Stanford cutting 11 sports

@JCG posted:

So would baseball be a one half helmet sport?

JCG,

"Helmet sport" was the generalized phrase used but not sure specifically what sports were included.  By that definition that could include equestrian, wrestling, fencing and water polo but I don't think that was the intention.  

What really matters is how many qualifying athletic 'slots" with Likely Letters each Coach could recommend to Admission.  For my son's school, baseball was only 5 Ivy Likely Letter recruits and the other recruits had to get in on their own merit...no standard deviation from an incoming Ivy class.   What the general public, faculty and students fail to realize is some of these recruits got in on their own (same as normal students) with minimal pull by the Coach.   These recruits were bundled in with the rest of the team.   I was told there were many more "slots" for football, lacrosse and hockey athletes just because of the size of their teams or the money they brought in.  Lacrosse and hockey are huge among Ivys.

JMO.

With most of what I am reading with this thread (type of sports cut and no turning back), this seems to be another use of one of the biggest catchphrases of 2020-- "cancel culture."

@Smitty28 posted:

I hear this from time to time and don't know where this belief comes from.  There is a tremendous difference in the quality at Stanford (and similar HA schools) vs a community college (or many lower tiered 4-year schools).  The competition is much more fierce, the difficulty of the problem sets are night and day, the level of discussion, etc.  They are teaching at a higher level because the students are at a higher level and can handle it.

The students are at a higher level, yes absolutely. But what does that have to do with chemistry - the formulas are the same, the math is the same, the conversions are the same. What makes the problem sets any different? The curriculum doesn't change just because of how selective the school is. 

This is what bothers me. What makes the homework harder? In a lecture hall, there isn't going to be some enlightening discussion among students. They're being lectured at about Chemistry, not discussing new solutions that would eradicate cancer.  

 Students in Gen Chem 101 are at the very least taking a very very similar course to Gen Chem 101 at community college or UC Riverside. Tell me how US History is harder at Stanford than it is anywhere else. It's history, it happened it's cut and dry. The only difference is you're trying to write an A paper when the entire class is capable of writing A papers, you have to make your work stand out. 

The most difficult part about most of these schools is getting in, after that they're pretty similar. I don't like the idea that the curriculum is better at some schools just because it was hard to get into out of HS. Stanford is a great school and it's better than 99% of colleges in the US. But it's better because of it's facilities, motivated student body, and the weight the degree carries in the professional world. Not because Intro to Chemistry has a sophisticated one of a kind curriculum unavailable to non Stanford students. 

@PABaseball posted:

The students are at a higher level, yes absolutely. But what does that have to do with chemistry - the formulas are the same, the math is the same, the conversions are the same. What makes the problem sets any different? The curriculum doesn't change just because of how selective the school is. 

This is what bothers me. What makes the homework harder? In a lecture hall, there isn't going to be some enlightening discussion among students. They're being lectured at about Chemistry, not discussing new solutions that would eradicate cancer.  

 Students in Gen Chem 101 are at the very least taking a very very similar course to Gen Chem 101 at community college or UC Riverside. Tell me how US History is harder at Stanford than it is anywhere else. It's history, it happened it's cut and dry. The only difference is you're trying to write an A paper when the entire class is capable of writing A papers, you have to make your work stand out. 

The most difficult part about most of these schools is getting in, after that they're pretty similar. I don't like the idea that the curriculum is better at some schools just because it was hard to get into out of HS. Stanford is a great school and it's better than 99% of colleges in the US. But it's better because of it's facilities, motivated student body, and the weight the degree carries in the professional world. Not because Intro to Chemistry has a sophisticated one of a kind curriculum unavailable to non Stanford students. 

Isn't that like saying baseball is baseball?  I mean what's the difference between the Canes and Team A from Small Town USA?  Everything, right?

If it's truly an introductory class, I suppose you could be right, maybe.  Myself, and my kids, are all STEM majors and chemistry for engineers is not the same thing.  It is very easy to make problem sets difficult or easy, just like making an exam difficult or easy.  Plus, most schools grade STEM classes on a curve, so the competition makes the class much more challenging to keep up with and not fail out.  This competition, and learning intensity, carries through for 4 years.

My older son went to an Ivy, a STEM major.  When he was in high-school, he took one semester of an intro-level science class at our local state university.  When he got to college, he took the second semester of it.  Then he told us he was re-taking the first semester there.  When we pointed out he had already taken it, he said that the Ivy intro course was taught at a much higher level, and he didn't think he would be ready for the upper-level classes in that subject unless he took it again there. Professors assign work that they think their students will be able to do; this also applies to History.  More selective schools will have more sophisticated assignments, longer papers, more reading (and more complex reading), more research expected, etc.  Then there is also the fact that students learn from, and study with, each other.  It makes a big difference when doing group projects.

The comparison with baseball teams at different levels is entirely right.  Can you be recruited to a D1 college if you play for a local travel team?  Probably, if you have a 92 mph fastball.  They still might want to see how you do against high-level competition.

After the other Ivys, the next set of student athletes and their parents who should be concerned about sports cuts are those who attend D3 small liberal arts colleges (LACs). At a typical small LAC with an entering class size of 400-600 students, varsity athletes can easily make up 20-25% of the student body. For example, Williams sponsors 30 varsity teams (https://ephsports.williams.edu/landing/index) and has an entering class of about 550 students. if Williams cut 10 sports, they could probably reduce the number of athletes in each class down to ~15% while freeing up more spots for other non-athlete students who could bring more diversity and/or academic accomplishment to the study body.

Many, if not most, of the small LACs that are not Top 20 academically ranked are already constantly facing financial pressures prior to Covid due to their small endowments, and heavy reliance on tuition (and tuition discounting) to meet their annual net revenues while meeting enrollment targets. Going forward, some of these LACs will be forced to close and many others will need to find areas to cut expenses including sports.

For the Top 20 academic LACs like Williams, Amherst, etc., their larger endowments and overall desirability will somewhat insulate them from pure financial pressures to cut sports, but they are facing the same institutional pressures that Stanford and the Ivys are facing as to how they want the composition of their study body to look like going forward. As the pressure ramps up to maintain their academic prestige and increase diversity while facing a demographic cliff of smaller graduating high school classes over the next few decades, I predict these high academic LACs will follow the Ivys and also begin cutting down on the number of sports they offer.

One other factor to consider.....sports that get cut are likely to target those viewed as having privilege and are in the patriarchy.  Made even easier if they are negative and have many slots associated with them.

Baseball in the Big 10 for example probably travels 8 to 10 times and mostly by air.  That's 30+ people traveling for 3 or 4 days at a crack.  If every person costs $500 per trip that's at least $15K.  That means $200k travel budget or thereabouts. If they have 40 home dates they have to get $5,000 per game.  That's 500 people at $10.  It ain't happening.

This is tied to the other thread on P5 football.

It is very likely college sports are on the verge of the biggest alterations since the Supreme Court knocked down the NCAA on TV money in the 80's.

I predict less of them and a separation of football and maybe basketball.

@Zoom 2020 posted:

Many, if not most, of the small LACs that are not Top 20 academically ranked are already constantly facing financial pressures prior to Covid due to their small endowments, and heavy reliance on tuition (and tuition discounting) to meet their annual net revenues while meeting enrollment targets. Going forward, some of these LACs will be forced to close and many others will need to find areas to cut expenses including sports.

For the Top 20 academic LACs like Williams, Amherst, etc., their larger endowments and overall desirability will somewhat insulate them from pure financial pressures to cut sports, but they are facing the same institutional pressures that Stanford and the Ivys are facing as to how they want the composition of their study body to look like going forward. As the pressure ramps up to maintain their academic prestige and increase diversity while facing a demographic cliff of smaller graduating high school classes over the next few decades, I predict these high academic LACs will follow the Ivys and also begin cutting down on the number of sports they offer.

I think that the pressure on the top 20 LACs might be like Dartmouth, I agree they might cut some sports on the same model.  Many others, with fewer applicants, depend on sports to bring in students, so they actually have incentive to keep or expand them.

@Zoom 2020 posted:

After the other Ivys, the next set of student athletes and their parents who should be concerned about sports cuts are those who attend D3 small liberal arts colleges (LACs). At a typical small LAC with an entering class size of 400-600 students, varsity athletes can easily make up 20-25% of the student body. For example, Williams sponsors 30 varsity teams (https://ephsports.williams.edu/landing/index) and has an entering class of about 550 students. if Williams cut 10 sports, they could probably reduce the number of athletes in each class down to ~15% while freeing up more spots for other non-athlete students who could bring more diversity and/or academic accomplishment to the study body.

Many, if not most, of the small LACs that are not Top 20 academically ranked are already constantly facing financial pressures prior to Covid due to their small endowments, and heavy reliance on tuition (and tuition discounting) to meet their annual net revenues while meeting enrollment targets. Going forward, some of these LACs will be forced to close and many others will need to find areas to cut expenses including sports.

For the Top 20 academic LACs like Williams, Amherst, etc., their larger endowments and overall desirability will somewhat insulate them from pure financial pressures to cut sports, but they are facing the same institutional pressures that Stanford and the Ivys are facing as to how they want the composition of their study body to look like going forward. As the pressure ramps up to maintain their academic prestige and increase diversity while facing a demographic cliff of smaller graduating high school classes over the next few decades, I predict these high academic LACs will follow the Ivys and also begin cutting down on the number of sports they offer.

I do think this is a very reasoned post and seems like it will head in this direction.  However, it makes me honestly ask if these institutions are being authentic in their rationale.  They pick a pandemic year that is hurting them financially to decide that they would prefer to allocate admission slots more to non atheletes for academic reasons.  I have to think it might be more honest to say we have taken a large financial hit that has made us reevaluate our operating model and have decided to eliminate money losing sports.  We now plan to use these admission spots for students that would pay more for an education at our institution.   I would be ok with that answer.   These high academic institutions are private schools and should do what they think is in the best interest of their school. 

The AD at my son’s high school was previously an Assistant Coach at an LAC in the Northeast.  It’s not a HA, but it’s pretty well known. He told me that he was expected to recruit a certain number of players to his team each year, not for the benefit of the team but because the school relied on the revenue. So there will definitely be schools with great incentive to keep their sports programs going because that’s how they’ll survive.  

Yes, many baseball teams have 50+ players, it's the warning that is given over and over on here.  At D3s, everyone pays or is on academic or financial aid; all those golfers and rowers and squash-players are most likely paying full tuition.  So I wouldn't be surprised if they use those sports to bring in the full-payers, and then recruit non-athletes who need financial or academic aid.  I'm sure each school has its own mix.  Stanford, on the other hand, gives scholarships, right? 

Be interested if anything similarly will happen with the small HAs (NESCAC's) where almost a third of the student body are varsity athletes. No scholarships involved, but coveted "admission spots" are.

I've got a friends son who coaches college and has to have 60 plus players every year or his salary is cut.  Those schools are doomed if they don't play sports.  There is a local college that is said to have 80% athletes as students.  They will close their doors if there are not athletics this year. 

Stanford has reversed course, and is now cutting none of its sports, because of alumni fundraising:

https://www.espn.com/college-s...te-11-varsity-sports

I am both pleased at the power of fundraising and  equally disappointed that a wealthy institution like Stanford would cut athletics to save on costs.

@anotherparent posted:

Stanford has reversed course, and is now cutting none of its sports, because of alumni fundraising:

https://www.espn.com/college-s...te-11-varsity-sports

Stanford's fundraising is something to behold. The Arrillaga family is one of the elite athletics donors in the entire nation. He's given well over $250m to the school.