| By Patient (Patient) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit |
Stanford announced today that Dean Robin Mamlet will leave in the spring--I assume after admissions for the class of 2009 have been completed. She was an articulate and compassionate admissions director and it is sad to see her go.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/september1/mamlet-824.html
| By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit |
That is indeed unfortunate.
I suppose we will see some changes in Stanford's admissions process starting from next year.
| By Aim78 (Aim78) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 01:34 am: Edit |
She wasn't the right type for a Dean anyway. Those guys at Animal House wouldn't have had much to say to a nice lady like that.
| By Amylase (Amylase) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit |
unfortunate for the future stanford applicants. Hope everything will be fine for her.
| By Innotof (Innotof) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:54 pm: Edit |
Sounds like the Class of 2006 applying to Stanford will have to contend with BOTH the new SAT and a new dean.
| By Snowybunny (Snowybunny) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit |
Will Dean Mamlet still read the transfer applications or will the new dean read them??? Also, who is the new dean gonna be ?`
| By Patient (Patient) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit |
They're doing a national search, per the article cited above.
| By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit |
While Robin Mamlet was a pretty ok dean, her leaving may not be a bad thing. There are many things that Stanford could have done to increase it's competitivity, but hasn't. That's why the acceptance rate seems to have stagnated over the past few years while HYP's has been falling.
| By Stanfordrulez (Stanfordrulez) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit |
Does that really matter to you Foreignboy, the acceptance rates stagnating? This year, they had a different problem, they started the SCEA program... And since it was the first year, they didn't really know how many should be admitted in the EA round and in the RD round to eventually constitute a class of around 1600-1700 froshes.
Personally, I dont give a damn whether Stanford accepts 15% or 9% or 20%... Most of the other schools just want to show that they're super-selective, just like some schools want to show that their median SAT scores are 1500 [which again, is to show off more than anything]...
| By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 05:35 am: Edit |
Stanfordrulez,
I agree that acceptance rates are not an absolute indicator of a schools's quality. However, there is no denying that it is in the best interests of a school for as many students as possible to apply. After all, a larger pool would allow for 1)more diversity and 2)an admitted student body that is of a higher quality, provided that the same number of students are admitted.
Besides that, there is one thing that Stanford should have done a long ago but hasn't yet. That is to extend its need-based FA policy to international applicants. Many of the best international applicants have come to favor HYP and MIT because of their FA policies, and this should stop.
Whether or not these changes will improve the student body by 1% or 100% is not important. What is important is that there is improvement, no matter how small.
| By Stanfordrulez (Stanfordrulez) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 08:59 am: Edit |
Agreed Foreignboy.
Especially with the international aid thing... I dont get their policy-- I mean, they have enough money to go need-blind... But honestly, I really dont think they take into account need for the really strong international applicants from what I've heard and seen. So, maybe, they're just trying to tell the 'not so strong applicants' that they're been rejected cause they asked for aid... [Hehe... Quite farfetched, I agree]
But I still maintain that selectivity doesn't mean much.
See ya in September!
| By Entropicgirl (Entropicgirl) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit |
Yeah, Stanford's pretty darn selective as it is...once you get to that level, it doesn't matter if it's 13% or 10%, it's still reallllly hard to get into.
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit |
Quote:Dean Robin Mamlet will leave in the spring
Quote:Chu is one of three co-winners of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics, awarded for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. His appointment as LBNL director, effective Aug. 1, comes 28 years after he earned his Ph.D. in physics at UC Berkeley. "It feels like a homecoming," Chu said at the press conference announcing his appointment.
...
"It’s nice to have him back where he belongs," said Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl.
...
Chu is currently [as of June 16, 2004, when the article was written] a professor at Stanford University, where he has been on the faculty since 1987.
...
In addition to becoming director at the Berkeley Lab, Chu will also hold a professional appointment on campus although details are still to be worked out.
...
More recently, Chu chaired the review of the UC Berkeley physics department. Berdahl said Chu did a superb job with the review and helped the campus effectively direct its resources.
...
"I would like to congratulate Steve on his appointment," said Marjorie Shapiro, incoming physics chair at UC Berkeley. "We in the physics department welcome him back to Berkeley."
| By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit |
Who cares? With Berkeley's impending budget cuts, Stanford is going make a bunch of raids on Cal's faculty by offering higher pay and benefits. You lose some.....and win more.
Harvard already stole 6 professors from Berkeley. Stanford, Yale, and MIT are following suit.
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit |
Quote:Harvard already stole 6 professors from Berkeley
| By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit |
"Proposed cuts to the faculty budget totalling $35.3 million for the UC system will handicap the campus’ faculty retention even further.
During the past four years, 122 professors have reported that other universities have been trying to recruit them. Out of those, 31 left UC Berkeley.
Losing those eminent professors to private institutions could have enormous consequences for the campus in recruiting top students, Breslauer said."
http://www.dailycal.org/particle.php?id=15110
So 31 divided by four is about 8 professors per year. I think Harvard stole 6 this year alone, but I can't find the documented sources about that.
Report an offensive message on this page
E-mail this page to a friend
| Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information. |
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |