[BostonCard]

It's possible that we are just trying to get less qualified students by admissions but we had last minute dings last year of  kids who had embraced Stanford for a long time.  Now, maybe our coaching staff has to play with the academic cards they're dealt and just don't want to be the ones to self-police on academics.  Maybe the staff's philosophy is to say "what the hell" and let the admissions drama play out because they don't want to be bad guys.  But it sort of feels like maybe there was a 5-yr. deal to jerk football out of its rut and now selectivity is being jacked up.

Or, maybe these kids are more borderline than we thought.  We'll never know.

I don't think there is any evidence that admissions is becoming more stringent.  I do think that the coaching staff has to go after kids who might be toss ups for admission (or even unlikely to get in).  It's sort of like shooting in basketball; if you have too high a field goal percentage, it's indicative that you are not taking enough shots (I've seen similar logic applied to QB's who don't throw many interceptions; it suggests they are not throwing the ball downfield enough).  You have to take some chances with admissions, otherwise, you will have some students who you've given up on before they even have a chance.

I obviously feel bad for the kids who really want to come here, and end up getting dinged by admissions.  I think it is critical that the staff communicate well with these candidates, and tell them where they stand and what they need to do to get through (even if there is no hard and fast rule).

But the goal of the coaching staff should not be to ensure there are no admissions casualties; obviously they shouldn't waste the admissions office and the recruits' time.  But they should recruit kids, try to help them through the process, and admissions should make the decisions.  Unfortunately, some aren't going to go our way.

BC

[BostonCard]

It's possible that we are just trying to get less qualified students by admissions but we had last minute dings last year of  kids who had embraced Stanford for a long time.  Now, maybe our coaching staff has to play with the academic cards they're dealt and just don't want to be the ones to self-police on academics.  Maybe the staff's philosophy is to say "what the hell" and let the admissions drama play out because they don't want to be bad guys.  But it sort of feels like maybe there was a 5-yr. deal to jerk football out of its rut and now selectivity is being jacked up.

Or, maybe these kids are more borderline than we thought.  We'll never know.

I don't think there is any evidence that admissions is becoming more stringent.  I do think that the coaching staff has to go after kids who might be toss ups for admission (or even unlikely to get in).  It's sort of like shooting in basketball; if you have too high a field goal percentage, it's indicative that you are not taking enough shots (I've seen similar logic applied to QB's who don't throw many interceptions; it suggests they are not throwing the ball downfield enough).  You have to take some chances with admissions, otherwise, you will have some students who you've given up on before they even have a chance.

I obviously feel bad for the kids who really want to come here, and end up getting dinged by admissions.  I think it is critical that the staff communicate well with these candidates, and tell them where they stand and what they need to do to get through (even if there is no hard and fast rule).

But the goal of the coaching staff should not be to ensure there are no admissions casualties; obviously they shouldn't waste the admissions office and the recruits' time.  But they should recruit kids, try to help them through the process, and admissions should make the decisions.  Unfortunately, some aren't going to go our way.

BC