[martyup]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

[martyup]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

[Goose]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

[Goose]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

[GK3]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors
kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

Agree absolutely with your last paragraph. I think what is very important now is the quality of the coaches and their ability to create an atmosphere that rings true with the recruits, meaning that they want to be at Stanford, but they also really want to be part of what the coaches have created. You will still lose some, but you will hold on to others you otherwise would not.  I sort of view the number players opting to go elsewhere as a plus or minus vote on the coaching staff.  I view it as a real plus that no one bailed on Kyle Smith and his group. At least I don't think anyone did. Kids are also buying what Andrew Luck is selling, we shall see how that works out in a year or so.

[GK3]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors
kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

Agree absolutely with your last paragraph. I think what is very important now is the quality of the coaches and their ability to create an atmosphere that rings true with the recruits, meaning that they want to be at Stanford, but they also really want to be part of what the coaches have created. You will still lose some, but you will hold on to others you otherwise would not.  I sort of view the number players opting to go elsewhere as a plus or minus vote on the coaching staff.  I view it as a real plus that no one bailed on Kyle Smith and his group. At least I don't think anyone did. Kids are also buying what Andrew Luck is selling, we shall see how that works out in a year or so.

[PalmTree]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors
kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

Agree absolutely with your last paragraph. I think what is very important now is the quality of the coaches and their ability to create an atmosphere that rings true with the recruits, meaning that they want to be at Stanford, but they also really want to be part of what the coaches have created. You will still lose some, but you will hold on to others you otherwise would not.  I sort of view the number players opting to go elsewhere as a plus or minus vote on the coaching staff.  I view it as a real plus that no one bailed on Kyle Smith and his group. At least I don't think anyone did. Kids are also buying what Andrew Luck is selling, we shall see how that works out in a year or so.

MBB's Oziyah Sellers entered the portal and commited to St. Johns, his 3rd school in 4 years - and otherwise, I agree with what you say about coaches creating attractive environment and culture being a real plus for helping retain players.

[PalmTree]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors
kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

Agree absolutely with your last paragraph. I think what is very important now is the quality of the coaches and their ability to create an atmosphere that rings true with the recruits, meaning that they want to be at Stanford, but they also really want to be part of what the coaches have created. You will still lose some, but you will hold on to others you otherwise would not.  I sort of view the number players opting to go elsewhere as a plus or minus vote on the coaching staff.  I view it as a real plus that no one bailed on Kyle Smith and his group. At least I don't think anyone did. Kids are also buying what Andrew Luck is selling, we shall see how that works out in a year or so.

MBB's Oziyah Sellers entered the portal and commited to St. Johns, his 3rd school in 4 years - and otherwise, I agree with what you say about coaches creating attractive environment and culture being a real plus for helping retain players.

[PVTree]

The UC Irvine transfer also returned to UC Irvine after 1 year at Stanford. He hardly got any time on the floor, and he was heading in the same direction for the upcoming season.

[PVTree]

The UC Irvine transfer also returned to UC Irvine after 1 year at Stanford. He hardly got any time on the floor, and he was heading in the same direction for the upcoming season.

[Treebound]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors
kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

Agree absolutely with your last paragraph. I think what is very important now is the quality of the coaches and their ability to create an atmosphere that rings true with the recruits, meaning that they want to be at Stanford, but they also really want to be part of what the coaches have created. You will still lose some, but you will hold on to others you otherwise would not.  I sort of view the number players opting to go elsewhere as a plus or minus vote on the coaching staff.  I view it as a real plus that no one bailed on Kyle Smith and his group. At least I don't think anyone did. Kids are also buying what Andrew Luck is selling, we shall see how that works out in a year or so.

Kyle Smith has done a wonderful job coming in and changing the culture of Stanford basketball for the better.  I tip my cap to him for his work in retaining Maxime, who had multiple other NIL offers where he could have made more money that what Stanford was willing/able to pay - thanks too, to Lifetime Cardinal.  Maxime is exactly the "Stanford man" that Andrew has talked about.  He and his parents were focused on academics and curiosity first from an early age.  He's such a class act and truly embraced much of what Stanford offered, including pledging a fraternity as an upper classman.   Maples was fun once again this past year and Kyle and Maxime had much to do that!

[Treebound]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

BC, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I do however believe that many of the athletes that leave for very large NIL/NFL/NBA deals indeed appropriately value a Stanford education. They just received a monetary inducement that was even more compelling. I don't think admitting such students is a "mistake". However, as you point out many athletes leave every year for less compelling reasons. It turns out quite a few of them just don't like being at Stanford enough to stay. In the past these students would have to sit for a year if they went elsewhere. There was also not not much of a "market" for transfers. That is no longer true. Thus, things may not actually be different from past admissions. Student-athletes just have more options than previously. From Stanford's point of view it was clearly a waste of a valuable slot in their admissions class. That said, there is in general no practical way to know in advance which student-athletes will make that decision. Thus admissions is of necessity independent of this possibility.

IMO Stanford's admission policy for student-athletes for the most part was always a type of substitution principle. The student-athlete was given preference over a notional otherwise similar student that would have been admitted instead. The student-athletes weren't therefore changing the distribution of who would be admitted. The standards were not being lowered but rather student-athletes got slots preferentially to otherwise admissible students. The "tail" on the admissions curve was not being stretched. Some of those athletes did struggle academically, but so did other admitted students who were not athletes. I can't support stretching the tail of the distribution to preferentially admit athletes. This would result in admitting a distinct subclass of students who were clearly different from the rest of the student body. While one can argue exactly where the tail of the distribution lies/should lie, if the vast majority of the tail are athletes that is IMO unacceptable, no matter how "loyal" they may be to Stanford.
 
In short, I don't believe "standards should be lowered" for athletes. If the athlete is a total outlier on the admissions curve that would otherwise in no way be admissible, they shouldn't be admitted, period. There are certainly grey areas, but if the individual would be a "hard no" otherwise athletic ability shouldn't change that. Has such a person ever been admitted? Almost certainly. Should it become "policy" to admit such athletes/legacies/big donors
kids? IMO, no. The coaches can mine the grey areas, but beyond that it should be a waste of their time.

Agree absolutely with your last paragraph. I think what is very important now is the quality of the coaches and their ability to create an atmosphere that rings true with the recruits, meaning that they want to be at Stanford, but they also really want to be part of what the coaches have created. You will still lose some, but you will hold on to others you otherwise would not.  I sort of view the number players opting to go elsewhere as a plus or minus vote on the coaching staff.  I view it as a real plus that no one bailed on Kyle Smith and his group. At least I don't think anyone did. Kids are also buying what Andrew Luck is selling, we shall see how that works out in a year or so.

Kyle Smith has done a wonderful job coming in and changing the culture of Stanford basketball for the better.  I tip my cap to him for his work in retaining Maxime, who had multiple other NIL offers where he could have made more money that what Stanford was willing/able to pay - thanks too, to Lifetime Cardinal.  Maxime is exactly the "Stanford man" that Andrew has talked about.  He and his parents were focused on academics and curiosity first from an early age.  He's such a class act and truly embraced much of what Stanford offered, including pledging a fraternity as an upper classman.   Maples was fun once again this past year and Kyle and Maxime had much to do that!

[chrisk]

The signing of the OBBBA today locks in a piece of the financial puzzle that Levin is facing.

The new tax rate structure for university endowment income is 8%/4%/1.4% compared to the previous 1.4% across the board.
It could have been worse - in the House version, the rate topped out at 21%.

The threshold for the 8% tax rate is $2M endowment per student. The tax goes into effect on 9/1/26 for Stanford. With a lot of finagling by increasing the number of students and decreasing the endowment, Stanford may have a shot at the 4% rate. Each percentage point could be worth $20-30M.

[chrisk]

The signing of the OBBBA today locks in a piece of the financial puzzle that Levin is facing.

The new tax rate structure for university endowment income is 8%/4%/1.4% compared to the previous 1.4% across the board.
It could have been worse - in the House version, the rate topped out at 21%.

The threshold for the 8% tax rate is $2M endowment per student. The tax goes into effect on 9/1/26 for Stanford. With a lot of finagling by increasing the number of students and decreasing the endowment, Stanford may have a shot at the 4% rate. Each percentage point could be worth $20-30M.

[82lsju]

More on the endowment tax changes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitfor...w1r7s7kMhA

[82lsju]

More on the endowment tax changes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitfor...w1r7s7kMhA

[M T]

Hmmm… that article’s math seems wrong or some of the numbers are wrong or the explanation is wrong. 

Take MIT.   The endowment of $23,453,000,000 divided by the claimed $2,004,000 per student gives an enrollment of 11,703 versus the 12,829 in the article. (I would doubt that only 1,126 MIT students are excluded as non permanent residents)

But suppose it is 11,703. If MiT adds 29 qualifying students to that set, then the endowment slips below the $2M/student level, reducing the tax from 8% to “only”  4%

[M T]

Hmmm… that article’s math seems wrong or some of the numbers are wrong or the explanation is wrong. 

Take MIT.   The endowment of $23,453,000,000 divided by the claimed $2,004,000 per student gives an enrollment of 11,703 versus the 12,829 in the article. (I would doubt that only 1,126 MIT students are excluded as non permanent residents)

But suppose it is 11,703. If MiT adds 29 qualifying students to that set, then the endowment slips below the $2M/student level, reducing the tax from 8% to “only”  4%

[chrisk]

Hmmm… that article’s math seems wrong or some of the numbers are wrong or the explanation is wrong. 

Take MIT.   The endowment of $23,453,000,000 divided by the claimed $2,004,000 per student gives an enrollment of 11,703 versus the 12,829 in the article. (I would doubt that only 1,126 MIT students are excluded as non permanent residents)

But suppose it is 11,703. If MiT adds 29 qualifying students to that set, then the endowment slips below the $2M/student level, reducing the tax from 8% to “only”  4%

All of the enrollment numbers I have seen for Stanford are in the 17-18K range, not 20K.

---

The budget plan for 2025-26 that Stanford released last month shows Athletic Department expenses at about $211M.

The budgeted expenses for the AD in the current year are about $214M, about $3M higher.

https://budget.stanford.edu/budget-plans

[chrisk]

Hmmm… that article’s math seems wrong or some of the numbers are wrong or the explanation is wrong. 

Take MIT.   The endowment of $23,453,000,000 divided by the claimed $2,004,000 per student gives an enrollment of 11,703 versus the 12,829 in the article. (I would doubt that only 1,126 MIT students are excluded as non permanent residents)

But suppose it is 11,703. If MiT adds 29 qualifying students to that set, then the endowment slips below the $2M/student level, reducing the tax from 8% to “only”  4%

All of the enrollment numbers I have seen for Stanford are in the 17-18K range, not 20K.

---

The budget plan for 2025-26 that Stanford released last month shows Athletic Department expenses at about $211M.

The budgeted expenses for the AD in the current year are about $214M, about $3M higher.

https://budget.stanford.edu/budget-plans