Every time there is something that has to do with Duke and Stanford basketball (happens in football too actually), someone from the Stanford side of the equation always seems to find a way to interject how the academic standards for athletes playing basketball (and football) are so much more rigorous for Stanford athletes than Duke athletes. Lately, Stanford "fans" are using this as evidence for how Coach Dawkins won't do well at Stanford because he is used to being able to get pretty much "any" student he wants in to play for the Blue Devils. The evidence used is avg GPA and avg SAT scores are a bit higher for the Cardinal than the Blue Devils. The only problem is that avg is a BAD statistic. If someone were to average my height with Shaq it would show a guy who is probably 6'6" or something, too bad that in reality I am only about 5'6." My point is that a few players who probably would not have been admitted to Stanford who were admitted to Duke have done some to drag the numbers quite a bit lower than they really are because the sample isn't that large. I think the statistic that might be more instructive is "mode" and not "average." I don't know what the "mode" is for SAT and GPA numbers when Stanford is compared to Duke.
However, let's say that it is true and Stanford is tons more difficult (for an athlete) to gain admission to Stanford than Duke. So what? The University as a whole is comparable and is sometimes ranked higher. The U.S. News and World Report rankings for undergraduate education--when Stanford was ranked number one--was seen by Stanford people as an accurate accounting of its stature among its peers. When Duke had a year or two that it was ranker higher, all of the sudden the U.S. News and World Report analysis was flawed. Hmmmm
The only average, median, mean, mode, list, or comparison that matters are our three national titles, baby.
is, are? I'm sure someone will correct my poor Duke grammar.
When I was younger, I coached baseball at various levels, including assisting on Legion and travel teams as one of my sons got older. About a dozen of the kids on these teams played Division 1 baseball and one is pitching in the majors. This is baseball and I have a small sample size but a couple of parents told me that, unlike other top schools, Stanford would not offer scholarship help until the youngsters jumped through some additional hoops (tests?). My memory is that neither youngster pursued the inquiries from the Stanford assistant who spoke to them. Both were very good students and one played basketball at Cornell while the other played baseball in the Ivy League.
Every time that someone on this board brings up Stanford, my impression is that it is similar to the envy that Alum or students at state schools, UNC, Virginia and Maryland, have toward Duke.
I have a degree from Stanford as well. In a (probable) skewed distribution, the median is likely to be the most representative measure. There is an old saying about the mean -- the average person has one t*t and one b*ll, and isn't worth a d*mn!
The higher SAT/GPA averages cited for the Stanford basketball team might be even more misleading if they count ALL members of the team and not just the scholarship players. The 2006 Stanford team, for example, had 16 players whereas Duke's only had 13. In 2007, Stanford had 15 and Duke had 13.
How does having a higher number of players change an average? The concept of the "walk-on," who generally has SAT/GPA numbers more in line with the rest of the student body. At both Duke and Stanford, those numbers are pretty high and can drastically affect averages for a small sample size.
Maybe we should just add some more bodies to the bench to inflate our SAT/GPA numbers...? Having 3 extra players with SAT scores of 1500 would push our team average to 1068, or 100 points higher than the cited 968 that the NCAA cites as our most recent available team average.
Shows you how stupid the measurement is if you try to make it the sole benchmark for determining relative academic strength.
I have, ad naseum, stated that Sean Dockery or Nate James would not have been admitted to Stanford--and to that I say, "Shame on YOU Stanford, shame on YOU." For a school that talks a good game about diversity and giving folks a chance and the, "Children of California shall be our Children," the truth is that if the kid lives in place like Watts or East Palo Alto or out of state in a place like the South Side of Chicago where life is tough and doing well on standardized tests is really hard because one doesn't get tutoring at Kaplan--Good luck at Cal or somewhere else.
Of the 20+ schools that Duke Football/DUAA did extensive research (admissions, recruiting, coaches salaries, facilities, etc) on this past summer,
I believe Stanford had many more Admission "exceptions" than did Duke.
Notre Dame and Duke were more on the same (high) level with each other.
Duke and Stanford are obviously very comparable in terms of student-athlete admission standards. According to the NCAA and their just-released Academic Progress Rate (APR). This is the academic statistic that measures actual performance in school.
JD will be just fine at Stanford, thank you very much, and will not only recruit fine student-athletes, but will get them to the academic finish line. It is tiresome to read the incomplete and inaccurate accounts of which schools recruit the "best" student-athletes. Stanford and Duke are peers.....and are always at or near the top of the collective NCAA heap.
Duke may be a little better lately, according to the NCAA:
Men's Cross Country
Men's Track, Indoor
Men's Track, Outdoor
Men's Track, Indoor
Women's Water Polo
Here's the NCAA link: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...emic%20Reform/