That is correct. A small number of prospects take an in-season OV. Several visit during the season unofficially during their bye week.
I need to better understand your sources to establish a sense of credibility. Are your ND sources in the admissions office or part of the coaching staff who liaise with the admissions office? My source's knowledge on our admissions process or athlete profile is infallible given her position as Assistant Dean of Admissions during her time at Stanford. My other sources are usually the recruits themselves in interviews. Information originating from friends of someone from another high school in the hometown area is not what most will consider foundational in a debate, but it sounds like your other sources have privileged insider knowledge.
It is true that some find Stanford "easy" depending on their ability, background, high school preparation, the culture of their prep or high school (cut-throat vs collaborative), and focus of study. Experiences from individual students involve too many variables to make a sweeping conclusion. I highly doubt that "easy" is a predominant view from anyone in a Pre-Med track, engineering, computer science, or non-fuzzy majors. The general view on campus during my time was the less quantitative fields such as Political Science, Anthropology, History, etc. were "easier" majors even though the amount of reading and paper requirements were much higher than one would find in Economics or Engineering.
I did experience a curved grade that can be considered comical once only because the TAs complained that the professor was assigning material not appropriate for an undergraduate class (...when it takes Physics PhD candidates more time than office hours allow to answer the first question on a problem set, the level of difficulty needs to be adjusted). Not proud to say that even with a curve I finished the class with B-; I answered 2 questions out of 5 on the final.
After retaking the same course material at UCLA over the summer, I aced it. It felt like I had been training to bench 315 lbs for several reps and then being asked to bench 225 lbs for the same amount of reps. I took summer courses for my first two years that were near my internships because I wanted to double major in electrical engineering and economics. My experience from their condensed-semester summer courses were similar in pace to the quarter schedule which had become familiar and there was not a course I did not ace. It was like high school all over again. My point in detailing this information is that it is all relative and
unless an individual has experienced an alternative, how can one truly assess a level of ease or difficulty?
Has Stanford become easier since I attended or did the quality of student increase? I could argue the quality of student has increased given the data.
Stanford University: Common Data Set 2015-2016
first year student with a 700-800 SAT score:
2007 - in reading 61%, math 67%, writing 60%
2015 - in reading 72%, math 78%, writing 74%
ACT comparison with a 30-36 score:
2007 - in english 69%, math 69%, composite 70%
2015 - in english 91%, math 82%, composite 87%
Although it is not explicit in the data provided, I could argue that this increase in academic quality is represented within the student-athlete as well when one evaluates their majors and the graduation rates. This post is becoming insanely long, but their is data out there to support that idea especially when you compare other schools' general population grad rates vs the student-athlete grad rates.
Regarding the deliciously-labeled "scandal" of a list of easy classes for athletes, that is true. I recognize that student-athletes have incredible demands on their schedule during their respective season. I see no issue with athletes taking courses that are
relatively less demanding in terms of coursework - I imagine two classes (3-5 units each) from their major stacked with non-demanding courses to fill a 12 unit course load. Considering that some athletes also take summer school courses to maintain a four-year graduation goal or to lessen the academic pressure during the season, I see little issue with this approach. Everyone has taken a fluff class or two in college, but several of these courses only offered a pass-fail result. Some of the "easy" classes on this list for a grade were courses like "Intro to Economics" or "Intro to Statistics".
You bring up excellent points! I decided to text my admissions friend for clarification before my memory from a few years ago continues to misrepresent what is and what is not. Below is her communication:
"Well, no ivy or MIT or Stanford has a minimum score per se because students and admissions officers aren't machines. We are welcoming scholars into a community of learning and not a plug and chug culture... also, because admissions officers at highly selective schools are capable of reading and thinking about the context in making an admissions decision. That is, we don't have a basic, formula-based admission like several schools. I do not recall exactly what we were speaking about when I said a 26 ACT score, but it is something we would sometimes communicate as a guideline but not a solid rule....people like goals instead of the subjectivity of admissions. The athletics dept might float a candidate's profile by us early on and we'd say...not gonna happen or maybe with a little more this-or-that or seems pretty good. Some athletes were asked to retake exams several times before we'd even consider them....and if we didn't see improvement, we would recommended ending the recruitment. It is all much more nuanced than what I said above, but no one absolutely no one, has a free ticket in regardless of how much someone on campus might want them. The admission office ALWAYS has the final say and there were definitely guys we turned away. Most of our athelte admits are very good testers and the ones who aren't as good are very good in the class room. Also when recruits come for visits, they actually attend classes and meet with faculty. The academic culture is made clear from the start along with the high expectations. Stanford isn't a cake walk and our students - including those who happen to also be athletes - wear that badge with pride."
I apologize for providing incorrect information regarding a minimum. The gratitude felt in correcting the record is extremely satisfying because nothing annoys me more than discovering a once held idea especially one that was shared is incorrect. Thank you for your part!
Most of our reports I see surrounding the academic profile of a recruit center on their GPA, ACT, and number of AP classes. There are conversion charts in the links I provided below, but is important to keep in mind that those charts are based on the highest cluster of data that may not be representative for everyone. For example, I took the SAT once in my junior-senior summer and scored a 1280 (700 - 580 scores...those damn word association questions within the verbal section crushed me. I did not have the breadth of or exposure to vocabulary in my home life or among my public school to gain the familiarity necessary to perform well in that arena at least in a one-shot take). A few months later, I took the ACT and scored a 33. The evolution of the SAT also has me wondering if today's version is easier than it was in the past. Here are some links and conversion charts for anyone who is curious.
(history)
https://www.petersons.com/college-search/sat-scores-changes-test.aspx
(2005 change chart)
http://www.jumpstarttutoring.com/wp-content/uploads/ACT-vs-SAT-Score-Chart.png
(2016 change chart)
Comparison and Concordance of the New SAT and ACT | Compass Education Group
It is difficult to say there is 100% certainty concerning subjects that are fluid. That statement is not contrary to your knowledge. One can have 100% knowledge of one's test score at a point in time, but can have 0% knowledge of a test score if they take the test again after that point. Once a recruit has attained an acceptable academic profile by a school's admission office, there is no need to continue to communicate test results from subsequent test to that green-lit school. Given the many head-to-head recruiting battles between Notre Dame and Stanford, my strong suspicion is that Notre Dame ends up a bit out of loop on those test retakes AND improvements. That falls in line with my friend's message above.
We did not communicate to Demetris a required score; you are right - I do not see that in any of my reports. This has to be the most transparent recruitment I have seen since becoming a recruitnik. The only reason he kept on retaking the test was to obtain Stanford admission.
Take a Journey Through the Timeline of Demetris Robertson's Recruitment - One Foot Down
Very admirable and he will remain someone I cheer for even if he is currently attending our traditional rival. Our insight was that there was no improvement in his score going back to October and the glimmer of hope that shined at the end of January due to renewed communication was promptly squashed when we discovered he hadn't even begun the application. The whole thing was very odd and can only imagine he was not receiving the best guidance or advice.
Jameis Winston was admitted and to our disappointment (at the time at least), he choose FSU. We all breathed a collective sigh of relief that he did not attend given the antics he pulled. Perhaps a different environment would have steered him away from such behavior, but who knows. We have a ridiculously high, admit-to-commitment ratio...this decade we only have had about a handful of admits choose to attend another school. This case along with Hogan's most likely falls into my "out of the loop" theory. Here is an article where Jameis states his 18 ACT score (his sophomore year in high school) and his ultimate score goal which I have no doubt he reached.
Sentell: Jameis Winston not your average sophomore | AL.com
This a different era probably with a different admissions philosophy given Stanford wasn't as selective as it is today (it had about a 12% admit rate back then and now it is below 5%). Also, SAT scoring methodology was different prior to 2005 so the comparison is not apples-to-apples.
Fair enough. Opinion is hard to counter. Some people prefer ice cream and others prefer cake. No issues there. Notre Dame definitely has more ceremony prior to a game and that is large part due to your band. Our band is a small, student group that is not funded by the university...we won't compare on that end and trust me when I say I understand that point. My high school in Texas had a 300+ member band which I was a part of my freshman year (moved up to varsity football my sophomore year) so I understand the time, coordination, and commitment necessary for producing a great half time show. My shock in the irreverence and organized discord of the Stanford band my freshman year was very high, but I understood it after being a part of it my first two years. The level of commitment for a better product would most likely result in less participation. Perhaps if we had music scholarships, better quality musicians as well as a more consistent number of participants would improve the overall product. As a former professional musician, the amount of dissonance they produce these days destroys what would be louder and more pleasant to our collective ear. As a former member of the Band (LSJUMB), I say rock on! It is admittedly a strange juxtaposition.
In regards to the number of opposing fans in our stadium, I have not seen any opposing team fill more than 30-35% of our stadium in recent years. Our ticket marketing used to not prioritize season tickets or mini-deal plans by Stanford association (i.e. boosters, alumni, associated alumni and faculty, etc.). I do not know if they do today to be honest which would borderline idiocy especially after the 2013 Rose Bowl ticket disaster. Beyond that, it does not seem to fit the math of the number of season ticket holders, visitor seats, and general admission tickets. That would require a significant portion of our season ticket holders selling their seats for that to occur. I find that HIGHLY unlikely for a Notre Dame, USC, or Oregon game unless season tickets are still available to all without priority.
If the game-day experience is as bad as presented here AND it is distinguishing point that is important for recruits, then I find it hard to reconcile how we manage to continue to recruit so effectively. Our recruits do visit for games unofficially most of the time.
Thanks for having me! It is refreshing to exchange thoughts outside of the Stanford boards that have a measure of consideration beyond preconception. We will not agree all the time and that is fine. What point is there in discussing an idea if there are no opposing views? And I promise most of my subsequent posts will be of a three sentence variety.
