SIAP - Stanford Dropping 11 Sports incl. Wrestling

[AnklePicker 550]

4 hours ago, Antitroll2828 said:

No they don’t, they work full time and go to school for one week every 4 months or so..and I said in my original post "sure you may be more versed in the major you studied but it's not a reflection of intelligence" so idk what you are arguing.

My buddy’s kid just got accepted as an apprentice electrician with a journeyman electrician. He has to work with him and go to school 3 nights per week for 4 years.

I was arguing how wrong you were in assuming certain salaries.  

[LHU125 100]

This forum is so dumb sometimes..

 

[Lurker 1,492]

19 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Except people with college degrees make significantly more money than people without degrees. Our labor force is now and will continue to be about technology/being educated moreso than unskilled labor (driven in part by automation)-meaning college is a necessity for these jobs. And it’s not subjective-by any metric a degree from Stanford is worth the tuition and a degree from *insert for profit institution* is not. If you think college is such a ripoff, encourage your kids/grandkids not to go-odds are it won’t be a prudent financial decision. 

"Unskilled" labor?

[Plasmodium 1,688]

7 hours ago, Antitroll2828 said:

Careless as what? You seem to think that everyone that goes to college is smarter then everyone that doesn’t and that’s just ridiculous and wrong. Do you know how many kids nowadays go to school for 4,5 years and major in the most useless crap, and learn next to nothing. 

As careless as "Going to college doesn’t make you more educated then someone that didn't" 

I didn't say anything about smarter.  That is your argument.  I said, and I quote, "what? ?".  I stand behind that comment! 

[Boompa 179]

Keep in mind we may have no sports to watch this fall..HS, college or pro, there are no new movies, we have already burned through everything on our streaming services and with the high number of unemployed and collecting a paycheck from home...we are going to be bored and this fall is going to be a wild ride politically.

[DocBZ 97]

I tend to agree that a four year College education is overrated and unnecessary for many and also massively overpriced. And I am someone that has gone through the highest levels of education and was in some sort of higher education until I was 32 without taking any breaks. I feel like I could have gotten to that same point in 4-5 years earlier by cutting out a ton of fluff and waste that is not remotely pertinent to my current profession.

I've thought for a long time based on my own experience that there needs to be a massive overhaul in this country in regards to higher education, it's perceived value vs actual value and the massive out of control costs of it. It honestly disgusts me that these Universities get away with charging almost $100K a year in tuition, have Billions of dollars in endowments and yet cut sports like wrestling all in the name of "saving money". Give me an effing break. Shame...

Edited July 11, 2020 by DocBZ

[AnklePicker 550]

7 hours ago, DocBZ said:

I tend to agree that a four year College education is overrated and unnecessary for many and also massively overpriced. And I am someone that has gone through the highest levels of education and was in some sort of higher education until I was 32 without taking any breaks. I feel like I could have gotten to that same point in 4-5 years earlier by cutting out a ton of fluff and waste that is not remotely pertinent to my current profession.

I've thought for a long time based on my own experience that there needs to be a massive overhaul in this country in regards to higher education, it's perceived value vs actual value and the massive out of control costs of it.

I completely agree that the costs are out of control and a lot of what you learn you certainly won’t use in your job, but in the current system we live in, there is no question that without that degree there are many doors you can’t even walk through. It’s a gatekeeper to an awful lot of professions. So is it really overrated and unnecessary?  

[1032004 937]

Apparently William & Mary plagiarized Stanford when making their cuts - https://swimswam.com/william-mary-plagiarized-stanfords-release-when-announcing-cut-of-swimming/?fbclid=IwAR11xTTKNAtZBTiO-xxWCOWpsdF-NPUKL0SRp1sLLWp_uf9qru9RFnUEQdw

Side note, apparently the swimming programs there have already raised $1m in 2 weeks, in addition to a $3m endowment that already existed, but no dice on possibly reinstating the teams.

[Plasmodium 1,688]

It is astounding what these programs cost.

[Idaho 837]

Anybody know what the cost of running the swim programs is each year? Seems like 4 million would cover the swim programs for 2 years. What it the reason for an endowment if the school won't even consider bringing back he sport if the money is sitting there in the bank?  It makes me wonder if an incentive to cutting the sport is the ability to steal the endowment for other purposes.. If I remember correctly, Oregon State has written into the endowment that the school cannot use money for 20 years if the program is eliminated. 

[Pinnum 799]

On 9/20/2020 at 3:10 PM, Idaho said:

Anybody know what the cost of running the swim programs is each year? Seems like 4 million would cover the swim programs for 2 years. What it the reason for an endowment if the school won't even consider bringing back he sport if the money is sitting there in the bank?  It makes me wonder if an incentive to cutting the sport is the ability to steal the endowment for other purposes.. If I remember correctly, Oregon State has written into the endowment that the school cannot use money for 20 years if the program is eliminated. 

One provision that is written into endowments is that if a school doesn’t adhere to the terms of the endowment then it names another school that should take possession of the endowment.  
 

This creates an incentive for the first school to adhere to the wishes and makes the second school a watchdog that monitors the usage since they get to claim the funds if it is not used correctly. 
 

My understanding is that Stanford wants fewer athletes so they can accept more regular students.  

[RichB 197]

2 hours ago, Pinnum said:

One provision that is written into endowments is that if a school doesn’t adhere to the terms of the endowment then it names another school that should take possession of the endowment.  
 

This creates an incentive for the first school to adhere to the wishes and makes the second school a watchdog that monitors the usage since they get to claim the funds if it is not used correctly. 
 

My understanding is that Stanford wants fewer athletes so they can accept more regular students.  

In spite of their academic accolades, Stanford accepts athletes who would not get ten minutes in to the admissions process were not they athletes.

 

[Plasmodium 1,688]

26 minutes ago, RichB said:

In spite of their academic accolades, Stanford accepts athletes who would not get ten minutes in to the admissions process were not they athletes.

 

This process needs a serious revision.  Is it only the money makers where this is applicable at Stanford?  I know one wrestler on the Stanford team.  He had an excellent shot at admission with or without wrestling.  

[1032004 937]

45 minutes ago, RichB said:

In spite of their academic accolades, Stanford accepts athletes who would not get ten minutes in to the admissions process were not they athletes.

 

Even the members of the sailing team?

[Billyhoyle 2,027]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

This process needs a serious revision.  Is it only the money makers where this is applicable at Stanford?  I know one wrestler on the Stanford team.  He had an excellent shot at admission with or without wrestling.  

No. It applies to every sport. Not every athlete in every sport, but coaches can provide a list that significantly eases the application restriction.  The same is true for every school-even the ivies (all of them-not just Cornell).

Edited September 29, 2020 by Billyhoyle

[klehner 447]

3 hours ago, RichB said:

In spite of their academic accolades, Stanford accepts athletes who would not get ten minutes in to the admissions process were not they athletes.

 

Do you think that Stanford accepts students who are not likely to succeed and graduate?  Do you think that Stanford should only accept the top students (so their freshman
class is entirely made up of 4.0/1600 Asian kids from California)?

[rpbobcat 53]

39 minutes ago, klehner said:

Do you think that Stanford accepts students who are not likely to succeed and graduate? 

Short answer,yes.

A friend of mine's son got recruited to play football at Stanford.

He wanted to go pre-med.

He got told that,especially wit the time needed for football,he

could never keep up with that,or pretty much any rigorous academic  curriculum.

He ended up in a "stay eligible" business program.

He did get  what he wanted out of Stanford,he made it to the pros as a tight end.

 

 

 

[Plasmodium 1,688]

26 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

Short answer,yes.

A friend of mine's son got recruited to play football at Stanford.

He wanted to go pre-med.

He got told that,especially wit the time needed for football,he

could never keep up with that,or pretty much any rigorous academic  curriculum.

He ended up in a "stay eligible" business program.

He did get  what he wanted out of Stanford,he made it to the pros as a tight end.

 

 

 

Are you talking about Cory Booker?  :)

[Billyhoyle 2,027]

2 hours ago, klehner said:

Do you think that Stanford accepts students who are not likely to succeed and graduate?  Do you think that Stanford should only accept the top students (so their freshman
class is entirely made up of 4.0/1600 Asian kids from California)?

Graduating from college and “succeeding” is really not difficult at all. Do you have a pulse? Can you show up to class? The question wasn’t whether they accept people who can graduate-it was whether they lower standards significantly.  They do. Whether that’s a good thing or not is an entirely different question.

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

Are you talking about Cory Booker?  :)

You mean the Rhodes Scholar? 

[klehner 447]

1 hour ago, rpbobcat said:

Short answer,yes.

A friend of mine's son got recruited to play football at Stanford.

He wanted to go pre-med.

He got told that,especially wit the time needed for football,he

could never keep up with that,or pretty much any rigorous academic  curriculum.

He ended up in a "stay eligible" business program.

He did get  what he wanted out of Stanford,he made it to the pros as a tight end.

 

 

 

Did he graduate with a Stanford degree?

[klehner 447]

17 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Graduating from college and “succeeding” is really not difficult at all. Do you have a pulse? Can you show up to class? The question wasn’t whether they accept people who can graduate-it was whether they lower standards significantly.  They do. Whether that’s a good thing or not is an entirely different question.

What is this "standard" of which you speak?  The only standard set by elite schools is "can this student navigate the undergraduate program successfully while contributing something to the school and represent the school after graduation?"  There's a reason Stanford (or Harvard, or Berkeley) isn't populated by 100% 4.0GPA/1600SAT students:  they could.  That reason is that a diversity of students *each of whom can handle the workload* benefits everyone.  Someone might bring an athletic talent, or a musical talent, or a tech talent, or just a different background.

We've hashed this out with respect to "SUNY-Ithaca," so I won't do it again.

[Billyhoyle 2,027]

43 minutes ago, klehner said:

What is this "standard" of which you speak?  The only standard set by elite schools is "can this student navigate the undergraduate program successfully while contributing something to the school and represent the school after graduation?"  There's a reason Stanford (or Harvard, or Berkeley) isn't populated by 100% 4.0GPA/1600SAT students:  they could.  That reason is that a diversity of students *each of whom can handle the workload* benefits everyone.  Someone might bring an athletic talent, or a musical talent, or a tech talent, or just a different background.

We've hashed this out with respect to "SUNY-Ithaca," so I won't do it again.

Right. You’re saying all this, but the question was merely whether it is easier to get in.  And the answer is yes.  Whether or not it’s justified for somebody to get a leg up on admissions into college for throwing a ball well isn’t the topic here. Places like MIT/Caltech (not everyone has 4.0/1600 at these places by the way) have one opinion on the matter, and Harvard/Stanford have another. We can all have our own opinions on whether or not it is good, but the facts are the facts. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Billyhoyle

[gimpeltf 1,640]

A lot of schools still use the AI. They generally have a minimum unless they are athletes. Some then average the AIs for a sport and as long as that average is above the overall minimum they're ok with it. So they can recruit some exceptional scholars within the sports it will keep the average high enough.

[rpbobcat 53]

12 hours ago, klehner said:

Did he graduate with a Stanford degree?

He hadn't, when he left school to train for the NFL draft.

I don't know if he ever went back to finish after his pro career was over.

As I posted,he was in a "stay eligible" business curriculum.

After his playing career was over he went into coaching.