[Mick]

Today's Editorial from the Daily. I believe we're at the cusp of an important point in Stanford's future (or future Stanford's history). Which way will we go?

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/11/...-students/

I think Stanford prioritizes its image over everything.  The Brand is All.  Part of the brand is that you have the best of everything, particularly the best students.  The Band's transgressions conflicted with the Brand, so they tried to work with the Band, now they're on the border of the death penalty, which may kill the Band, so the Band doesn't harm the Brand.  Sexual assault conflicts with that image, but rather than involve the police (Hello, Brand damage!!), they try to deal with it inhouse, much like banks used to deal with embezzlers inhouse before the law was passed mandating the involvement of authorities.  The softball parents threatened the AD with an NCAA investigation, so the AD tried to deal with THAT inhouse.  I'm gathering that Stanford feels that ruining their 15x-NCAAs-in-a-row coach's career and hiring another Dartmouth boob was worth the two consecutive hideous seasons.

The Daily picked up on it: "Last year, the Daily’s Editorial Board called for greater transparency from the administration. But we have continued to see top-down administrative decisions and a lack of consideration for students. Instead of providing real transparency into issues and decisions that students care about, the University has chosen to be “open” about the wrong things: the results of inaccessible administrative decisions, to which students are given little opportunity to respond, and the details of the personal lives of victims of sexual assault."

Everything the University does points to the Brand.  Actually, in my business that's de facto but Stanford and the people who run it take it very seriously.  My take is that it is their first and last filter when it comes to their decision-making.  I think it eliminates some options very early and dictates the path late.

The problems that can arise, when the Brand is All, can often be ones of hubris.  Stanford is a little bit like Disney in that case.  The Disney brand lies in its creative, but its staff is almost comically underpaid (by and large).  I've dealt with the Stanford hospital administration, it's entertaining to say the least.  I've had peers who've left the employ of the University to make quadruple what they were making at Stanford.

[Mick]

Today's Editorial from the Daily. I believe we're at the cusp of an important point in Stanford's future (or future Stanford's history). Which way will we go?

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/11/...-students/

I think Stanford prioritizes its image over everything.  The Brand is All.  Part of the brand is that you have the best of everything, particularly the best students.  The Band's transgressions conflicted with the Brand, so they tried to work with the Band, now they're on the border of the death penalty, which may kill the Band, so the Band doesn't harm the Brand.  Sexual assault conflicts with that image, but rather than involve the police (Hello, Brand damage!!), they try to deal with it inhouse, much like banks used to deal with embezzlers inhouse before the law was passed mandating the involvement of authorities.  The softball parents threatened the AD with an NCAA investigation, so the AD tried to deal with THAT inhouse.  I'm gathering that Stanford feels that ruining their 15x-NCAAs-in-a-row coach's career and hiring another Dartmouth boob was worth the two consecutive hideous seasons.

The Daily picked up on it: "Last year, the Daily’s Editorial Board called for greater transparency from the administration. But we have continued to see top-down administrative decisions and a lack of consideration for students. Instead of providing real transparency into issues and decisions that students care about, the University has chosen to be “open” about the wrong things: the results of inaccessible administrative decisions, to which students are given little opportunity to respond, and the details of the personal lives of victims of sexual assault."

Everything the University does points to the Brand.  Actually, in my business that's de facto but Stanford and the people who run it take it very seriously.  My take is that it is their first and last filter when it comes to their decision-making.  I think it eliminates some options very early and dictates the path late.

The problems that can arise, when the Brand is All, can often be ones of hubris.  Stanford is a little bit like Disney in that case.  The Disney brand lies in its creative, but its staff is almost comically underpaid (by and large).  I've dealt with the Stanford hospital administration, it's entertaining to say the least.  I've had peers who've left the employ of the University to make quadruple what they were making at Stanford.