Johns Hopkins 2025

[jhu06]

BTW if you're a booster, d1 mens lacrosse has to be an amazing bang for your buck compared to the revenue sports

[DocBarrister]

Bloomberg gives $1 billion to the med school so the vast majority of students can have free tuition: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/j ... s-4f03edef

Genuinely transformational for the med school but probably not a big impact on lacrosse. Still, buried in the official press release was this:

In addition to investing in future generations of doctors, this $1 billion endowment from Bloomberg Philanthropies will support leaders in other critical health-related fields through increased graduate financial aid in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Nursing, and it will expand aid for graduate degrees offered by the Johns Hopkins schools of Education, Engineering, Business, Arts and Sciences, and Advanced International Studies; the Peabody Institute; and the newly announced School of Government and Policy. The gift also will support the development of a new program to draw impact-focused interdisciplinary leaders into the worlds of research, industry, and government through innovations in PhD education and training.

More finaid for the business school and other grad programs

HF16 is right, although Bloomberg hires a lot of hopkins kids. I don't know what he's done for athletics but seeing this picture of him with the team this spring
https://www.instagram.com/jhumenslax/p/ ... mg_index=1
Then there's this
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/sports ... he-orioles
And this
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/402 ... up-reports

He's certainly had the athletics bug lately. I don't ever remember seeing him get involved in athletics before aside from maybe New York trying to get the olympics or a member of his family doing equestrian.

It’s only a matter of time before the Hopkins turf is renamed Homewood Field at Bloomberg Stadium. He could endow facilities, coaching positions, and NIL programs.

DocBarrister

[oldbartman]

Just as I suspected... Wall Street is subsidizing Hopkins lacrosse.. I demand another useless congressional inquiry......

[norcalhop]

I'm surprised it hasn't been renamed bloomberg school of medicine yet

[OCanada]

Just at the Bloomberg campus in DC. Euphoria is a good word

[gc1507]

I'd be thrilled with Bloomberg paying for seat backs in the stadium. Too much to ask for?

[BlueJaySince1947]

Bloomberg gives $1 billion to the med school so the vast majority of students can have free tuition: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/j ... s-4f03edef

Genuinely transformational for the med school but probably not a big impact on lacrosse. Still, buried in the official press release was this:

In addition to investing in future generations of doctors, this $1 billion endowment from Bloomberg Philanthropies will support leaders in other critical health-related fields through increased graduate financial aid in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Nursing, and it will expand aid for graduate degrees offered by the Johns Hopkins schools of Education, Engineering, Business, Arts and Sciences, and Advanced International Studies; the Peabody Institute; and the newly announced School of Government and Policy. The gift also will support the development of a new program to draw impact-focused interdisciplinary leaders into the worlds of research, industry, and government through innovations in PhD education and training.

More finaid for the business school and other grad programs

HF16 is right, although Bloomberg hires a lot of hopkins kids. I don't know what he's done for athletics but seeing this picture of him with the team this spring
https://www.instagram.com/jhumenslax/p/ ... mg_index=1
Then there's this
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/sports ... he-orioles
And this
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/402 ... up-reports

He's certainly had the athletics bug lately. I don't ever remember seeing him get involved in athletics before aside from maybe New York trying to get the olympics or a member of his family doing equestrian.

It’s only a matter of time before the Hopkins turf is renamed Homewood Field at Bloomberg Stadium. He could endow facilities, coaching positions, and NIL programs.

DocBarrister

I recall that a few years back Homewood was named Geblein Stadium in honor of the most passionate Blue Just fan of all time...!

[51percentcorn]

I believe to be accurate - the South grandstands are named after the esteemed Music Director - not the entire stadium.

[OCanada]

The link references all the stands at least in so far as it does not mention a particular sub set. Good catch

[51percentcorn]

Homewood Field's wikipedia page references the South grandstands - the Hopkins newsletter article on JHU lacrosse traditions mentions the "stands".
jhusports.com does not mention Gebelein at all - not in the facilities description of Homewood Field or in any other capacity - I searched the web-site on Conrad/Gebelein/Gebby and the only thing that comes up is a mention of the man in the bios for the Litofsky's Distinguished Service Award who spent undying hours in the pep band.

Edit - Maybe why some reference the South grandstands is the Gebelein dedication occurred before the Schelle Pavillion was built in 1998??
"Hopkins dedicates the Schelle Pavilion in 1998, providing an additional 5,000 seats on the north side of Homewood Field. It is funded partly by a $3 million gift from Wayne Schelle, A&S '54, a former Blue Jay football player, and his wife, Elaine, and a $150,000 gift from Emil "Buzzy" Budnitz, A&S '53, a Lacrosse Hall-of-Fame attackman."

[jhu06]

Homewood Field's wikipedia page references the South grandstands - the Hopkins newsletter article on JHU lacrosse traditions mentions the "stands".
jhusports.com does not mention Gebelein at all - not in the facilities description of Homewood Field or in any other capacity - I searched the web-site on Conrad/Gebelein/Gebby and the only thing that comes up is a mention of the man in the bios for the Litofsky's Distinguished Service Award who spent undying hours in the pep band.

Edit - Maybe why some reference the South grandstands is the Gebelein dedication occurred before the Schelle Pavillion was built in 1998??
"Hopkins dedicates the Schelle Pavilion in 1998, providing an additional 5,000 seats on the north side of Homewood Field. It is funded partly by a $3 million gift from Wayne Schelle, A&S '54, a former Blue Jay football player, and his wife, Elaine, and a $150,000 gift from Emil "Buzzy" Budnitz, A&S '53, a Lacrosse Hall-of-Fame attackman."

Considering all the school uses Homewood for $3.15 million for partial funding of a big part of the stadium is a heck of a deal.

[redkay73]

see https://hub.jhu.edu/2022/04/21/jhu-pep- ... niversary/ for info on the dedication of the South Stands of Homewood Field. Quoting from that link:
"In 1967, the grandstand on the south side of Homewood Field was named in Gebelein's honor. He retired in 1971 after nearly 50 years directing music at Hopkins but stayed on as "conductor emeritus" until 1979, two years before his death at the age of 86."

"

[Ruffled_Feathers]

I'd be thrilled with Bloomberg paying for seat backs in the stadium. Too much to ask for?

They sort of did this once in the reserved sections and it was absolutely awful.

[norcalhop]

I'd be thrilled with Bloomberg paying for seat backs in the stadium. Too much to ask for?

They sort of did this once in the reserved sections and it was absolutely awful.

I'll settle for NIL money to get more 5 star recruits. Especially the instate ones.

[Wheels]

By the time Harvard moved to abolish the Dean’s List, 92 percent of students qualified.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022 ... inflation/

But, I would take their curve with a grain of salt, as

these numbers are estimated from Crimson surveys that represent only a part of the student body, combined with third-party analyses of Harvard records, so try to focus on the long-term trend rather than specific GPA averages at any point in time.

I'm pretty familiar with Harvard as my wife went there for college.

She always finds it funny when people think it's academically rigorous to earn a decent GPA. Just as I find the same for JHU now. Ofcourse, if you take econometrics and Math 55 type courses at Harvard, then your GPA is justified.

https://csadvising.seas.harvard.edu/con ... on/honors/

You can see the cum laude cutoff for the class of 2024 is a 3.795, which means 50% of the class has a GPA above that. Quite a jump from 2019 when it was 3.62.

A poster did note that freshman selectivity has gone up which is a good point and can partially account for this. All ivies plus JHU have sub 8% acceptance rates. High school GPAs are all around 3.9 for these schools, and SATs are stratospheric now. Hopkins's average SAT has been above 1500 for some time now.

One of the reasons students get into Harvard is because they earned straight A’s. Why should they stop getting A’s for A-quality work just because they are at Harvard?

DocBarrister

I think the question is why is average GPA going up? are classes and grades now more of a participation trophy? Colleges used to be on a curve where the top 25% would get an A, not top 70% now. A+ grades in high school AP or honors chem (with often less difficulty vs college) should not always translate into As in College Level Chem classes for instance.

The best predictor of future performance (GPA is an aggregate measure of academic performance) is past behavior. So, yes. If you take a whole bunch of really good high students, you should also expect them to be really good college students. Performance is not normally distributed when you let in a whole bunch of really good students. in fact, you should expect there to be really good academic achievement.

I think you're alluding to "forced distribution ranking" systems when you talk about X% gets an A, X% gets a B, and so on. These types of regressive performance management practices are known to be filled with bias. After all, if you say only X% can get an A, what happens when you have 3 or 4 students who all have about the same scores? How do you differentiate between them? Who gets the higher or lower grades and based on what?

What if you also have really professors combined with really good students? Shouldn't you expect higher grades in that scenario?

Could a lot of professors just be giving away grades because they don't want to deal with upset students or their parents? Or they just want everyone to like them? Sure.

But at elite schools that only let in elite students, performance should be skewed toward higher grades.

[norcalhop]

By the time Harvard moved to abolish the Dean’s List, 92 percent of students qualified.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022 ... inflation/

But, I would take their curve with a grain of salt, as

these numbers are estimated from Crimson surveys that represent only a part of the student body, combined with third-party analyses of Harvard records, so try to focus on the long-term trend rather than specific GPA averages at any point in time.

I'm pretty familiar with Harvard as my wife went there for college.

She always finds it funny when people think it's academically rigorous to earn a decent GPA. Just as I find the same for JHU now. Ofcourse, if you take econometrics and Math 55 type courses at Harvard, then your GPA is justified.

https://csadvising.seas.harvard.edu/con ... on/honors/

You can see the cum laude cutoff for the class of 2024 is a 3.795, which means 50% of the class has a GPA above that. Quite a jump from 2019 when it was 3.62.

A poster did note that freshman selectivity has gone up which is a good point and can partially account for this. All ivies plus JHU have sub 8% acceptance rates. High school GPAs are all around 3.9 for these schools, and SATs are stratospheric now. Hopkins's average SAT has been above 1500 for some time now.

One of the reasons students get into Harvard is because they earned straight A’s. Why should they stop getting A’s for A-quality work just because they are at Harvard?

DocBarrister

I think the question is why is average GPA going up? are classes and grades now more of a participation trophy? Colleges used to be on a curve where the top 25% would get an A, not top 70% now. A+ grades in high school AP or honors chem (with often less difficulty vs college) should not always translate into As in College Level Chem classes for instance.

The best predictor of future performance (GPA is an aggregate measure of academic performance) is past behavior. So, yes. If you take a whole bunch of really good high students, you should also expect them to be really good college students. Performance is not normally distributed when you let in a whole bunch of really good students. in fact, you should expect there to be really good academic achievement.

I think you're alluding to "forced distribution ranking" systems when you talk about X% gets an A, X% gets a B, and so on. These types of regressive performance management practices are known to be filled with bias. After all, if you say only X% can get an A, what happens when you have 3 or 4 students who all have about the same scores? How do you differentiate between them? Who gets the higher or lower grades and based on what?

What if you also have really professors combined with really good students? Shouldn't you expect higher grades in that scenario?

Could a lot of professors just be giving away grades because they don't want to deal with upset students or their parents? Or they just want everyone to like them? Sure.

But at elite schools that only let in elite students, performance should be skewed toward higher grades.

There's no scenario in which 70% of students should earn As across the school uniformly across top privates. It means the grading is soft not students are all of a sudden overachievers. Have the students at Harvard gotten significantly smarter over the years since you know they've always admitted valedictorians and olympiad winners? The SAT has gotten easier so the higher test scores we see today might not equate to smarter students either. When I did interviews for Google and I interviewed students with 3.9 from ivies and other top privates with inflated grades, there was a wide distribution in those actually smart enough to pass the bar. Handing out As is a disservice to students that were at the school when there wasn't grade inflation.

Tests at MIT and JHU routinely were hard in the past. The median was a 50 or so out of 100 with the ability to truly distinguish students with advanced material. In those cases, a median was a B. And top 25% was an A. If you scored at the median, you did not deserve an A.

If anything, the bar for college entrance has gotten lower with test optional, an easier SAT, deprecation of SAT 2 test scores.

[pcowlax]

By the time Harvard moved to abolish the Dean’s List, 92 percent of students qualified.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022 ... inflation/

But, I would take their curve with a grain of salt, as

these numbers are estimated from Crimson surveys that represent only a part of the student body, combined with third-party analyses of Harvard records, so try to focus on the long-term trend rather than specific GPA averages at any point in time.

I'm pretty familiar with Harvard as my wife went there for college.

She always finds it funny when people think it's academically rigorous to earn a decent GPA. Just as I find the same for JHU now. Ofcourse, if you take econometrics and Math 55 type courses at Harvard, then your GPA is justified.

https://csadvising.seas.harvard.edu/con ... on/honors/

You can see the cum laude cutoff for the class of 2024 is a 3.795, which means 50% of the class has a GPA above that. Quite a jump from 2019 when it was 3.62.

A poster did note that freshman selectivity has gone up which is a good point and can partially account for this. All ivies plus JHU have sub 8% acceptance rates. High school GPAs are all around 3.9 for these schools, and SATs are stratospheric now. Hopkins's average SAT has been above 1500 for some time now.

One of the reasons students get into Harvard is because they earned straight A’s. Why should they stop getting A’s for A-quality work just because they are at Harvard?

DocBarrister

I think the question is why is average GPA going up? are classes and grades now more of a participation trophy? Colleges used to be on a curve where the top 25% would get an A, not top 70% now. A+ grades in high school AP or honors chem (with often less difficulty vs college) should not always translate into As in College Level Chem classes for instance.

The best predictor of future performance (GPA is an aggregate measure of academic performance) is past behavior. So, yes. If you take a whole bunch of really good high students, you should also expect them to be really good college students. Performance is not normally distributed when you let in a whole bunch of really good students. in fact, you should expect there to be really good academic achievement.

I think you're alluding to "forced distribution ranking" systems when you talk about X% gets an A, X% gets a B, and so on. These types of regressive performance management practices are known to be filled with bias. After all, if you say only X% can get an A, what happens when you have 3 or 4 students who all have about the same scores? How do you differentiate between them? Who gets the higher or lower grades and based on what?

What if you also have really professors combined with really good students? Shouldn't you expect higher grades in that scenario?

Could a lot of professors just be giving away grades because they don't want to deal with upset students or their parents? Or they just want everyone to like them? Sure.

But at elite schools that only let in elite students, performance should be skewed toward higher grades.

For me it should be like ski trails. At any given mountain, greens are easiest, blues intermediate and blacks are hardest. For that mountain. They cannot be compared across mountains. It doesn’t matter how smart the students are (and no, they are no smarter across schools than in the past, this is the first generation in forever with falling IQs) or how good the teachers are. In each class, there will be students at the bottom, students in the middle and those at the top. The bottom ones may well have been the top at another school but they aren’t at another school. If it were a trade school, and the exam was do you know all of these specific aspects of plumbing and everyone did great on the test then they should all get A’s. If you have a literature class, there is a bell curve of performance, even if the bottom of the curve is still well done. I got into a good school therefore I have already demonstrated that I am smart so I should get all A’s in college is not how things are supposed to work. And as someone interviewing these kids, I can tell you for a fact that that 3.85 means nothing to me anymore. For the above poster, it’s not that you should say only x% can get an A and therefore get stuck trying to differentiate between kids with the same score. It’s that you need to make you classes more challenging such that everyone isn’t getting a 97.

[DocBarrister]

Top students at top schools are just better today. Better prepared. More experience in research, internships, etc. More tutoring and prep programs. More extracurriculars. It’s not even close. Today’s top students at top schools are far better than their counterparts of yesteryear. They work harder, too.

I think grading on strict curves to limit the number of “A” grades is just asinine and promotes cutthroat competition. That kind of GARBAGE should be exiled from academia.

It is also unfair. I think much of the “grade inflation” is due to more students doing “A”-quality work.

I earned my four university degrees over a period of more than two decades (with a lot of work in research, clinical medicine, academia, lobbying, and consulting interspersed). I have personally seen the difference in the quality of students from my college years to my later graduate and professional years. In my later university years, the students simply did a lot more in college, were better organized, etc. They worked harder, too. That’s saying something since I went to Hopkins for college.

I don’t begrudge today’s students their “A” grades. They are simply better students these days, and they earned their good grades.

DocBarrister

[44WeWantMore]

Is the GPA supposed to measure relative achievement of absolute achievement?
So long as the distribution is not TOO skewed, we could theoretically have both GPA and Class Rank so we can get the best of both worlds.

What about measuring academic performance over time?
In college athletics, the 100m long-course times have improved over the years, so why not academics?
That said, has anybody read what students have been saying during the Columbia protests?
That is Ivy League quality analysis?

What about college preparation over time? Are top high school students stuffing more and more credentials in their college applications? Absolutely.
Is the reading list for top high school students dumbed down? Absolutely.
That said, are top high school students adopting more advanced literary analysis techniques on their dumbed-down reading lists? Also Absolutely.

[HopFan16]

Hopkins had grade deflation (relative to its peers) for years, which contributed to its reputation for being cutthroat. I can't count the times I heard stories of nearly everyone in a class failing an exam. If there's grade inflation now, it'd be a welcome development, IMO.

In any case, this whole discussion appears to be based on a Greek Life pdf from 2019. I've seen some other sources online that suggest the average GPA is lower than 3.8 or whatever. Not sure if the school has published an updated figure, but I can't find one. The pandemic also likely made grades all out of whack.

---

Back to lacrosse — they've now posted farewells on social media to all of the seniors and grad students except: Smith, Melendez, Bauer, Deans, Evans, Moore.

Combine that with the additions of Hackler, Monfort, Staudt, McKee, and Weishaar, you can project a 2025 lineup with a bit more accuracy than you could have a month ago.

A - Melendez, Chauvette, Ayers (maybe Bauer gets some run as well)
M1 - Collison, English, Bauer
M2 - Hackler, McCleary, Evans
M3 - Iler, Rawson, Phillips, Chick, Gregorek, Crogan, Jewell, Sorichetti, etc. etc.
LSM - Deans, Martin, Kaufman, Weishaar (maybe he plays SSDM?)
D - Smith, Kilrain, Brown
SSDM - Monfort, Hackler, Colhoun, Claiborine, DiCicco, Pace, The Mythical Alec Billings
FO - Callahan, McKee, Hobot
G - Staudt

The strength and heart of the team will be that close D line which should remain one of the best in the country. TBD how much support they get from the shorties. Staudt assuming he wins the job should be solid in cage.

Question marks galore on offense but lot of talented pieces to work with and if Melendez approaches his 2023 form then all bets are off.