Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: How Stanford got to #5

  1. #16
    Fact of the matter is Stanford's academic reputation is a farce, because of inflated grades. The rest of the nation and world need to be informed of this. Why no one else but us Cal fans are aware of this, I don't know.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by paul916 View Post
    3) It's also a pretty nice lifestyle attending Stanford. Beautiful campus. Students are well taken care of. Small student body means you make a lot of friends and contacts. My guess is that in many classes it's not too difficult to achieve a gentleman's "C." All in all, pretty nice.
    Except at furd its a "Gentleman's B". even nicer...

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SanMateoBear View Post
    Except at furd its a "Gentleman's B". even nicer...
    Stanford B == Cal C. Grad schools don't care however. All they care is a 3.0 GPA. To them, Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Employers don't care either. Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Who gets screwed in the end? Cal students!

    Basically, it's like Cal paying you $30K to do a job while Stanford will give you $300K to perform the same job. When you're trying to buy that airline ticket, the airline doesn't care how much money you were paid to do a job, all they care is you pay the fare.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by matrixwalker View Post
    Stanford B == Cal C. Grad schools don't care however. All they care is a 3.0 GPA. To them, Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Employers don't care either. Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Who gets screwed in the end? Cal students!

    Basically, it's like Cal paying you $30K to do a job while Stanford will give you $300K to perform the same job. When you're trying to buy that airline ticket, the airline doesn't care how much money you were paid to do a job, all they care is you pay the fare.
    Exactly. Let's expose this fact to the world somehow.

  5. #20
    Stanford recruited well because they won games and went to a BCS bowl (not rocket science). As soon as Cal gets there, we will be in the same boat (not that boat!).

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by matrixwalker View Post
    Stanford B == Cal C. Grad schools don't care however. All they care is a 3.0 GPA. To them, Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Employers don't care either. Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Who gets screwed in the end? Cal students!

    Basically, it's like Cal paying you $30K to do a job while Stanford will give you $300K to perform the same job. When you're trying to buy that airline ticket, the airline doesn't care how much money you were paid to do a job, all they care is you pay the fare.
    Actually, many grad schools are well aware and do take the greater difficulty of obtaining the same grade at Cal versus Stanford into account.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    good academic rep, Sounds a lot like Cal but with two BCS games.Win and they will come. Its time to stop complaining or pointing to conspiracies. We need to win. Period.
    In a nutshell...exactly!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Les Richter (October 26, 1930 June 12, 2010)
    University of California All-America 1951

  8. #23
    Real Bear FCBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    good academic rep, Sounds a lot like Cal but with two BCS games.Win and they will come. Its time to stop complaining or pointing to conspiracies. We need to win. Period.
    Exactly....we need to stop the hating and start the emulating...

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    Actually, many grad schools are well aware and do take the greater difficulty of obtaining the same grade at Cal versus Stanford into account.
    The ones whose admissions officers are doing their jobs properly, that is.

    Unfortunately (as I've seen in my 6 years working in academia) lots of universities are full of administrator-types who have no skills other than shuffling paper and no motivation other than collecting a paycheck. Admissions offices are no exception.

    When the people making the decisions can't be bothered to spend an extra hour to research which schools have more grade inflation than others, you get dumb simplifying rules like "> 3.0 GPA good, < 3.0 bad." that put Cal at a disadvantage. It is what it is.

  10. #25

    Hate to say it, but

    Quote Originally Posted by matrixwalker View Post
    Stanford B == Cal C. Grad schools don't care however. All they care is a 3.0 GPA. To them, Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Employers don't care either. Stanford 3.0 == Cal 3.0. Who gets screwed in the end? Cal students!

    Basically, it's like Cal paying you $30K to do a job while Stanford will give you $300K to perform the same job. When you're trying to buy that airline ticket, the airline doesn't care how much money you were paid to do a job, all they care is you pay the fare.

    To most of the business world and even many grad schools...

    Cal B = SF State B

    Sad part is, even Cal's own admissions process is this way. I knew more than one person who was not able to get into Cal for undergrad who then went to Cal for grad school because they got a good GPA at an academically inferior school while intellectually superior Cal undergrads ended up at inferior graduate schools.


    To be honest, knowing what I know now, I would not go to Cal for undergrad. I would go to some small private school, get a 4.0, and go to Cal for grad school. Cal is ultra-competitive in many fields. My professors (Math Department) felt that if you weren't going to make major contributions to science then you weren't worthwhile. When I told my advisor I was not going to go to grad school (immediately - I later went) because I got a job in Silicon Valley the look on his face was very patronizing.


    I find it odd that I never got less than an 'A' at any school I ever attended (three others now including UCLA grad school) and yet at Cal I was fighting for B's. I think only someone who went to Cal understands this. I actually had a corporate recruiter for a large bank look at my transcript (back before I had a lot of experience) and tell me to my face: "You don't look like you're very good at Math. I see a lot of B's here." I wanted to strangle the woman.


    Cal would be well-served to nurture academic talent instead of destroy it. Yes, other schools such at Caltech are also sadistic with the goal of pushing bright students to greater heights, but I think maybe Stanford is right about not destroying the academic reputations of its students - most of which really ARE smart. It doesn't seem to hurt their fortunes any that they weren't pushed quite so hard.
    Last edited by dimitrig; 02-25-2012 at 07:54 PM.

  11. #26
    Go to haas.

    Good content, but pretty damn easy to get As to be honest. Wife is an engineer...very different story.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by OskiMD View Post
    FTFY.

    The biggest factor in Stanford's reversal of fortune is obviously the lowering of their 'lofty' academic standards. Drop those and the Farm can certainly attract talent which they couldn't have gotten in the past due to the entrance requirements.
    1. Change in admissions requirements--new head of admissions is a football fan.
    2. Change in recruiting process (hire your Scout/Bootleg website guy for an recruiting position, offer scores of guys early).
    3. Hire good coaches who adopt strategies that take advantage of what you have/can get (went big, when the rest of the world went fast)--win and go to BCS bowls.
    4. Have admissions deny low rated recruits regardless of academic qualifications when a scholarship is needed for a 4 or 5 star recruit with worse academic qualifications just before LOI day.
    Last edited by calumnus; 02-26-2012 at 08:51 PM.

  13. #28

    Ummm

    The Bootleg guy you referenced was hired as an employee of the football program in the Dept. of Athletics. Not the admissions dept. His involvement with "admissions" is spotting recruits with interest and the academics earlier in the process, not simply offering "scores of kids early.' He was hired by Harbaugh when JH first came on campus. He implemented an ultimately more successful recruiting method than used before.
    Last edited by BeteRouge; 02-26-2012 at 05:48 PM.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by BeteRouge View Post
    The Bootleg guy you referenced was hired as an employee of the football program in the Dept. of Athletics. Not the admissions dept. His involvement with "admissions" is spotting recruits with interest and the academics earlier in the process, not simply offering "scores of kids early.' He was hired by Harbaugh when JH first came on campus. He implemented an ultimately more successful recruiting method than used before.
    Of course, I meant recruiting process (and a recruiting position) as the second factor (admissions was the first). And yes, he implemented a much more research-based recruiting method that has been far more successful (especially in terms of "stars"), which is why I listed it as one of four factors for getting to a #5 class. The recruiting process also changed, previously Stanford only offered a scholarship AFTER the recruit cleared admissions, with Harbaugh that changed dramatically, with Stanford usually having more early offers out than any other Pac-10 school. Shaw may be scaling that back, but Scout still lists Stanford as already having 26 offers out for the 2013 class (kids who just finished their first semester, junior year). LINK far more than before Harbaugh showed up. Scout even shows Stanford having offered and secured a verbal for a 2014 commit! A kid who is half way through his sophomore year of high school! That was unheard of previously.

    Tedford used to offer few kids early, usually waiting to see what they did as seniors, but this year we appear to be joining the trend of offering lots of kids early too.
    Last edited by calumnus; 02-26-2012 at 09:10 PM.

  15. #30

    Offering recruits before acceptance

    Carries risk for both parties. The coy " apply and get admitted and we'll give you an offer" pitch became less and less effective in today's overheated, competitive recruiting scene. Stanford changed and--for the most part-- it has had a positive effect. The downside is one of your favorite myths: that Stanford rejects certain applicants to clear a spot for other athletes. Won't argue about that here. You're gonna believe what you believe with no inclination to believe otherwise.

    Relevant to the change in approach, however, it changed recruit psychology and, from most available evidence, recruit academic performance in HS. Having the offer in hand-- and, critically, coached on exactly what academic areas needed improvement while there was still time-- produced better grades and test scores by HS juniors and senior athletes. Many recent Stanford signees took more challenging courses, AP offerings and SAT/ACT retakes to improve their chances. Of course the scholarship offers are conditional on acceptance, but just having it in hand seems to be the key.

    Random add: the Bootleg guy does more than just scout talent w/ academics. That was an approach he pitched, but he is increasingly involved in day-to-day football program and athletic dept. administration.
    Just out of curiousity, ask yourselves: Would Cal's athletic dept. benefit from having a Bear Insider move inside the walls and represent an outsider's viewpoint?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •