization that functions well for everyone, and attracts a lot of new applicants next year.

I might also add that I think it would be very sad, a "disaster" of sorts if schools like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and others "price" themselves out of (through extraordinarily high admissions standards) the competitive market for athletics.

I believe these universities have been a beacon of hope that great students can also be great athletes in other than the country club sports. If they were to fall by the wayside of high D1 competitiveness, I believe it would be disconcerting for college athletics in general.

They hold a very important spot in college education...they are a "gold standard" that many young students aspire too...and they should not relinquish that gold standard they posses so easily.

Just an opinion.

In defense of the "student only".

Does my son or any other athlete get special academic privilages that "Joe Student" does not get? Absolutely. He gets perferred admittance, first shot at classes to accomadate his schedule, gets to skip class for road trips, has special tutoring and study resources if needed. Now we all know that those are needed things in order for the team to compete, but to the academic student out there I would have an issue as I have to pay full boat for fewer privilages.

Now there is that arguement that athletics round out a student population. I would agree that variety makes the "whole" much better. But if I was a student I would wonder why I had to be second rate and pay the full bill in order for this "happy community" to exist. I work for a major University and watch the fooball, basketball, and other athletes walk around campus knowing that they are treated better than the regular student. I have a large student staff that while they enjoy games they tell me they despise athletes because of those special priviages.

As far as the other "intangibles" that may raise the admittence qualifications of an athlete, I think thats great. But the same "student only" that is a little below that academic standard level but is the president of the counties FAA (Future Farmer of America), has raised prize winning livestock, can tear down a tractor in a day, but wants to be work in the computer field, those attributes will most likely NOT be taken into consideration. However the All-State jock with the same edcational background will be admitted for his on-field accomplishments. This farmer would have an issue.

For as small of the population there is of college athletes, they are treated like royalty in comparison. As an athetes parent, am I going to betch about it, heelll no, I'm going to take full advantage of the situation. But I refuse to wear blinders and say it is a fair playing field. I'm talking from 25 years of working with studnts and observing college life. I have day-to-day input from academic students and a student/athlete son who say he almost feels sorry for the "regular student".

I feel foremost it's a privilage to be accepted to the Univ of X on your academics and it's wrong that someone is accepted because of their athletic accomplishments. But then again I am not standing in the line of people arguing it.

rz1 - I can honestly say...I can look you in the eye and say virtually none of that, other than implied admission preference, happens at Stanford.

They work under the same set of rules...including taking final exams AT THE SAME TIME as the regular students whether they're on the road or in the dugout or not.

Sometimes I think "fairness" and "level fields" are enforced to the point of being unfair to the athletes there.

"Happy" they are. Priveleged they are not. And yes, from reading the book I cited above, I believe the farmer would get a boost in the admissions there too.

quote:

Originally posted by eck10:
In my mind the NCAA is the most hypocritical organization in America.

The NCAA didn't deny admittance to the otherwise qualified student, Georgetown did.

Regarding the original post; I think the provost is an elitest, narrow-minded stick in the mud. Schools should embrace the individuality of the student and the athletes SHOULD stick out like a sore thumb.

quote:

I can look you in the eye and say virtually none of that, other than implied admission preference, happens at Stanford.

Justbb,
I applaud Stanford and it has to be an exception to the rule. I guess my opinion is based on direct knowledge of the University practices.

quote:

Priveleged they are not. And yes, from reading the book I cited above, I believe the farmer would get a boost in the admissions there too

Maybe it's the perpetual doubter in me but I still say on a percentage basis the athlete would have a better chance of having his "other" skills applied versus a "student" even at Stanford. IMHO

rz1 - I get your point. Having been around universities nearly all of my life (both parents taught at universities and we fund many research grants in my current job)...I have seen what you were talking about.

But I have to tell you that at times, I have felt that the academic "levelness" imposed at Stanford almost seems unfair. Should an athlete be forced to take an exam on the road 1 hour after a game just because thats when the other students in the class are taking it? How could he/she have studied as well for that exam? How can they bring themselves back to a level plane following an intense competition? How can one concentrate as well in a hotel room as opposed to a sterile classroom on campus? How can they ask a question about an exam question that is not well posed?

Their athletes deal with all of this on a regular basis. I too applaud them for trying to maintain academic purity. But it is at times, a bit tougher rather than easier.

Having said all of that...I wouldn't want my son at any other place. All of this pushes the maturity curve a bit harder and that is a good thing. Just don't assume that things are any easier. And all of this is enforced, I suppose, to ensure there are no "disasters of recognition" in a class as this Provost worries so much about.

Unfortunatly I think this is an issue where you are forced to draw a line in the sand. Do you customize acadamia to suit the athlete or do you customize it for the student. I think we both know which one would get the support.

I look at it like this. You choose to send your son to whatever school and then accept the ground rules of that school. I think you were very fortunate to have selected Stanford. The school portion is a small segment of time in your life. If Erik can master the student/athlete rules he will be much better off in the long run than if he was dealing with just the academic side IMO. When all is said and done what you get out of something is directly related to what you put in. At some schools many athletes walk away with a degree and have no idea how they got it, it means much more when there is accountability attached.

I am so happy my son is a student athlete.

But it is not easy. He has to attend classes everyday, or reported to the coach, and when he misses a class for travel prior permission must be granted. Mandatory study hall first semester, 10 hours a week when he would much rather be home studying. Coach academic reports every 4-5 weeks (you better not be on the report). You go online like every student to enroll in classes, and it's difficult because you have to fit your schedule around baseball with no special treatment. Having to meet with a study group at 7 when you get out of practice at 6, have to shower and have to eat because you haven't all day. Having to participate in mandatory community service work every year. Mandatory curfews, etc. I think my son's success in academics IS because he is a student athlete.

TD's post reminds me of a few stories. The bus breaking down and not arriving home until 5,6 am and have to be headed for class shortly afterwards. Double header delaying the trip home, some players having tests the next day and not prepared. You can't walk into class the next day with that as an excuse. Or pitching an away weekday game, two hours bus ride home than you need to settle in, study for test for the next day. I don't see special priveledges.

Baseball is a non revenue sport, like most other sports, unless you play football, most don't have it so easy.

quote:

I think my son's success in academics IS because he is a student athlete.

TPM - I agree with this. I think the parents who have freshman this year, and who will be sending their sons in the future, will be pleasantly surprised that baseball provides a chance for their sons to actually perform better than the average student. The community service part is an important element that is prevalent in most programs as well. Most kids have no reason to perform community service. Thus, leadership skills are also being taught by many of these fine coaches.

Look, the coaches have a vested interest ensuring all their guys are doing well. It is like having a parent there watching over. My son had mandatory study halls freshman year. A little discipline will not hurt these kids in any way.

You are right CD, parents will be surprised at how much their sons will accomplish.

I am so glad that my player has coaches watching over them, I didn't have a coach watching over me in college. Too bad, it might have prevented me from missing many classes.

The bad part is that baseball players are lumped in with all college athletes and there is no changing that, and there shouldn't be. The privilages that are visible and abused to the general student population are the ones that stick out and not the work that is involved. Without stereotyping I think you will find this coming from the FB and basketball programs. Those points that TPM brought up are so true, and are part of the checks-n-balances that a student athlete needs to fulfil in order to participate in a sport. I would bet that the parents of students in the general population would love to have someone look after their kids like that. That in itself is an advantage an athlete has over a regular student in an obscure way.

quote:

by jbb: I can honestly say...I can look you in the eye and say virtually none of that, other than implied admission preference, happens at Stanford

Stanford Students Cry Foul Over Athlete's Perks


hmmm?? can ya define virtually??


.

I think that article verifies justbb statement if thats all the students can complain about.

quote:

by RZ: I think that article verifies justbb statement if thats all the students can complain about.

maybe, tho at "Any U." only generic complaints can be discussed publicly without drawing NCAA investigations

btw, is the student body at "Any U." issued Oakleys, Nike apparel w/school logo, luggage, shoes, extra tutoring etc?

btwII, I'm NOT saying it's wrong to treat someone putting forth extrordinary effort on the university's behalf to get some extra perks


jmo

.

Bee,

I agree completely but if you had to choose an "abuser", Stanford may be the wrong target. On the other hand it goes to show that even the most "above board" schools deal with the issues.

right on RZ,
it's also a bit surprising that any students would think the things mentioned in that article were "unfair" enough to note attention



.

I agree, Bee. While reading the article, I kept thinking "what whiners." These athletes need to eat, and the school is obliged to feed them in a way that ensures they are healthy and productive. They seem to be looking for something to pick at, IMO.

Good find Bee!

I really don't want to get into it all here, but the article is off-base on a number of things I know about (which may not be everything). Lets just leave it at that.

BTW, the athletic department there is 100% self-funded including scholarships through revenue, endowments and sponsorships. Edowments are the biggest part of that equation.

The sports that get these perks are the revenue generating sports. I wonder why they would complain when you look at the revenue generated, and overall lift to the school image. Having great teams can boost the schools image and directly affect the enrolment and campus life.
I saw a very geeky young ball player once at a local university tryout. I got talking to his dad. He was 2 years ahead of his age group. I asked why he chose this school and he said because of the baseball program. He was cut but one more very smart student on campus.

Since I posted the original, I thought it important to share that the provost interviewed is from...Stanford. To be honest, the entire article was troublesome to me even though, in an ideal world, the standard is ideal.
Why I think it is very relevent at this point is because I attended the Stanford/USC football game last Saturday. IMO, the best Stanford player would have trouble being in the 1st/2nd team depth chart at USC. USC players were bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and better.
Now to the point: On one play, Stanford had 5 players injured. This year, Stanford has lost nearly every skill position starter either for the season or much of it.
IMO, if a university is going to field a DI program in a conference as competitive as the Pac 10, doesn't the University have an obligation to its players recruited to be as competitive as possible? If Stanford is going to insist every football player have a 4.4GPA and 1450 plus SAT's, and reject even some of those, how can they possibly compete with USC, Oregon, UCLA. While they may be able to attract a few from a very small academic population, the dichotomy with its competition in terms of speed, strength, athleticism and skill is only going to increase over time.
I think Stanford baseball will continue to do well but I think the admissions approach is affecting that and other programs as well.
Maybe football is unique, maybe not. To me, an admissions policy generated from some ideal world fails to recognize the competitive disadvantage and physical risks it creates for recruited/sholarshipped players competing in a very uneven, and perhaps unsafe, environment.

quote:

Having great teams can boost the schools image and directly affect the enrolment and campus life.

Good point BHD.

You are right, I'm sure it is be a plus for those who follow college athletics. However, believe it or not everyone that sends there kid to college reads the sports page.

I also believe that college athletics can be a negative influence on education and campus life. Much of the binge drinking, and other negative sides of college life is directly attributed to athletic events.

I am no "stick in the mud" as I have probably sat on every bar stool in Madison during my lifetime, and if you know Madison that is a Hall of Fame consideration. I have also seen the uglyness of the college student fan. In order to get to this level "social importance", Universities have unknowingly put a special label on athletics and the athletes, and in order to sit on that throne it is inevitable that special perks be thrown that direction. I think if you look very deep into the bowels of a University you will find those that criticize the Athletic departments may be the same ones that put them in that situation.

quote:

IMO, if a university is going to field a DI program in a conference as competitive as the Pac 10, doesn't the University have an obligation to its players recruited to be as competitive as possible?

I wonder if there's enough quality apples to fill everyones basket. An athlete is recruited, and that same knucklehead jock from USC would hate the Stanford experience. Bottom line I feel College is about education, and everyones educational aspiration and ability is different. The Big 10 is often call the "Big2 and the others". The desparity between athletes I feel is rather minimal at the "starters" level, but the depth is what makes all the difference.

Obviously I knew this was the Stanford provost...I've read the same article as infielddad.

quote:

I wonder if there's enough quality apples to fill everyones basket.

That point is debated often here. The probable answer in the case of football is 'no, not enough to be 10-1 ever year,' but at the same time 'yes, there are enough to go 6-5, 8-3, 5-6' as has been demonstrated in past years (see Tyrone Willingham's and Mike Montgomery's tenure). There are rumors running rampant that those two coaches got out when they saw the writing on the wall from the admissions process. The current situation has so depleted the football team that as infielddad implies, its possibly unsafe.

The QB is out for the year because a couple OLmen were knocked out earlier and before that two very key WRs. So the poor QB (considered by most a high NFL prospect out of HS...still considered an NFL prospect today, although somewhat less so) behind a depthless OL and trying to find an open receiver amongst slow-footed walkons...gets hammered and is out for the year.

That same QB picked Stanford over Cal and UCLA. One might question why such an apparently smart young man would make such a decision, but unlike rz's comment:

quote:

An athlete is recruited, and that same knucklehead jock from USC would hate the Stanford experience.

This generally does not turn out to be true. One has to decide how much they want to believe newspaper articles (I have a hard time with it), but there are recent Heisman Trophy winners who were denied admission at Stanford (hint, hint). So in fact, there are many quality athletes ("knucklehead jocks") that have desired the Stanford experience...crazy or not...it is an apparent fact.

Again, I still feel its the best deal around...anywhere. But I do worry there will be one less 'gold standard' academic university competing at the highest levels of college athletics very soon. You don't have to be a fan of this school at all to still admit that this would not be a good thing for college athletics as a whole.

I went to the University of Cincinnati (can you spell basketball factory?) for undergrad and Stanford for grad school. I personally believe that BOTH of these schools hold valuable positions in the academic and athletic worlds. I think they both need to be there for different types of students and athletes. It is good for both of these types of schools to meet on the playing field and when they meet to have the game played competitively. It is good for their student bodies and it is good for college athletics. Just an opinion.

When did a college party kid need an athletic event to get blitzed ?
Even though there are negatives the students have to learn to handle themselves on campus. You can't protect them from themselves all the time.
Things haven't changed since I was at college in the late 60s. the frats and sports events were a part of campus life.

quote:

When did a college party kid need an athletic event to get blitzed ?

I don't remember but was is one of the better excuses. You are absolutly right about learning to "handle themselves".

Disclaimer: I sometimes reply to posts as the devils advocate and/or the shy "closet webster" and those are the opinions of rz2, the demented one

Or, maybe rz1 is the one with the issues

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:
[Disclaimer: I sometimes reply to posts as the devils advocate and/or the shy "closet webster" and those are the opinions of rz2, the demented one

LOL! Yeah, me too. Sometimes I look back at what I write and shake my head. Oh well.

justbaseball,

Stanford is certainly not the only school to require their athletes to conform with the rules/standards of the general student population. The list includes more than Duke and Vanderbilt.

Stanford is however, the only school I have ever seen take cheap shots at an entire ethnicity. The Stanford band (during halftime of a Notre Dame game) actually made fun of the famine in Ireland and to compound the seriousness of their actions followed up with a satire on drunken Irish priests!

Duke,Vanderbilt, or I believe, any other institution of higher learning would never have considered such low entertainment.

On top of it they were never diciplined for this low class, callow shot at Irish Catholics.

FYI, the famine killed or displaced more than 6 million people!

I bring this up only to point out that no school is beyond reproach, particularly Stanford.

Oh soxnole, you will NEVER...EVER hear me defend that idiotic band. NEVER!

And yes they were (finally) disciplined this year. Not enough and too late, but they were. A very black eye on very fine university.

I am disgusted by that band. And I don't know any alum or student that feels any differently from me about that. I have no idea why they still exist in their present form...although they are confined to the stands now.

From all of us, my sincere apologies. Really, I mean that.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
there are recent Heisman Trophy winners who were denied admission at Stanford

Hogwash....balderdash...mularkey! Stanford propaganda at it's best!!!

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
I went to the University of Cincinnati

So deep down, there's some Buckeye in you? No wonder why you're such a good egg.

No, no, no Beezer. No Buckeye. Just some Bearcat.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
No, no, no Beezer. No Buckeye. Just some Bearcat.

I meant in the general "Ohioan" sense, not THE OSU.

I know...just havin' fun.

Not really rz because I went to the better school up the road from JBB's college, not OSU.

EDIT - rz, did your post vanish???