The notion that Rice has higher athletic admission standards than literally every other school in the universe is ridiculous. Maybe no one is arguing that, but it sure sounds like it around here at times. Until I am presented with actual hard data, I will just chalk it all up to homerism.

Also, when I said that Duke, Harvard, and Stanford are harder to get into school and more prestigious, I was commenting about the schools overall. Unless we are now quibbling with whether Duke, Harvard, and Stanford are as well known and prestigious as Rice (and whether 6% (Harvard's admission rate) is, in fact, a smaller rate than 18% (Rice's)).

Barrett, I apologize for misconstruing your original post. You did indeed talk in terms of overall admissions standards rather than admissions standards for athletes. I put it in the context of the remainder of the post regarding current basketball talent on the floor and took your comment to suggest that Duke, Harvard and Stanford are harder for athletes to get into than Rice. Your comment regarding overall admissions is, at least as for Harvard and Stanford (and I don't know about Duke) probably true. If read in the context of admissions for athletes, I disagree - Rice's athletes meet higher academic standards than those of the other schools. Not that it is enough higher to make any difference on the field or in the classroom, but higher nonetheless.

I don't think that should make any difference on the athletic front though - it is an excuse that is used way too often! Rice, with the policies that it currently has, should and in most sports does compete at the highest levels athletically. That is something to be proud of, not denigrate. Rice just has to do a better job of getting bright, athletically talented kids to come to Rice and then coach them up so they can succeed athletically as well as academically. I think we all agree on that.

Agree completely!