[81alum]

And so the fact that it is considered a "reform" that 3/4 of their athletes have to have B averages (be eligible for CSU admissions) is sickening from the standpoint of equity in admissions.  The remark that not everyone can be a Stanford is true--but everyone should have the same admissions standards for athletes and non-athletes.  Universities which are less selective overall should feel free to have proportionately lower standards for athletes--matching whatever they do for the general student body.  If C.al wants to be a prestigious academic institution (as it should), then it needs to lose its double standard.

Even Stanford doesn't meet that standard. I don't have the latest numbers, but in the past I've seen a healthy discount between the Stanford basketball and football team vs. the overall student body. Just like there's credit given to student with exceptional achievement in art, music, social service and other extracurriculars, I'm fine giving some academic lenience to athletes. But the minimum requirements should be that the student is able to participate fully in the intellectual life of the college. Otherwise, you end up with a sports program completely divorced from the overall university mission which is an abomination, in my opinion.

Not so.

Stanford makes it clear that having high extracurricular achievements is a significant part of its admissions policy.  It can give credit to a football player in the same way it gives credit to a writer or a musician or anyone else who has outstanding talent.  This is why, going back to Fred, every Stanford admit is rated in two categories.  Everyone at Stanford has relatively high GPA and test scores and those who are a little less high also must have outstanding extracurricular achievements--which can come in any field.

At C.al, the gap between the typical student and their football players is enormous--not slight--and the same consideration is not granted to all other forms of talent.  C.al does not lower its standards to a 3.0 (or less in 25% of the cases) in order to attract talent in any other area besides select athletics teams.  It does not have a drama department stuffed with actors recruited with B averages,  or a symphony filled with performers recruited  with B averages, or a debate team with debaters recruited with B averages.  No, the C.al policy is that certain athletes can have grossly different admissions standards than other students who have equal talent and equal academic credentials.  The reform lessons the injustice but leaves the double standard in place.

This is unworthy of an institution that seeks to be the world's most prestigious public university.  I think you will find, moreover, that many C.al faculty would agree.

[81alum]

And so the fact that it is considered a "reform" that 3/4 of their athletes have to have B averages (be eligible for CSU admissions) is sickening from the standpoint of equity in admissions.  The remark that not everyone can be a Stanford is true--but everyone should have the same admissions standards for athletes and non-athletes.  Universities which are less selective overall should feel free to have proportionately lower standards for athletes--matching whatever they do for the general student body.  If C.al wants to be a prestigious academic institution (as it should), then it needs to lose its double standard.

Even Stanford doesn't meet that standard. I don't have the latest numbers, but in the past I've seen a healthy discount between the Stanford basketball and football team vs. the overall student body. Just like there's credit given to student with exceptional achievement in art, music, social service and other extracurriculars, I'm fine giving some academic lenience to athletes. But the minimum requirements should be that the student is able to participate fully in the intellectual life of the college. Otherwise, you end up with a sports program completely divorced from the overall university mission which is an abomination, in my opinion.

Not so.

Stanford makes it clear that having high extracurricular achievements is a significant part of its admissions policy.  It can give credit to a football player in the same way it gives credit to a writer or a musician or anyone else who has outstanding talent.  This is why, going back to Fred, every Stanford admit is rated in two categories.  Everyone at Stanford has relatively high GPA and test scores and those who are a little less high also must have outstanding extracurricular achievements--which can come in any field.

At C.al, the gap between the typical student and their football players is enormous--not slight--and the same consideration is not granted to all other forms of talent.  C.al does not lower its standards to a 3.0 (or less in 25% of the cases) in order to attract talent in any other area besides select athletics teams.  It does not have a drama department stuffed with actors recruited with B averages,  or a symphony filled with performers recruited  with B averages, or a debate team with debaters recruited with B averages.  No, the C.al policy is that certain athletes can have grossly different admissions standards than other students who have equal talent and equal academic credentials.  The reform lessons the injustice but leaves the double standard in place.

This is unworthy of an institution that seeks to be the world's most prestigious public university.  I think you will find, moreover, that many C.al faculty would agree.