So much for the high academic load Stanfurd athletes supposedly carry.

A drama class in "Beginning Improvising" and another in "Social Dances of North America III" were among dozens of classes on a closely guarded quarterly list distributed only to Stanford athletes to help them choose courses.

Stanford officials said the list was designed to accommodate athletes' demanding schedules and disputed that the list was made up of easy classes. Officials discontinued the list last week after student reporters working for California Watch began asking about it.

The list, which has existed at least since 2001, was widely regarded by athletes as an easy class list. More than a quarter of the courses on the list did not fulfill university general education requirements.

"It’s definitely not going to be a hard class if it’s coming off that list," said Karissa Cook, a sophomore women’s volleyball player who consulted the list to pick classes in her first quarter at Stanford.

The classes on the list were "always chock-full of athletes and very easy A's," added Kira Maker, a women’s soccer player who used the list her freshman year.

Other professors were unconcerned that a class they taught made it onto the list. Some, in fact, said they believed student athletes should be treated differently than the typical student.

Stanford "accommodates athletes in the manner that they accommodate students with disabilities," said Donald Barr, who teaches a course titled "Social Class, Race, Ethnicity, Health," which was highlighted by resource center advisers.

 

Really?

Austin Lee, director of academic services at the Athletic Academic Resource Center, disagreed.

"An objective evaluation of the courses included on the list reveals several courses that most students would consider to be academically rigorous," Lee said. He did not identify specific classes.

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/stanford-athletes-had-access-list-easy-classes-9098

Because I put the over on the number of fanposts about Dunn being on the waiver wire and I don't want to poke any more of Grant's "children" (at least not for another 10 minutes)...here is my fanpost about Dunn being on the waiver wire.

Earlier today:  Buster Olney posted the following on his twitter 

Heard this: Adam Dunn hit the waiver wire today, giving teams 48 hours to place claims on the slugger -- and the wide expectation (more)

is that multiple NL teams will put in a claim on him -- Rockies? Giants? -- and that there is no chance that AL teams like the (more)

Rays or White Sox or Yankees ever get a shot at Dunn, who is working on his seventh straight year of 38 or more homers.

What this means about Dunn is that if he's going to be moved -- and that seems unlikely -- it'll happen in the next 72 hours.

For those who are unfamiliar with MLB's waiver rules, according to Wiki:

Any player under contract may be placed on waivers at any time. If a player is waived, any team may claim him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, the team with the weakest record in the player's league gets preference. If no team in the player's league claims him, the claiming team with the weakest record in the other league gets preference. In the first month of the season, preference is determined using the previous year's standings.

If a team claims a player off waivers and has the viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options:

• arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or
• rescind the request and keep the player on its major league roster, effectively canceling the waiver; or
• do nothing and allow the claiming team to (1) assume the player's existing contract, (2) pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and (3) place the player on its active major league roster.

If a player is claimed and the waiving team exercises its rescission option, the waiving team may not use the option again for that player in that season. If no team claims a player from waivers in three business days, the player has cleared waivers and may be assigned to a minor league team, traded, or released outright.

The waiver "wire" is a secret within the personnel of the Major League Baseball clubs; no announcement of a waiver is made until a transaction actually occurs. Many players are often quietly waived during the August "waiver-required" trading period to gauge trade interest in a particular player. Usually, when the player is claimed, the waiving team will rescind the waiver to avoid losing the player unless a trade can be worked out with the claiming team.

Wikipedia-MLB Waiver Rules

A good article about the National's point of view of placing Dunn on waivers

The drama doesn't end now, if it's unlikely Dunn would pass through waivers between now and the Aug. 31 deadline to complete a waiver-wire deal. By keeping Dunn without signing him to an extension, the Nationals may have take the first step in what equates to a $6 million gamble.

They owe Dunn roughly $4.3 million of his salary in the final 58 games of the season. His production, while considerable, will not lead to any meaningful games.

If the Nationals allow Dunn to walk in free agency after offering him arbitration, they will receive two compensatory draft picks, like when Alfonso Soriano's departure following the 2006 season led to the drafting of potential rotation cornerstone Jordan Zimmermann. But the Nationals will have to pay bonuses to their draft picks, and the recommend "slot" price for those picks is about $800,000 - a total of $1.6 million.

Add it up, and the Nationals could end up paying about $6 million for two months of Dunn - on a team miles from contention - and two draft choices. Those prospects could turn into players as valuable as Zimmermann. Or the $6 million that could have been used to acquire a veteran bat or pitcher could turn into failed projects, into dust.

Washington Post-Dunn Unsigned and Untraded

I think it is safe to say that most (if not all) Giants fans are screaming at management to claim Dunn if available.  At this point I think the most likely viable candidate for claiming Dunn include:

Rockies

Reds 

Bums

(not including the Padres or any AL teams because there is no way Dunn is getting past the Giants)

So talk among yourselves...a lot of nothing or is Dunn coming to a local Mays Field near you?

The panel convened by Chancellor Birgeneau came back with their findings and recommendations as to what the university should do about the subsidy for the athletic department. 

The Panel:  

...found that the university's athletic subsidies are among the highest in the nation...

...criticized the department's poor control of its finances, calling it an 'unacceptable' system "that makes serious financial management nearly impossible'...

...[noted that] '[w]hile the rest of the campus has, over several years, cut deeply into the bone of academic staff and programs, intercollegiate athletics' staff has grown significantly, as have program expenses...The culture of what has appeared to be unconstrained spending must change.'

Recommendations included:

...reducing the subsidy to $5 million a year by 2014...

...hiring a director of development to bring in more philanthropic donations and a chief operating officer to hold down expenses...

...spending caps for teams and staff...[and]

...[for the department to] reduce costs and do more to raise philanthropic donations...

According to the article:

 

Athletic funding

Here is a breakdown of expenses for the department of intercollegiate athletics at UC Berkeley and subsidies from campus administration, in millions of dollars:

	Expenses	Subsidies
2008-09	$72.7	$13.7
2007-08	$64.3	$7.4
2006-07	$61.5	$9.8
2005-06	$53.7	$10.9
2004-05	$53.2	$13.1
2003-04	$45.2	$11.0

 

SF Gate Source

Just wanted to bring attention to this issue and see what you guys think about the panel's findings and recommendations.  This blog is largely focused on Cal Athletics and the successes on the field, but I think most Cal grads/alums also cherish the university's high academic standing.    What do you think the chancellor and the university should do?