Skip to main content

Stanford athletes had access to list of ‘easy’ courses

The Stanford Daily Wednesday, March 9th, 2011 | By Amy Julia Harris and Ryan Mac

A drama class in “Beginning Improvising” and another in “Social Dances of North America III” were among dozens of classes on a closely guarded quarterly list distributed only to Stanford athletes to help them choose classes.

Stanford officials said the list was designed to accommodate athletes’ demanding schedules and disputed that the list was made up of easy courses. Officials discontinued the list last week after student reporters working for California Watch began asking about it.

The list, which has existed at least since 2001, was widely regarded by athletes as an easy class list. More than a quarter of the courses on the list did not fulfill university general education requirements.

“It’s definitely not going to be a hard class if it’s coming off that list,” said Karissa Cook, a sophomore women’s volleyball player, who consulted the list to pick classes in her first quarter at Stanford.

The classes on the list were “always chock-full of athletes and very easy As,” added Kira Maker, a women’s s****r player, who used the list her freshman year.

Titled “courses of interest,” the list was distributed by the Athletic Academic Resource Center. Advisers in other departments at the University said they were unaware such a list existed.

Stanford has long mandated equal scholastic footing among all undergraduates, including athletes. Many of its student athletes, in fact, have distinguished themselves in the classroom, notably football stars Andrew Luck, who has a 3.5 GPA, and Owen Marecic, who plans to graduate this year with a degree in human biology. The university’s hard-line approach has rankled some coaches over the years who have watched talented recruits go elsewhere because they didn’t measure up to Stanford’s academic standards.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Score another one for the side of righteousness! What a coup for such an enterprising group of student investigative journalists!

They've uncovered the incredible fact that athletes, who spend many hours working at their sport, would be inclined to consult a list of less challenging courses when going through the course selection process!

Those of us who were not athletes in college should be appalled. After all, all of us would do just the opposite when we were signing up for courses.

Yep. We'd intentionally seek the most challenging courses we could find...every single semester.

...and when anyone would suggest that the results of the student course evaluations were a convenient way to discover which courses were less challenging than others, we'd crow that only the athletes would use the course evaluations in that sort of way!

Similarly, when anyone would point out that virtually every fraternity and sorority had a "quiz file" to ease its users' efforts to prepare for tests and quizzes, we'd exclaim that only athletes used quiz files!

Yep! We non-athletes were academically chaste; and darned proud of it! After all, it made our degrees so much more impressive and valuable than the ones received by athletes!
Last edited by Prepster
I'm sure justbaseball will chime in soon with the facts.

Now, it seems to me that the NCAA mandates that student-athletes must be making progress toward their degrees in order to be eligible to play. Many of those courses would not fulfill those requirements. I doubt the validity of the story and it's probably not the full story.
quote:
I'm sure justbaseball will chime in soon with the facts.


Eek

Not sure I have much to say. Never heard of the 'list,' don't recognize the course names from ones our son took (heck, maybe he shoulda! Big Grin), and I don't see it too differently from the 'lists' floating around the dorms when I was an undergrad as to which profs were hard graders (and which were not) and where to find the 'easy class' or two to fill out an 18 unit quarter.

I'm sure the story is embarrassing for Stanford as my experience was that they really do try hard to ensure their athletes are real students. There are certainly multiple stories I could tell that would back that up...like the time an Econ professor insisted that the players take their final exam in the dugout (same time as the scheduled exam) in the middle of a regional game...it later got moved to a couple of hours after the game. Or the time when players had to take different (earlier/later) flights home from the rest of the team so that they could take an exam at the exact same time as the regular class...in a hotel. Should those be an article too?

Prepster has it about right in my view.
Last edited by justbaseball
It sounds like the typical sensationalism that those outside the box who try to indite someone they feel are being treated with kid gloves. It happens at every school when it comes to student athletes vs the traditional student. With that said the business side of athletics will many times "hand hold" their jocks for the sake the schools reputation. That in itself could be successfully argued in both directions. I find it kind of funny because those same journalists will not touch the student who has been tagged "disadvantaged", receives an academic waiver, scholarship/grants, and has to be academically coddled throughout their college term.

Even deeper, if those journalists asked some of their own friends they would find out that some of them were probably directed to more "friendly" classes or majors by academic advisors.
Last edited by rz1
All students have elective courses to fill their requirements.Athletes do have to be working towards their degree.What is wrong with an easy electice.Jeez, 16 units, I heard Stanford athletes do 20, is a lot when playing a sport.If each Spring an athlete takes one easy elective that doesnt mean he isnt working towards his degree.

Jeez go onto rate your professor, you can read summaries of teachers from every school.

My son took ceramics his first semester, it was an elective.It was relaxing and fun.

I dont think a list of easy classes is an issue when the other 16-18 units are all hard.

Even with the ceramics elective my own is on target to graduate from a very academic school in 4 years.
Last edited by fanofgame
My wife and I take some continuing education courses and attend other programs offered at Stanford. In fact, we are signed up for a 10 week course about baseball which starts at the end of the month.
Recently we attended a program where one of the speakers both teaches at Stanford and also provides support for teams and athletes in terms of the mental challenges of excelling at the University in the classroom and in sports.
He has written extensively, also.
Here is the breakdown of the week for most Stanford Athletes:
Total hours: 168;
Amount of time in practice/sport participation: 42%;
Amount of time for extra athletic work/mental preparation to excel: 18%;
Amount of time in class and studying: 34%;
Amount of social time: 4-5%;
Amount of time for personal attention/personal reflection: less than 1%.

Around 50 or so hours per week in the classroom, library, studying, papers and the like.
As most have posted, "easy courses" is in play at most every university. Whether there is a list or understanding, every course and professor is known to every student and most choose some of them, athlete or no.
Last edited by infielddad
[quote]How do you feel these numbers apply to other academic institutions?[/quote

Its the same.At least at USC it is.16 units a semester is required.Seeing a counselor, and advisor each semester before allowed to sign up for classes is required.

These kids work their tails off.It is tough stuff and I think too many parents of young kids way unerestimate the workload, and how many frosh struggle in these types of school.

And then on top of school you have to perform on the field,It is TOUGH.It is a life lesson that if they stick with it , they will be excellent job prospects as they have had to deal with a lot.
I think those numbers apply at many schools. If you have chosen your school to be the right fit for academics, athletics and social (which doesn't get much attention) you should feel that same balance and sense of urgency to be good at the academics and athletics. Current players would be the ones who could answer this one.
Easy classes? You bet - I took them, as a way to relax while learning and take a break from the big hard ones required by my major!
And darn those frats and sororities and their test files. I recall several classes, easy and hard, where the first week the room was FULL of students. after that, they only showed up on exam day. And they all did very well with their test files in their laps. Guess they figures they paid for the privilege! Now before you say bad things about my view of greeks, please know I am married to one, have a daughter thats is one and a brother and sister that are as well.Smile
The place the speaker described to be the more variable in motivated athletes in demanding academic situations(not only Stanford/Ivy types) was the extra 18%, which he felt is the difference between a highly successful college athlete and an "elite" level athlete competing at a national championship level in their sport.
Personally, I think the 42% is probably a fair representation of most college athletes who work hard to succeed.
I'd move the 18% across the other aspects.
40-50 hours for the academic side sounds realistic taking 15-16 hours with semester and 20 with quarters with the goal of graduation in 4-4.5 years, but acknowledging that if the athlete is on a 5 year track, the time could be less.
What do you think?
Last edited by infielddad
Ok, I will chime in. I don't often write, but this caught my eye.

As with Justbaseball, we have not seen such a "list". Kids average 17-19 units a quarter, non-season, the average student takes 15. In season they can and will notch it down to 14. Kids have taken finals (tough subjects) on the road in a hotel conference rooms. They submit papers electronically before they head to the field, and they all work on their computers waiting for the planes. The work is just the same - athlete or non - the majors are just the same - athlete or non. Just like nearly every other school.

If you look you will see another submission where the EIC writes to support the research that went in to the article, but I really do not know who or what athletes have access to such list. My kid doesn't.

As Prepster says, I am sure all kids look for the hardest subjects to take, I know I did (NOT) I took what I was interested in - easy or not. If interesting, I did better in the subject. Same with everyone else I know. That's the way it goes. Smile

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×