Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. (/thread-25243.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. (/thread-25243.html)
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - pefloresjr - 11-06-2024
Adding new students and programs would require additional housing and facilities. Stanford does not have an agreement with the county that would allow for that growth. I don't believe that cutting into traditional academic programs to add non-academic sports majors is ever going to happen at Stanford. They would lose me as a supporter who donates to the Buck Club and has season tickets to three sports. I'm not opposed to exploring options in the new environment, but creating new fake majors for football and basketball is way beyond anything I want Stanford to do.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - paloalto - 11-06-2024
Back in 2007 there was a plan to substantially increase the student body population to bring in under-served students. There were detailed plans developed but it never materialized because there simply wasn't any realistic way to get zoning and permits to create new housing, roads, infrastructure, etc on land near campus.
Then in 2011 there was the ill fated attempt to create a new Stanford campus in New York City. When Stanford got down to the final details it wasn't financially feasible to reach an agreement with NYC authorities.
I believe many in the Stanford administration including faculty would be in favor of building more dorms and classrooms for the purpose of admitting disadvantaged students who wouldn't get into Stanford under the traditional requirements. I don't think many in admin would have the same attitude for bringing in football players. A handful of Cardboarders are all for it, but go outside this very small bubble and you won't find much support for admitting students on the basis of playing football.
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - 82lsju - 11-06-2024
(11-06-2024, 02:51 PM)paloalto Wrote: Back in 2007 there was a plan to substantially increase the student body population to bring in under-served students. There were detailed plans developed but it never materialized because there simply wasn't any realistic way to get zoning and permits to create new housing, roads, infrastructure, etc on land near campus.
Then in 2011 there was the ill fated attempt to create a new Stanford campus in New York City. When Stanford got down to the final details it wasn't financially feasible to reach an agreement with NYC authorities.
I believe many in the Stanford administration including faculty would be in favor of building more dorms and classrooms for the purpose of admitting disadvantaged students who wouldn't get into Stanford under the traditional requirements. I don't think many in admin would have the same attitude for bringing in football players. A handful of Cardboarders are all for it, but go outside this very small bubble and you won't find much support for admitting students on the basis of playing football.
we'll see what happens in Belmont, CA, from Aug 2024
Quote:The City of Belmont recently released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Stanford Belmont campus, which shows the project will adequately address potential environmental impacts. Stanford continues to work with the city to refine a package of community benefits for the project.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/08/city-of-belmont-releases-environmental-review-of-possible-stanford-belmont-campus
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - MV72018 - 11-06-2024
(11-06-2024, 02:51 PM)paloalto Wrote: Back in 2007 there was a plan to substantially increase the student body population to bring in under-served students. There were detailed plans developed but it never materialized because there simply wasn't any realistic way to get zoning and permits to create new housing, roads, infrastructure, etc on land near campus.
Then in 2011 there was the ill fated attempt to create a new Stanford campus in New York City. When Stanford got down to the final details it wasn't financially feasible to reach an agreement with NYC authorities.
I believe many in the Stanford administration including faculty would be in favor of building more dorms and classrooms for the purpose of admitting disadvantaged students who wouldn't get into Stanford under the traditional requirements. I don't think many in admin would have the same attitude for bringing in football players. A handful of Cardboarders are all for it, but go outside this very small bubble and you won't find much support for admitting students on the basis of playing football.
As to WHY it allegedly "wasn't financially feasible to reach an agreement with NYC authorities," there are at least two possibilities to consider: 1. Stanford was unwilling to pony up the large amount of money the authorities demanded; and 2. the deck was stacked against SU and in favor of the winning competitor. I'll leave it to you to research both of those possible explanations and reach a conclusion which one is more compelling. I do know that a number of SU faculty members were enthusiastic about teaching at a Stanford in NY campus.
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - StanUSwagU - 11-06-2024
Is it just me, or is there a pattern/trend here:
• Inability of Stanford to make a deal for a campus in NYC
• Inability of Stanford to make a deal with the County, to significantly develop the campus, surrounding infrastructure & roads (in an environmentally acceptable way)..in order to increase its undergraduate population by 2000 students.
• Inability of Stanford to make a deal for a Belmont, CA campus
• Inability of Stanford to make the structural changes needed 'to adapt to the new landscape' to make Stanford Football Successful
• Inability of Stanford to make the structural changes needed 'to adapt to the new landscape' to make Stanford Mens Basketball Successful
• Inability of Stanford to keep key Athletes (too numerous to list) like Football DL Jaxson Moi, Basketball G Harrison Ingram, etc happy enough to 'want to stay at Stanford to finish their undergraduate sports careers' ..where they elected to go play for another college before earning their undergraduate degree at Stanford.
• Inability of Stanford to recruit a Top15 Football HS recruiting class over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to recruit a Top10 QB HS Recruit over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to get a Top15 Transfer Class over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to hire a Top10 Football Coach over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to hire a Top10 Mens Basketball coach over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to win a National Title in Football in the last 75 years
• Inability of Stanford to win a National Title in Mens Basketball in the last 75 years
• Inability of Stanford to "even have its Football Stadium at 70% people in the seats during Home Games for the last 10 years
• Inability of Stanford to "even have its Basketball Gym (Maples) at 70% people in the seats during Home Games for the last 10 years of Mens Basketball
• Inability of Stanford to learn from a similar school (NotreDame) on how to cultivate & maintain a Top20 Football Program
• Inability of Stanford to learn from a similar school (Duke) on how to cultivate & maintain a Top20 Mens Basketball Program
• Inability of Stanford to be in the Top10 in NIL offerings/opportunities for Football & Mens Basketball
• Inability of Stanford to position itself to be 'attractive enough' to be invited into the 'Big10' conference, ...leaving itself literally & figuratively 'out in the cold, begging the ACC to extend it an invitation' ....which initially the ACC & its members for many months ... said no we dont think Stanford adds any value to our conference, ...no thanks ! [And then after Stanford got on its knees & bent over, begging 'please pretty please'. ...the ACC said, okay stupid kid, we will let you into the club, but you are 'worse than a red-headed stepchild' ...you dont get any financial payments, and ...go over and sit at the 'kiddy table' of the ACC ..and eat your peanuts & dont bother us !].
How embarrassing !
....shall I go on ... ?
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - Mick - 11-06-2024
(11-05-2024, 10:02 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-05-2024, 08:34 PM)StanUSwagU Wrote: (1). Stanford is a 'Private Institution', so it has some discretion that Public Universities do not.Undergraduate students are not admitted to a program. They are admitted to the University. There can be no "admission criteria to a program". That won't change, and therefore the suggested approach can't work. On top of that there is absolutely zero chance Stanford's faculty would ever countenance awarding a degree in football. Not happening, ever.
What if:
(2). Stanford added 2000 students to its Undergrad Class [about 500 per class eg Frosh, Soph, Junior, Senior]
Quote:Many of us have wanted to increase the size of the undergraduate student body. There are lots of very practical reasons that hasn't been done.
(3). Stanford created 2 New Undergraduate Majors named:
(a) "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b) "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"
In order to be admitted or transferred into these undergraduate programs, (and we can work on the granular customized admissions criteria) students will have to have.a very strong background in these fields of endeavor, meaning having played these 2 sports, worked in these 2 sports, or be able to 'write a persuasive essay on the topic, that shows they have great depth & breath of knowledge for these fields of study & exceptional passion for these 2 fields.
Graduate school is a different case. There you are admitted to a specific school and specific qualifications can be imposed. Very hard to argue that a "School of Football" would ever even be considered. Also wouldn't help nearly as much because the students would all be grad transfers.
Quote:(4). What would this solve:Not at all the case. The "old, traditional stuff" that undergraduates aren't admitted to a particular program would be changed. Everybody is "undeclared" and you can select any major you wish. You can also change you major. Naturally you need to be able to do the work for your selected major, but you can't be stopped from trying. No chance at all that can be changed. Zero.
(a) Obviously, great Varsity Football Players & Basketball Players (both from HighSchool & Transfers) would score high on these admissions criteria & get admitted to matriculate at Stanford.
(b) Students (non-varsity athletes) with Lots of Passion & Knowledge for Football & Basketball would score high on these admissions criteria (& these students would be a natural fit for 'regularly attending Football & Basketball games ...thus helping our Attendance at Home Games for these 2 sports)
© A New Culture, Expertise, Emphasis, & Prioritization about Football & Basketball as fields of study, & endeavors for the University to give 110% commitment to, ...would be ushered in at Stanford !
(5) Because we are ADDING 2000 'new' undergrad Slots for these 2 Specialized New Undergraduate Majors named ....
(a) "Football Theory, History, & Management"
(b) "Basketball Theory, History, & Management"
....we would not be taking away existing spots for our 'regular traditional nerdy Football & Basketball apathetic students'. (sorry for that description, I can't think of any other description for now)
(6). I know many will dismiss this proposal as 'outlandish & compromising our Stanford Values' ...but again this will be A 'NEW COMPLETELY ADDITIVE WING/DEPT TO THE UNIVERSITY', ..the 'old, traditional, stuffy, football & basketball apathetic WING of the Unversity', will still be around completely intact !
True, the undergraduate Stanford application doesn't ask for your desired major, nor does the Common App, but the Common App asks for your "Future plans." It's not hard to extrapolate what you would want to do.
My eldest applied to the UC system in 2009. The UC used to have a really interesting publicly available database in which you could see the percentage chances of being admitted from a number of angles, including gender, race, public vs. private high school, California resident vs. non-resident, intended campus...and intended major. And there was a dramatic difference in acceptance percentages between the lowest taken (electrical engineering, if memory serves) and Multidisciplinary Studies, which accepted nearly half of the students applying for that specific major. Within a year, they shut down public access to that databank, not surprisingly.
But...they just re-opened it last year. They omitted the demographic details, and they excluded the admissions percentages for the number of AP/Honors classes you took in HS (very informative), but have retained the percentages for admissions and yield rate, along with the acceptance averages per broad school (not the individual major, which the old dataset included). So for example, the average admit rate at UC-San Diego is 25%, the admit GPA range is 4.11 to 4.29 (25th/75th) and the admit rate for specific disciplines ranges from 12% (Computer Science) to 33% (Life Sciences).
Enjoy!
Freshman admission by discipline | University of California
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - chrisk - 11-06-2024
(11-06-2024, 06:38 PM)StanUSwagU Wrote: Is it just me, or is there a pattern/trend here:
• Inability of Stanford to make a deal for a campus in NYC
• Inability of Stanford to make a deal with the County, to significantly develop the campus, surrounding infrastructure & roads (in an environmentally acceptable way)..in order to increase its undergraduate population by 2000 students.
• Inability of Stanford to make a deal for a Belmont, CA campus
• Inability of Stanford to make the structural changes needed 'to adapt to the new landscape' to make Stanford Football Successful
• Inability of Stanford to make the structural changes needed 'to adapt to the new landscape' to make Stanford Mens Basketball Successful
• Inability of Stanford to keep key Athletes (too numerous to list) like Football DL Jaxson Moi, Basketball G Harrison Ingram, etc happy enough to 'want to stay at Stanford to finish their undergraduate sports careers' ..where they elected to go play for another college before earning their undergraduate degree at Stanford.
• Inability of Stanford to recruit a Top15 Football HS recruiting class over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to recruit a Top10 QB HS Recruit over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to get a Top15 Transfer Class over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to hire a Top10 Football Coach over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to hire a Top10 Mens Basketball coach over the last 5 years
• Inability of Stanford to win a National Title in Football in the last 75 years
• Inability of Stanford to win a National Title in Mens Basketball in the last 75 years
• Inability of Stanford to "even have its Football Stadium at 70% people in the seats during Home Games for the last 10 years
• Inability of Stanford to "even have its Basketball Gym (Maples) at 70% people in the seats during Home Games for the last 10 years of Mens Basketball
• Inability of Stanford to learn from a similar school (NotreDame) on how to cultivate & maintain a Top20 Football Program
• Inability of Stanford to learn from a similar school (Duke) on how to cultivate & maintain a Top20 Mens Basketball Program
• Inability of Stanford to be in the Top10 in NIL offerings/opportunities for Football & Mens Basketball
• Inability of Stanford to position itself to be 'attractive enough' to be invited into the 'Big10' conference, ...leaving itself literally & figuratively 'out in the cold, begging the ACC to extend it an invitation' ....which initially the ACC & its members for many months ... said no we dont think Stanford adds any value to our conference, ...no thanks ! [And then after Stanford got on its knees & bent over, begging 'please pretty please'. ...the ACC said, okay stupid kid, we will let you into the club, but you are 'worse than a red-headed stepchild' ...you dont get any financial payments, and ...go over and sit at the 'kiddy table' of the ACC ..and eat your peanuts & dont bother us !].
How embarrassing !
....shall I go on ... ?
My latest understanding is that Stanford is progressing on its campus in Belmont.
Which problem would moving to the Big 10 solve. With 9 conference games, the travel could be as difficult or worse.
In some sports, the ACC is stronger than the Big 10, so it is not as if the Big 10 is better fit across the board.
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - BostonCard - 11-06-2024
Back in 2021, some wealthy fellows spent over $100 million in a quest to bring AmericA’s Cup back to the US. They spared no expense, but on the first race their boat capsized and nearly sank. They didn’t win a single race.
There’s a lesson there. Just wanting something or throwing money to get it isn’t always enough.
BC
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - Canalejas - 11-06-2024
The biggest problem that would have been solved by going to the B1G is keeping UCLA and that other school on the schedule across many sports. It would have meant frequent games in LA, where many of us live, just like there had been since forever.
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - Goose - 11-07-2024
At the risk of massive thread drift I suggest that all the Stanford alumni take a look at https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/browse. For me it has been over 50 years since I looked at what was then a paperback book over and inch thick called "Courses and Degrees". I can find ways to re-create what was "my education" in the current web site. Obviously there are many "new" things that may need to be taught that didn't exist 50 years ago. Other things no longer are taught, for good or for ill. I can also see how the focus of many departments have evolved over the years. Some of that evolution was directed at "correcting" what were perceived shortcomings of the "old" curriculum when I was at Stanford. I found this to be "interesting reading" :-).
When looking at creating "new" programs at Stanford it is IMO useful to look at the current ones and ask how the new program would "fit in". The less it does so the more probable the change will not/cannot happen.
I also think everybody should look at https://sts.stanford.edu/ and https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&academicYear=&q=STS&filter-departmentcode-STS=on&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&filter-term-Autumn=on&filter-term-Winter=on&filter-term-Spring=on&filter-term-Summer=on&page=0. This major seems to be very popular among Stanford athletes. In 1996 Gerhard Casper proposed eliminating STS, but that option was not adopted.
A different program that is worth a look https://msande.stanford.edu/academics-admissions/undergraduate/undergraduate-major and https://bulletin.stanford.edu/programs/MGTSC-BS. This program is also popular among Stanford athletes, but less so.
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - martyup - 11-07-2024
I see there is now a course entitled "The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating." What has happened to academics?
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fm%2F...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fm%2FxlbLOftXNJcAAAAC%2Fanimal-house.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=5614e56e2e0c736bdf5db6fa61b41f7a379e56235d0f9219ce2cf5fac79004e5&ipo=images)
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - 82lsju - 11-07-2024
(11-06-2024, 09:11 PM)chrisk Wrote: My latest understanding is that Stanford is progressing on its campus in Belmont.
Quote:The City of Belmont recently released the Draft Environmental Impact Report {in Aug 2024] for the proposed Stanford Belmont campus, which shows the project will adequately address potential environmental impacts. Stanford continues to work with the city to refine a package of community benefits for the project.
...
Stanford entered into an agreement with NDNU to work toward Stanford’s purchase of NDNU’s campus in September 2021. The agreement, which provides Stanford with the option to purchase the property through June 2025, is designed to support the academic missions of both universities.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/08/city-of-belmont-releases-environmental-review-of-possible-stanford-belmont-campus
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - BostonCard - 11-07-2024
(11-07-2024, 09:58 AM)martyup Wrote: I see there is now a course entitled "The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating." What has happened to academics?
I assume it is this course: https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=STS+177%3A+The+Politics+of+Food+and+Eating%3A+Technology%2C+Culture%2C+and+History&collapse=
Quote:The topics covered include: the industrialization of agriculture; globalization and local foodways; food justice and ethics; new technologies in food practices (e.g., biotechnology, delivery apps); health and diet trends; and food and global challenges (e.g., climate change, COVID-19).
Up to you whether that's something that appeals, of course, but I could see how it would be useful. My father worked for international subsidiaries of consumer packaged goods companies, so I could see how a course such as the above might have been relevant to his job. For example, if you are an executive at, say, Hershey's chocolate, and the price of cocoa is skyrocketing because of chronic underinvestment in cocoa farms, and dry weather, that might be relevant to your quarterly profit. It doesn't seem to be in the syllabus, but I wouldn't be surprised if one topic is the impact of weight loss drugs on the food industry. And there are many examples of wars that were started over food.
I roll my eyes about a lot of academic courses, and there are elements of the syllabus that are less interesting to me, but as a whole, I would probably find the course interesting and valuable. YMMV.
BC
RE: Fire Muir. Hire Luck. - cardcrimson - 11-07-2024
(11-07-2024, 06:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-07-2024, 09:58 AM)martyup Wrote: I see there is now a course entitled "The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating." What has happened to academics?
I assume it is this course: https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=STS+177%3A+The+Politics+of+Food+and+Eating%3A+Technology%2C+Culture%2C+and+History&collapse=
Quote:The topics covered include: the industrialization of agriculture; globalization and local foodways; food justice and ethics; new technologies in food practices (e.g., biotechnology, delivery apps); health and diet trends; and food and global challenges (e.g., climate change, COVID-19).
Up to you whether that's something that appeals, of course, but I could see how it would be useful. My father worked for international subsidiaries of consumer packaged goods companies, so I could see how a course such as the above might have been relevant to his job. For example, if you are an executive at, say, Hershey's chocolate, and the price of cocoa is skyrocketing because of chronic underinvestment in cocoa farms, and dry weather, that might be relevant to your quarterly profit. It doesn't seem to be in the syllabus, but I wouldn't be surprised if one topic is the impact of weight loss drugs on the food industry. And there are many examples of wars that were started over food.
I roll my eyes about a lot of academic courses, and there are elements of the syllabus that are less interesting to me, but as a whole, I would probably find the course interesting and valuable. YMMV.
BC
BC, gotta agree with you on this, and hopefully not veering into political discourse. The culture of food and eating is a pervasive and timely topic indeed. Sustainable, Fair Trade, Obesity, etc. etc. are important tenants in today's socio-economic environment. Over the years, my daughter was an actor in a couple of political ads advocating banning vaping and taxing sugary drinks. It's big business.
On another note, I've been to the last two supermarket energy and design conferences and the focus on sustainability was stunning. To be fair, I"ve not looked at the syllabus, but there is a surprising amount of potential curriculum around the food chain. . . .