Hi,

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

GO DUKE!