THE PAC 12 THREAD v.3

[nddulac]

A Gentlemam's C at Stanford is an A at most schools including ND

No it isn't. A "gentleman's C"is an F at any school that takes education seriously.

 

[SUBuddha]

The smart guys is fightin'.

I don't fight with kids on the short bus TF12. That is just mean to do. I actually respect the academics (for athletes) at SC more than ND. ND was one of my fall backs, right behind SC and the USAF academy.

 

[SUBuddha]

No it isn't. A "gentleman's C"is an F at any school that takes education seriously.

ND get your facts straight, Stanford does not fail many students, but they opt for no credit over the F. They grade on a curve, which means just as many F's as A's, the difference is you can ask to be dropped (shows as No Credit on your transcript) up to a week before the final (at least when I was there). This means that while many people graduate, it may take them longer if they fail many classes. Then again, Stanford requires people to be eligible for admissions before they get in. For instance Barry Sanders (the younger) took the ACT 5 times to get in. They also require 2 AP classes Jr. and Sr. Year (4 total) to even be considered.

Kelley's recent comments indicate this is not true for the whyrish.

 

[nddulac]

ND get your facts straight, Stanford does not fail many students, but they opt for no credit over the F.

How do they feel about run-on sentences?

They grade on a curve, which means just as many F's as A's, the difference is you can ask to be dropped (shows as No Credit on your transcript) up to a week before the final (at least when I was there).

All schools allow student to withdraw from courses. Granted, a week before finals is pretty late compared to most, but by no means unique.

But let's examine the curved grading scheme. If in fact they graded ona symmetric curve (as many As and Fs, and I will assume as many Bs as Ds for the sake of symmetry) the average GPA would be 2.0 and roughly a quarter of the school would be on academic probation in any given quarter. But given that the Freshman retention rate (according to US News and World Report) is 98%, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Then again, Stanford requires people to be eligible for admissions before they get in. For instance Barry Sanders (the younger) took the ACT 5 times to get in. They also require 2 AP classes Jr. and Sr. Year (4 total) to even be considered.

I have taught at schools more selective than Stanford, and still had to fail people. While selective admission will lead to a skewed distribution student abilities, it will will not eliminate the (albeit small) fraction of students who despite an impressive paper trail, are unprepared to do college-level work.

My comment about "gentileman's C" was based on comments shared with me by a Stanford graduate. I'm sorry, but it left me unimpressed. Stanford has always struck me as a place that will make damned sure you graduate once you have been admitted.

 

[seahawksfan234]

In before @BeaverShaver says "He drowned in a pool of Huskies tears."

With the lack of optimism I have for this season, they were probably just my tears.

 

[socaljim242]

USC gets a commitment from 3* Keanu Saleapaga. I've seen him play at least three times (my sons HS plays La Mirada). The kid is big 6'6 and close to 265 lbs but very little fat on him. Great frame and good motor. Would have had more pub if he was at a football school.

 

[bamabear82]

what happened to Mamba

You not hear? He and Thumper were the same person.

Spoiler

 

[SUBuddha]

How do they feel about run-on sentences?


All schools allow student to withdraw from courses. Granted, a week before finals is pretty late compared to most, but by no means unique.

But let's examine the curved grading scheme. If in fact they graded ona symmetric curve (as many As and Fs, and I will assume as many Bs as Ds for the sake of symmetry) the average GPA would be 2.0 and roughly a quarter of the school would be on academic probation in any given quarter. But given that the Freshman retention rate (according to US News and World Report) is 98%, that doesn't seem to be the case.


I have taught at schools more selective than Stanford, and still had to fail people. While selective admission will lead to a skewed distribution student abilities, it will will not eliminate the (albeit small) fraction of students who despite an impressive paper trail, are unprepared to do college-level work.

My comment about "gentileman's C" was based on comments shared with me by a Stanford graduate. I'm sorry, but it left me unimpressed. Stanford has always struck me as a place that will make damned sure you graduate once you have been admitted.

Run on sentences? Just fine, bourbon is my co-pilot!

Probation is 1.8, or was when I was there, I finished freshman year with a 2.2. To be clear, I was taking 22 units and playing lacrosse and in ROTC, I thought I was a stud, and found out that everyone there was just as smart, and most were more intelligent, than me. I did graduate with a 3.6 once I figured out I was not as smart as my peers and actually had to work hard to compete. I have found, from talking to students there, that this not uncommon. Big fish in a small pond (academically) becomes the average fish in a really big pond.

I teach at a state university in the P12 and fail about 6% of my students every year, though I am not allowed to do it on a curve. If it was a curved (normal distribution) I would fail about 12%. The fact is, Stanford does have a skewed distribution to the right tail. This is though, as you point out, due to selective admissions.

Your comment based on one grad discounts all the grads I know. Additionally, you need to keep in mind that all colleges, should, as a teaching faculty, try to help students graduate. Privates have less impetus to do so, since the state does not mandate graduation rates, but, the fact remains, that we should try to help anyone who is admitted to succeed.

That does not mean artificially inflating grades, it means faculty should teach and try to help students to learn. If they learn they should be able to pass. I do not give a shit about the students that do not try, but I will bust my ass for students that give it their all and are under prepared. Kind of like the ND "student" athletes. The big difference is that at Stanford, even the athletes have to get admitted on the same playing field as anyone else. At ND if you are an athlete and have at least decent grades they will admit you, and then fail you out. Who is doing more for their athletes NDdulac? The school who pushes them to succeed on an even playing field or the one who admits less qualified students (Cal and ND come to mind) and then kick them out if they are not starters, or is surprised when they cheat?

 

[SUBuddha]

I am posting this from another thread because it takes to long to rewrite. Below is a brief summary of the Stanford admissions process. It is over simplified, however, it is, for the most part, factually accurate.

Wall of Text to Follow:

tl,dr= Harbaugh is a good coach and recruiter. His Standford numbers prove it given the difficulty with getting athletes into the program.

I have been informed that KT is a long time, and quality poster. Keep in mind that I am relatively new and rarely stray from the P-12 thread, so my bias is obvious. However, I pay close attention to college sports and education (I teach at a PAC university) including university rankings and admissions etc. All of that said, I will take her comments, and some of the others here, with a grain of salt. Ignorance of schools outside of your conference is not uncommon, nor is it all that big of a deal.

In terms of Harbaugh, he did amazing things at my alma mater. Things that not even Denny Green or Bill Walsh could do with the academic requirements in place at Stanford. Keep in mind, Stanford has to recruit nation wide due to the academic requirements. That is to say, there are not enough high level players who are interested in Stanford, and who can get into the school, just on the west coast to fill an entire scholarship roster. The current roster, found here Football - Roster - GoStanford.com shows Stanford, this year, had players from at least 25 different states.

People like to harp on the idea that Stanford does not hold football players to the same standards as other students, this is, however, not truly the case. Stanford uses a sliding scale that is based on the number of applicants and 3 other components, namely GPA (adjusted to the traditional 4.0 scale), test scores and extracurricular activities. Additionally, to even be eligible for enrollment all applicants must have taken at least 1 AP class Jr. year (a new requirement in the last couple years) and 2 their senior year (this is how Stanford fans know if a recruit is serious, the AP enrollment). If applicants do not have the AP courses their applications are rejected automatically.

Here is how the scale system works. Stanford takes the applicants that have the AP requirements met and puts them in a pool. Then based on the size of the class they can admit, and the number of applicants that year, they set the bar for admission. GPA, test scores and extracurricular activities are assigned a score from 1-10, with ten being best. So a student who has a perfect 4.0 gets a 10 there. Then test scores are scaled with a perfect SAT or ACT being a 10 (1600 math and verbal SAT, 36 on the ACT) and percentile ranks for test scores being used to determine the cutoff for scale numbers below 10 (e.g. if the 90th percentile on the ACT that year was 33 that would be a 9 etc.). Extracurricular activities get the same scale. For instance, in my era, an Olympian such as Summer Sanders might get a 10 on this scale, but so might someone who is a world class violinist or computer programer coming out of high school.

This gives each applicant a score from 1-30, in years that there are more applications or a need for a smaller class (average freshman class size is 1600-1800 students) the score needed goes up or down. Last year with record application numbers the scale may have been set at say a 26. This means a 5* athlete in football would still have needed a 3.7 or above and at least a 30 on the ACT. In contrast a student with limited extracurricular activity would need a 4.0 and a 34 on the ACT.

In terms of academic image in athletics, generally Stanford is recruiting against ND, Northwestern, Vandy etc. In terms of actual admissions, they are recruiting against Harvard, Yale, MIT, the military academies etc.

If all of this makes sense to you, you are a better person than I because it took me a long time, and having friends in admissions at 4 PAC universities to get it.

The point is, Harbaugh did what he did at Stanford with some of the most stringent academic requirements possible in college sports, I give him major kudos, he even, at one point, called UM out for lowering academics standards for athletes (2010 I believe).

 

[4down20]

 

[mrwallace2ku]

I applaud Gary Andersen.

He is going out there and offering some big time guys. 4 and 5 star recruits. IMO that is awesome, good for him.

Riley would offer your 1-3 star recruits and nothing more, grabbing local HS talent that wouldn't get looks from out of state.

Andersen on the other hand is going for elite players. Will he get them? Probably not, but at least he is trying.

Tru dat OD...

Beaver's offered a schollie to Chase Cota last week, son of famed Duck alum Chad Cota..class of 18'.

Let it be known that the son Chase plays for Medford, rival to Dad Chad's mata Ashland...sweet justice IF Chase chose OregonState over DuckVille.

lolz...

 

[socaljim242]

Oregon State WR Richard Mullaney is transferring.

 

[Olyduck]

Oregon State WR Richard Mullaney is transferring.

shouldnt be a big impact I dont think he was set as a starter or anything. maybe if depth becomes an issue for some reason.

 

[Not Neutral]

You not hear? He and Thumper were the same person.

Spoiler

So what does that mean, bamabear?

 

[bamabear82]

So what does that mean, bamabear?

 

[WABLTY]

I don't fight with kids on the short bus TF12. That is just mean to do. I actually respect the academics (for athletes) at SC more than ND. ND was one of my fall backs, right behind SC and the USAF academy.

If you wanted to be a pilot and passed on the AFA, you were fucking high. If not, then I don't know why you'd entertain it.

 

[nddulac]

Run on sentences? Just fine, bourbon is my co-pilot!

Good enough for me. Cheers!

Probation is 1.8, or was when I was there, I finished freshman year with a 2.2. To be clear, I was taking 22 units and playing lacrosse and in ROTC, I thought I was a stud, and found out that everyone there was just as smart, and most were more intelligent, than me. I did graduate with a 3.6 once I figured out I was not as smart as my peers and actually had to work hard to compete. I have found, from talking to students there, that this not uncommon. Big fish in a small pond (academically) becomes the average fish in a really big pond

This is not an uncommon experience at any selective college. When I was at Notre Dame, the cut off for academic probation was 2.0. I am sure that (among many other things) has changed in the 30 years since I was graduated, however.

I teach at a state university in the P12 and fail about 6% of my students every year, though I am not allowed to do it on a curve. If it was a curved (normal distribution) I would fail about 12%. The fact is, Stanford does have a skewed distribution to the right tail. This is though, as you point out, due to selective admissions.

My professional opinion is that grading on a curve is not a statistically sound means of evaluating student achievement (depending, of course, by what is meant by a "curve." I have a fixed grading scale which I share with the students. After that, it is a question of how they perform on their graded work.

I have seen huge variances in large classes. I had a general chemistry class of about 110 students one semester for which the average grade on a 4.0 scale was 1.5. The next time I taught the course (same size, same room, same time, same material, same everything except, of course, I wrote new exams!) the average grade was 2.5. So if a population that large can vary by an entire letter grade, why would I trust the class average to be a meaningful indicator of an acceptable level of achievement? I don't think it is right to reward students for being grouped with a bunch of dummies and more than I feel it is right to punish them for being grouped with a bunch of over-achievers.

That said, I also think it is BS for your school (or department) to tell you how to evaluate your students. They hire you for your expertise in the area you teach and should trust your ability to evaluate student progress.

Your comment based on one grad discounts all the grads I know. Additionally, you need to keep in mind that all colleges, should, as a teaching faculty, try to help students graduate. Privates have less impetus to do so, since the state does not mandate graduation rates, but, the fact remains, that we should try to help anyone who is admitted to succeed

True, and agreed. All colleges should be pushing their students to achieve. And I am sure you know more Stanford graduates than I do, so I will concede that point. What I "know" about Stanford grading schema is more speculation than experience.

Kind of like the ND "student" athletes. The big difference is that at Stanford, even the athletes have to get admitted on the same playing field as anyone else. At ND if you are an athlete and have at least decent grades they will admit you, and then fail you out. Who is doing more for their athletes NDdulac? The school who pushes them to succeed on an even playing field or the one who admits less qualified students (Cal and ND come to mind) and then kick them out if they are not starters, or is surprised when they cheat?

Oh - how I could go on on this topic. Suffice it to say that I believe we agree more on this topic than we disagree. It would be easy for me to go into "defend Notre Dame at all costs" mode, but I see too many problems there to do that. But the problems I see are not limited to any specific institutions.

Having taught at the college level for a little over 20 years, I have seen the trends in student preparedness coming into college. (Trust me when I say that quite a few "children" have been left behind.") While I think it is laudable that the NCAA is pushing to increase graduation rates, I really worry about how these ideals are being put into practice in departments across the country. Suffice it to say that I do not believe the academic rigor is increasing in order to achieve the impressive numbers institutions are claiming.

I suppose I should say something about the Pac-12, given that this is the Pac-12 thread. So SC sucks.

 

[Not Neutral]

If you wanted to be a pilot and passed on the AFA, you were fucking high. If not, then I don't know why you'd entertain it.

Because he teaches down at U of A. Would have been better off as a pilot and certainly would have had a lot more entertaining BS stories than how Stanford covers it failures.

 

[Not Neutral]

Explains why this thread is fading away!

 

[mrwallace2ku]

shouldnt be a big impact I dont think he was set as a starter or anything. maybe if depth becomes an issue for some reason.

One thing the Beavers have is plenty of WRs.