Jump to content
Bronco

The Stanford decision boils down to two things

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Billyhoyle said:

That’s not why they don’t do it. They do it because the difference between somebody who scores 1500 and 1600 on the SAT is basically meaningless when it comes to academics, since the SAT only covers very basic concepts. And Valedictorians aren’t always taking the most challenging classes. So somebody with a 1500 and 5s on BC Calculus, AP Physics C, etc, is a better student than a valedictorian with a 1600 and no AP credit.  

A world class musician can’t be compared to an athlete. Music is actually part of the curriculum at Stanford. There are professors in that field. Athletics are extracurricular and not relevant to academics. 

Music in college is essentially a trade, and...

Unless you are exceptionally talented, you're going to be teaching scales to kids not nearly as talented as you are. 

Only a few play in big city orchestras, and even then they don't make that much money- unless they play for Cleveland, Boston, LA, NY, etc.  

The "world class" musicians can make a bundle.   Lang Lang, Yuja Wang, etc.  There's only a few...like NBA/NFL superstars.

The "professors in the field" statement doesn't mean much.  There are professors of gender studies.

By the way, the one who mentioned that Stanford could have a student body of nothing but class valedictorians with 1600 SAT's had it right.

It's hardly desirable, and it reminds me of a quote by William F Buckley Jr.:
 

“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.”



 

Edited by TheOhioState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheOhioState said:

Music in college is essentially a trade, and...

Unless you are exceptionally talented, you're going to be teaching scales to kids not nearly as talented as you are. 

Only a few play in big city orchestras, and even then they don't make that much money- unless they play for Cleveland, Boston, LA, NY, etc.  

The "world class" musicians can make a bundle.   Lang Lang, Yuja Wang, etc.  There's only a few...like NBA/NFL superstars.

The "professors in the field" statement doesn't mean much.  There are professors of gender studies.

 

I don't think you understand academia-it's not based on what's practical.  Most universities have classics departments after all.  

Here is a link to the Stanford department of music:  https://music.stanford.edu/

It is actually a part of the academic program, while wrestling (or any other sport) is not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

I don't think you understand academia-it's not based on what's practical.  Most universities have classics departments after all.  

Here is a link to the Stanford department of music:  https://music.stanford.edu/

It is actually a part of the academic program, while wrestling (or any other sport) is not.  

LOL...I'm sure I know far more than you do, given that I work with a Conservatory and a symphony orchestra.  

And, given the expense of college, it's damn important to be practical.  Engineering over pre-marital cooking.

Edited by TheOhioState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

I agree that he probably was, but at the same time (as you clearly must know) foreign students are generally not going to immigrate.

Yes this is very true. In my experience, they're pretty eager to go home by the end of it haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheOhioState said:

LOL...I'm sure I know far more than you do, given that I work with a Conservatory and a symphony orchestra.  What's your musical connection...Cardi B?

Then I misread your post-apologies.  I thought you were arguing that Stanford should weight athletics on an equal ground to music in admissions because music is a trade and not lucrative.  I guess you were just generally highlighting how difficult it is to be a professional classical musician-and you are 100% correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdowntown said:

You really think that people that strongly associate the concept of masculinity with toxicity like the sport of wrestling as much as other people on average?

I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the group as a whole. There are many great fans of the sport who are SJW's and that is great. I am not saying otherwise.

Maybe this did have nothing to do with it. I admit it freely as a possibility. But I don't think the athletic department was honest or transparent in their release, and then I am left wondering "what are they hiding?"

I guarantee you that nobody thinks about the sport of wrestling and immediately finds it offensive because they associate it with being raped. Silliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billyhoyle said:

That’s not why they don’t do it. They do it because the difference between somebody who scores 1500 and 1600 on the SAT is basically meaningless when it comes to academics, since the SAT only covers very basic concepts. And Valedictorians aren’t always taking the most challenging classes. So somebody with a 1500 and 5s on BC Calculus, AP Physics C, etc, is a better student than a valedictorian with a 1600 and no AP credit.  

A world class musician can’t be compared to an athlete. Music is actually part of the curriculum at Stanford. There are professors in that field. Athletics are extracurricular and not relevant to academics. 

Y'all missed my point completely.  Forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An old acquaintance of mine was a fairly good athlete, but also tremendously funny, and just a joy to be around.  His dad was a Harvard grad and was the headmaster at one of the most prestigious prep schools in the world.  My acquaintance applied to Harvard almost as a joke.  He was somewhat shocked when he was accepted.  His father explained it to him; " Son: Harvard is like a finely oiled machine.  You will be  the grease on its gears."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

An old acquaintance of mine was a fairly good athlete, but also tremendously funny, and just a joy to be around.  His dad was a Harvard grad and was the headmaster at one of the most prestigious prep schools in the world.  My acquaintance applied to Harvard almost as a joke.  He was somewhat shocked when he was accepted.  His father explained it to him; " Son: Harvard is like a finely oiled machine.  You will be  the grease on its gears."

I might know your acquaintance's dad. There should have been zero shock that he was accepted. The most prestigious prep schools in the world are critically important feeders to Harvard (and its peer schools). That kid absolutely got not only legacy consideration, but also further special consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I agree with Plasmodium that I think the biggest reason is that athletes (and their likely lower academic credentials) make up too much of the student body.  Note this doesn’t mean that everyone has to have a 1600 SAT...just that they may not want anyone except for the football and basketball team to be less than 1100 or whatever that number is.

In relation to the OP and as I think you alluded to, if it had anything to do with “SJW’s” wrestling (and probably field hockey) should be kept because they have more likely to come from underprivileged backgrounds.

And if it were about the overall school “brand” I don’t really buy that since NCAA championships and Olympic medals help the brand too, even if they’re in niche sports.

I would guess those academic credentials tend to correlate with what you talk about in terms of future donation potential which could certainly be a factor and yes could potentially have more value than a $12M endowment.

But then what I’m confused about is why would they cut fencing, rowing, squash and synchronized swimming?  Aren’t those rich people sports likely to create future donations (and maybe even have people that could meet the academic standards of their other students, although maybe I am overestimating the “richness” of those sports)?  Note I didn’t include sailing because I’m sure Operation Varsity Blues may have had something to do with that.

Do not associate what I said with support of the article overall. I do not generally agree with it. I pointed out that the notion that financial considerations (mislabeled "greed" by the article) were at play was on point. Maybe "politics", whatever that means, were involved, maybe not. None of us know unless we happen to be a trustee or on the enrollment management or development teams at Stanford at the moment.

The thing you get most wrong is that the Stanford "brand" isn't a critical consideration. Where to begin.... It is ultimately ALL about the brand. The brand is an elite school's main product, and in Stanford's case, it is a truly rare commodity with arguably a handful of other brands of similar worth and second only to Harvard. Brand is why less than 25 or so schools practically oligopolize the university endowment market. Why do you think SAT scores, GPAs, class rank, acceptance rate, yield, Nobel laureates on staff, famous alumni, ... and any other quantitative proxy of elitism matter at all? They all serve the primary purpose of building brand. Of course, when you attract the most money and the most qualified students, the academic product is going to be exceptional. And when you aspire to educate "the complete student" and applications are reviewed "holistically", the resulting experience is also well-rounded. But don't mistake which is the tail and which is the dog. The tail does not wag the dog. 

I don't think it's an issue of "dumb jock" (per Stanford standards) count. Stanford doesn't want to be Duke or Notre Dame, but it also doesn't want to be Caltech. Athletics have always been an important part of Stanford. It's one area where they are clearly superior to Harvard, and it is a point of pride more than shame--rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned. They didn't all of a sudden need to cut 11 sports because there were too many athletes bringing down the incoming class GPA or SATs. Even with that dead weight, Stanford's incoming class is at or a couple of spots off the very top of the academic league tables anyway for rankings purposes.

If Stanford wanted to increase athlete GPAs, they would simply stop doing favors for as many sports and not have to cut them. So maybe they have zero AAs this year as opposed to two. Who cares? Not Stanford, as they've clearly shown.

I think it has more to do with how valuable those athlete slots are. The world is getting bigger, the number of centimillionaires and billionaires is increasing, the number of talented kids is increasing, but Stanford undergrad is not increasing. You can only create so many professional schools to leverage the brand's earning power before you start to reach diminishing returns or even dilute the brand. So the value of each undergrad slot increases every year and has done so practically every single year since the school's founding. The opportunity cost of tying up such a valuable slot to a wrestler is increasingly not justifiable. So what is Stanford to do? Also, DEI is very much a thing, especially in today's academic world. It's basically THE thing this year. For reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, diversifying your student body means taking a hit on some important academic metrics (e.g. SAT scores). And there are only so many slots. (For the record: I am FOR some affirmative action, so this is not a political comment in any way, just the truth.)

As for your specific questions/comments, here are my thoughts:

  • NCAA championships and Olympic medals help the brand too. Yes, but some much more than others. When Summer Sauders graced the cover of Sports Illustrated back in her heyday, she did more good for the brand than the entire history of all the sports that were just cut at Stanford combined. Ditto for Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie of golf fame. When Stanford has a winning season and wins a bowl game, that's worth 3 or 5 NCAA championships in any of the cut sports.
  • Why were some rich people sports being cut?
    • Maybe Varsity Blues was a factor, maybe not, who knows. Harvard fencing has been caught red-handed a la Stanford sailing. Rich parents bought their way in through the fencing loophole, both above board and illicitly (one parent bought the coach's house for way above fair market value, for example). But Harvard still has fencing. New coach, though.
    • Aside from whichever the pet sports are for the alumni base (usually a major sport like football, basketball, etc.), "rich people sports" are the ones that drive the most admissions favors. If you are going to let an underqualified athlete in, a rich one (whether actually rich or beneficial to a relationship to rich alumni sponsors) will get preference over a poor one. There is a difference between a small sport that attracts the occasional big donor versus a sport that already has a base of alumni patrons or otherwise increases the school's profile in a material way. The former (small) luxuries don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Unless you are one of the "sponsored" sports with a track record of financial contribution, even traditionally "rich people sports" can get the axe. 
    • On the flip side, traditionally blue collar sports like wrestling can be considered sponsored sports in some schools. For wrestling, see Cornell, Princeton, and to a lesser degree Penn and Columbia. Wrestlers at those schools are lucky that their sport happened to produce alumni like Steve Friedman, Mike Novogratz, Andrew Barth, David Pottruck, et al. Those guys and their peers are the difference between wrestling at those schools and wrestling at Stanford, Yale, and Dartmouth.
    • Title IX is still a thing. If you are going to cut any sport, there is collateral damage to be done to ensure compliance with Title IX. Obviously, they cut both men's and women's sports, and it's possible Title IX might've forced a decision they might not have wanted to make in isolation but had to all things considered.
Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Do not associate what I said with support of the article overall. I do not generally agree with it. I pointed out that the notion that financial considerations (mislabeled "greed" by the article) were at play was on point. Maybe "politics", whatever that means, were involved, maybe not. None of us know unless we happen to be a trustee or on the enrollment management or development teams at Stanford at the moment.

The thing you get most wrong is that the Stanford "brand" isn't a critical consideration. Where to begin.... It is ultimately ALL about the brand. The brand is an elite school's main product, and in Stanford's case, it is a truly rare commodity with arguably a handful of other brands of similar worth and second only to Harvard. Brand is why less than 25 or so schools practically oligopolize the university endowment market. Why do you think SAT scores, GPAs, class rank, acceptance rate, yield, Nobel laureates on staff, famous alumni, ... and any other quantitative proxy of elitism matter at all? They all serve the primary purpose of building brand. Of course, when you attract the most money and the most qualified students, the academic product is going to be exceptional. And when you aspire to educate "the complete student" and applications are reviewed "holistically", the resulting experience is also well-rounded. But don't mistake which is the tail and which is the dog. The tail does not wag the dog. 

I don't think it's an issue of "dumb jock" (per Stanford standards) count. Stanford doesn't want to be Duke or Notre Dame, but it also doesn't want to be Caltech. Athletics have always been an important part of Stanford. It's one area where they are clearly superior to Harvard, and it is a point of pride more than shame--rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned. They didn't all of a sudden need to cut 11 sports because there were too many athletes bringing down the incoming class GPA or SATs. Even with that dead weight, Stanford's incoming class is at or a couple of spots off the very top of the academic league tables anyway for rankings purposes.

If Stanford wanted to increase athlete GPAs, they would simply stop doing favors for as many sports and not have to cut them. So maybe they have zero AAs this year as opposed to two. Who cares? Not Stanford, as they've clearly shown.

I think it has more to do with how valuable those athlete slots are. The world is getting bigger, the number of centimillionaires and billionaires is increasing, the number of talented kids is increasing, but Stanford undergrad is not increasing. You can only create so many professional schools to leverage the brand's earning power before you start to reach diminishing returns or even dilute the brand. So the value of each undergrad slot increases every year and has done so practically every single year since the school's founding. The opportunity cost of tying up such a valuable slot to a wrestler is increasingly not justifiable. So what is Stanford to do? Also, DEI is very much a thing, especially in today's academic world. It's basically THE thing this year. For reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, diversifying your student body means taking a hit on some important academic metrics (e.g. SAT scores). And there are only so many slots. (For the record: I am FOR some affirmative action, so this is not a political comment in any way, just the truth.)

As for your specific questions/comments, here are my thoughts:

  • NCAA championships and Olympic medals help the brand too. Yes, but some much more than others. When Summer Sauders graced the cover of Sports Illustrated back in her heyday, she did more good for the brand than the entire history of all the sports that were just cut at Stanford combined. Ditto for Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie of golf fame. When Stanford has a winning season and wins a bowl game, that's worth 3 or 5 NCAA championships in any of the cut sports.
  • Why were some rich people sports being cut?
    • Maybe Varsity Blues was a factor, maybe not, who knows. Harvard fencing has been caught red-handed a la Stanford sailing. Rich parents bought their way in through the fencing loophole, both above board and illicitly (one parent bought the coach's house for way above fair market value, for example). But Harvard still has fencing. New coach, though.
    • Aside from whichever the pet sports are for the alumni base (usually a major sport like football, basketball, etc.), "rich people sports" are the ones that drive the most admissions favors. If you are going to let an underqualified athlete in, a rich one (whether actually rich or beneficial to a relationship to rich alumni sponsors) will get preference over a poor one. There is a difference between a small sport that attracts the occasional big donor versus a sport that already has a base of alumni patrons or otherwise increases the school's profile in a material way. The former (small) luxuries don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Unless you are one of the "sponsored" sports with a track record of financial contribution, even traditionally "rich people sports" can get the axe. 
    • On the flip side, traditionally blue collar sports like wrestling can be considered sponsored sports in some schools. For wrestling, see Cornell, Princeton, and to a lesser degree Penn and Columbia. Wrestlers at those schools are lucky that their sport happened to produce alumni like Steve Friedman, Mike Novogratz, Andrew Barth, David Pottruck, et al. Those guys and their peers are the difference between wrestling at those schools and wrestling at Stanford, Yale, and Dartmouth.
    • Title IX is still a thing. If you are going to cut any sport, there is collateral damage to be done to ensure compliance with Title IX. Obviously, they cut both men's and women's sports, and it's possible Title IX might've forced a decision they might not have wanted to make in isolation but had to all things considered.

Fair points on the rich people sports, but after all those words I’m not really sure what your overall point is.  

You think the main reason Stanford dropped these 11 sports is because they wanted to open spots for people that would lead to more future donations, correct?   I’d argue that wouldn’t always be what’s best for the “brand” which is what it looks like you said it’s “all about.”

Side note but I’d think Duke probably isn’t a bad comparison for Stanford, as they are also a top academic school, and I think it’s clear Stanford wants to be good in football and basketball (yes I know Duke isn’t that great at football).    Interestingly it’s been rumored that the current Stanford AD Bernard Muir is a candidate for the same role at Duke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Do not associate what I said with support of the article overall. I do not generally agree with it. I pointed out that the notion that financial considerations (mislabeled "greed" by the article) were at play was on point. Maybe "politics", whatever that means, were involved, maybe not. None of us know unless we happen to be a trustee or on the enrollment management or development teams at Stanford at the moment.

The thing you get most wrong is that the Stanford "brand" isn't a critical consideration. Where to begin.... It is ultimately ALL about the brand. The brand is an elite school's main product, and in Stanford's case, it is a truly rare commodity with arguably a handful of other brands of similar worth and second only to Harvard. Brand is why less than 25 or so schools practically oligopolize the university endowment market. Why do you think SAT scores, GPAs, class rank, acceptance rate, yield, Nobel laureates on staff, famous alumni, ... and any other quantitative proxy of elitism matter at all? They all serve the primary purpose of building brand. Of course, when you attract the most money and the most qualified students, the academic product is going to be exceptional. And when you aspire to educate "the complete student" and applications are reviewed "holistically", the resulting experience is also well-rounded. But don't mistake which is the tail and which is the dog. The tail does not wag the dog. 

I don't think it's an issue of "dumb jock" (per Stanford standards) count. Stanford doesn't want to be Duke or Notre Dame, but it also doesn't want to be Caltech. Athletics have always been an important part of Stanford. It's one area where they are clearly superior to Harvard, and it is a point of pride more than shame--rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned. They didn't all of a sudden need to cut 11 sports because there were too many athletes bringing down the incoming class GPA or SATs. Even with that dead weight, Stanford's incoming class is at or a couple of spots off the very top of the academic league tables anyway for rankings purposes.

If Stanford wanted to increase athlete GPAs, they would simply stop doing favors for as many sports and not have to cut them. So maybe they have zero AAs this year as opposed to two. Who cares? Not Stanford, as they've clearly shown.

I think it has more to do with how valuable those athlete slots are. The world is getting bigger, the number of centimillionaires and billionaires is increasing, the number of talented kids is increasing, but Stanford undergrad is not increasing. You can only create so many professional schools to leverage the brand's earning power before you start to reach diminishing returns or even dilute the brand. So the value of each undergrad slot increases every year and has done so practically every single year since the school's founding. The opportunity cost of tying up such a valuable slot to a wrestler is increasingly not justifiable. So what is Stanford to do? Also, DEI is very much a thing, especially in today's academic world. It's basically THE thing this year. For reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, diversifying your student body means taking a hit on some important academic metrics (e.g. SAT scores). And there are only so many slots. (For the record: I am FOR some affirmative action, so this is not a political comment in any way, just the truth.)

As for your specific questions/comments, here are my thoughts:

  • NCAA championships and Olympic medals help the brand too. Yes, but some much more than others. When Summer Sauders graced the cover of Sports Illustrated back in her heyday, she did more good for the brand than the entire history of all the sports that were just cut at Stanford combined. Ditto for Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie of golf fame. When Stanford has a winning season and wins a bowl game, that's worth 3 or 5 NCAA championships in any of the cut sports.
  • Why were some rich people sports being cut?
    • Maybe Varsity Blues was a factor, maybe not, who knows. Harvard fencing has been caught red-handed a la Stanford sailing. Rich parents bought their way in through the fencing loophole, both above board and illicitly (one parent bought the coach's house for way above fair market value, for example). But Harvard still has fencing. New coach, though.
    • Aside from whichever the pet sports are for the alumni base (usually a major sport like football, basketball, etc.), "rich people sports" are the ones that drive the most admissions favors. If you are going to let an underqualified athlete in, a rich one (whether actually rich or beneficial to a relationship to rich alumni sponsors) will get preference over a poor one. There is a difference between a small sport that attracts the occasional big donor versus a sport that already has a base of alumni patrons or otherwise increases the school's profile in a material way. The former (small) luxuries don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Unless you are one of the "sponsored" sports with a track record of financial contribution, even traditionally "rich people sports" can get the axe. 
    • On the flip side, traditionally blue collar sports like wrestling can be considered sponsored sports in some schools. For wrestling, see Cornell, Princeton, and to a lesser degree Penn and Columbia. Wrestlers at those schools are lucky that their sport happened to produce alumni like Steve Friedman, Mike Novogratz, Andrew Barth, David Pottruck, et al. Those guys and their peers are the difference between wrestling at those schools and wrestling at Stanford, Yale, and Dartmouth.
    • Title IX is still a thing. If you are going to cut any sport, there is collateral damage to be done to ensure compliance with Title IX. Obviously, they cut both men's and women's sports, and it's possible Title IX might've forced a decision they might not have wanted to make in isolation but had to all things considered.

Very insightful write up.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Fair points on the rich people sports, but after all those words I’m not really sure what your overall point is.  

You think the main reason Stanford dropped these 11 sports is because they wanted to open spots for people that would lead to more future donations, correct?   I’d argue that wouldn’t always be what’s best for the “brand” which is what it looks like you said it’s “all about.”

Side note but I’d think Duke probably isn’t a bad comparison for Stanford, as they are also a top academic school, and I think it’s clear Stanford wants to be good in football and basketball (yes I know Duke isn’t that great at football).    Interestingly it’s been rumored that the current Stanford AD Bernard Muir is a candidate for the same role at Duke.

I'm surprised it's this hard to understand. The main reason elite schools do any enrollment management of any kind, including dropping sports, is to develop the brand and thereby optimize its monetization. The two (brand and monetization) are inextricably linked.

Nobody here knows the precise reason why each of those 11 unprofitable and relatively unsupported sports were cut. I'm sure some had specific reasons unique to them. But the salient point is that cutting 240 or so slots that get preference in admissions frees up those slots to be redeployed elsewhere, in an area that is better for the Stanford brand and therefore the school overall. Where might those slots be redeployed? It's anyone's guess, but I can assure you they will be redeployed in areas that drive better financial performance while also upholding Stanford's brand as elite, progressive, well-rounded/"holistic", etc. Some possible areas include development candidates, important legacy students, prominent foreign students, more diverse students (not merely culturally but also in area of talent), or even more "dumb jocks" in sports important to Stanford (wrestling not being one of them). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the idea that Duke isn't a bad comparison to Stanford misses my point in bringing the two schools up. Duke wants to be like Stanford, not the other way around. The only school that Stanford wants to be like, and even that can be argued at this point, is Harvard (which has not quite double the endowment of Stanford, testament to its unique brand). Duke is solidly an "Ivy+" now, but there is significant separation still between the two schools. One is Ferrari, the other Audi (both great luxury brands). Duke considering the Stanford AD after he was embroiled in the admissions scandal shows how much Duke wants to be Stanford, and not the other way around.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jdowntown said:

I searched briefly for hard evidence, one way or the other and did not find any.

Anecdotal evidence: wrestling is a very masculine sport with 2 people in direct physical contact trying force the other into favorable positions. It is the opposite of "safe and controlled". Compare something like soccer where the point is to kick a ball into a net as opposed to forcibly holding down someone's shoulders against the ground. So sure anecdotally, just hearing the phrase "forcibly holding someone down to the ground" probably triggers many sjw's to think about rape.

If football did not bring all the money, crowds, and influence, they would probably try to stop it as well.

This is pretty ridiculous.  I am a clinical social worker by profession and have been active in advocating for social change in a number of areas that I felt were important.  I have also been involved in wrestling and coaching wrestling for most of my adult life.  I can assure you that the sport appeals to people across a wide range of philosophical, political, ethnic, racial, and geographic backgrounds.  Furthermore advocating that Stanford Wrestling not be dropped because it is unjust or not fair to the athletes effected fits the criteria for "social justice advocacy".

 

Edited by balanceseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

I'm surprised it's this hard to understand. The main reason elite schools do any enrollment management of any kind, including dropping sports, is to develop the brand and thereby optimize its monetization. The two (brand and monetization) are inextricably linked.

Nobody here knows the precise reason why each of those 11 unprofitable and relatively unsupported sports were cut. I'm sure some had specific reasons unique to them. But the salient point is that cutting 240 or so slots that get preference in admissions frees up those slots to be redeployed elsewhere, in an area that is better for the Stanford brand and therefore the school overall. Where might those slots be redeployed? It's anyone's guess, but I can assure you they will be redeployed in areas that drive better financial performance while also upholding Stanford's brand as elite, progressive, well-rounded/"holistic", etc. Some possible areas include development candidates, important legacy students, prominent foreign students, more diverse students (not merely culturally but also in area of talent), or even more "dumb jocks" in sports important to Stanford (wrestling not being one of them). 

It was hard to understand because you were writing 10 paragraph posts with contradictory points.  At least this post was more clear - you don’t know. 

Of course financials and brand are linked, but not always.   

That’s what they’re trying to do, but we don’t know for sure that Stanford will succeed in “driving better financial performance while also upholding Stanford’s brand.”  Apparently one of the sports they still care about is swimming - hopefully they don’t admit another Brock Turner as I’m sure that wasn’t good for their brand.  

In regards to one of your earlier points I know it’s been brought up in other threads about the possibility of Stanford just not bending admission standards for athletes in the sports they don’t care about.   It seems the consensus was that would likely result in a team that’s not competitive which of course Stanford doesn’t want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Also, the idea that Duke isn't a bad comparison to Stanford misses my point in bringing the two schools up. Duke wants to be like Stanford, not the other way around. The only school that Stanford wants to be like, and even that can be argued at this point, is Harvard (which has not quite double the endowment of Stanford, testament to its unique brand). Duke is solidly an "Ivy+" now, but there is significant separation still between the two schools. One is Ferrari, the other Audi (both great luxury brands). Duke considering the Stanford AD after he was embroiled in the admissions scandal shows how much Duke wants to be Stanford, and not the other way around.

OK, I can agree that Stanford doesn’t want to be Duke.  But it doesn’t seem that Muir’s job is in jeopardy is it?   Although I guess from a strictly athletic POV that Duke would be a step up from Stanford.

Side note but of course as wrestling fan definitely hoping that doesn’t happen since  many seem to think Duke’s team could be on the chopping block.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

OK, I can agree that Stanford doesn’t want to be Duke.  But it doesn’t seem that Muir’s job is in jeopardy is it?   Although I guess from a strictly athletic POV that Duke would be a step up from Stanford.

 

https://www.bestcollegereviews.org/features/most-successful-college-athletics-programs/#:~:text=The Ohio State University – Columbus%2C Ohio&text=In fact%2C CBS Sports even,during the 2014-15 season.

https://247sports.com/ContentGallery/Top-25-college-programs-ranked-by-athletic-success-119649026/#119649026_25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

I'm surprised it's this hard to understand. The main reason elite schools do any enrollment management of any kind, including dropping sports, is to develop the brand and thereby optimize its monetization. The two (brand and monetization) are inextricably linked.

Nobody here knows the precise reason why each of those 11 unprofitable and relatively unsupported sports were cut. I'm sure some had specific reasons unique to them. But the salient point is that cutting 240 or so slots that get preference in admissions frees up those slots to be redeployed elsewhere, in an area that is better for the Stanford brand and therefore the school overall. Where might those slots be redeployed? It's anyone's guess, but I can assure you they will be redeployed in areas that drive better financial performance while also upholding Stanford's brand as elite, progressive, well-rounded/"holistic", etc. Some possible areas include development candidates, important legacy students, prominent foreign students, more diverse students (not merely culturally but also in area of talent), or even more "dumb jocks" in sports important to Stanford (wrestling not being one of them). 

This is spot on. Cutting those spots is a huge value add, even if none of them went to donors and they all went to top students. Doing the latter would boost their US News rank, thereby increasing the value of the spots that they sell to donors. Of course many will go to donors. 
 

Anybody who understands Stanford/Harvard knows how asinine it is that the linked article blames “social justice” and “foreigners.” These schools aren’t remotely close to being as political as right wing news makes them out to be, and their alumni by and large become very fervent capitalists. 

5 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Also, the idea that Duke isn't a bad comparison to Stanford misses my point in bringing the two schools up. Duke wants to be like Stanford, not the other way around. The only school that Stanford wants to be like, and even that can be argued at this point, is Harvard (which has not quite double the endowment of Stanford, testament to its unique brand). Duke is solidly an "Ivy+" now, but there is significant separation still between the two schools. One is Ferrari, the other Audi (both great luxury brands). Duke considering the Stanford AD after he was embroiled in the admissions scandal shows how much Duke wants to be Stanford, and not the other way around.

Very true-because of the tech boom, Stanford/Harvard are in an arms race at this point with everyone else behind.
 

Part of this dynamic is that the UC system is so exceptionally good that there isn’t the same dynamic to go to private universities on the west coast-so Stanford is really the only one that has been able to do these types of shenanigans.

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Fair enough, although I was more thinking along the lines of football and basketball, which is pretty much all most AD’s care about, including Muir.  Also weren’t some of those Learfield Cup titles helped out by sports they cut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...