[Goose]

last i heard many full-time faculty make big bucks moonlighting in industry - especially at stanford. often the work has even been developed in labs at the university, in which case the school typically gets a cut. the academic mission of universities hasn't been pristine for a while now. students are just catching up.

IMO lots of false equivalence here. First of all, BOTH students and faculty have always had the option of side jobs. Many students couldn't have paid their way through school without them. In fact, it is pretty certain that many more students have side jobs than do faculty members, because there are way more students. The common denominator of these side jobs is that Stanford has literally nothing to do with how they are run, what they do, etc. The existence of these jobs is not in any way dependent on Stanford. Obviously that is not true in Stanford sports, where the teams are run by Stanford and wouldn't exist without Stanford's continuing "support". In many cases the faculty uses IP developed in their research at Stanford, for which the technology transfer  folks extract negotiated licensing fees. The IP is also available for sale to anybody who will pay, unless and until somebody (maybe the inventor, but often not) negotiates an exclusive license (which obviously costs more). This in no way is contrary to Stanford's academic mission, but rather is orthogonal to it.

The academic and "learning" aspects of the underlying research went on previously in the labs at Stanford managed by the faculty member. There is little question such research serves an academic purpose. The fact they accomplished something Stanford can sell is literally incidental to that process. It is a "by-product". Most research can't be monetized. Some can. The faculty member who ran the lab that did the work may or may not get a "side" job out of it. The majority of the IP generated at Stanford goes nowhere, even when the PIs do their very best to "sell" it :-). Some IP generates lots of money for a very long time for Stanford and hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with Stanford. See https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/mak...h-patents/. Some research has made lots of money for the inventor who founded companies to exploit their inventions, even if said companies never produced a viable product (names intentionally omitted:-).

Better examples for your argument are activities like SRI and the Draper Labs, which were contract research facilities created by Stanford and MIT. In the 1970s these organizations were deemed incompatible with the academic purposes of Stanford/MIT and spun off. Athletics may meet the same fate. Today, LBL and SLAC are arguably examples of efforts that universities manage that are not strictly academic. It has been a topic of discussion for decades. The academic justification for university involvement is that high-energy physics research cannot happen without government subsidies. Universities want to do high-energy physics research and teach their graduate students about it, so that "justifies" such involvement. YMMV.

Another possible example is Stanford Health Care. As BC has pointed out, today Stanford may be a health care system with a University attached. However, nobody would argue that a medical school is not a "legitimate" part of the academic goals of the university. In this case, the argument is that the associated heath care system is necessary to educate doctors and (incidentally) prevent Stanford from losing its shirt doing so.

There is still contract research going on at Stanford. Graduate students learn a lot doing it. I know, I was "sold" to NASA Ames for four months. It clearly has academic purpose, but is it "pure"? Again, YMMV. My answer is "it depends".

The problem is that it is almost impossible to make the argument that Stanford's sports programs serves any academic purpose, even peripherally. The "builds character" argument is just about the only one. I am a fan of Stanford sports in general. When the players are amateurs and are playing the sport "for the love of the game", it can be argued that while it isn't academic it is socially useful and at least doesn't conflict with the university's academic mission. Well OK, it has never been exactly that, but that is the "ideal" surrounding its existence. Arguably it has become such a large enterprise within the university it can't be ignored as "minor" and "just a unifying social benefit that the players enjoy doing". When students are being paid by outside sources to attend Stanford and play a sport, there is no way it can be said sports are not creating conflicts with the university's academic mission and standards. For that person, the sport is arguably primary, not a means to an end. IMO that is a bridge way too far.

[Goose]

last i heard many full-time faculty make big bucks moonlighting in industry - especially at stanford. often the work has even been developed in labs at the university, in which case the school typically gets a cut. the academic mission of universities hasn't been pristine for a while now. students are just catching up.

IMO lots of false equivalence here. First of all, BOTH students and faculty have always had the option of side jobs. Many students couldn't have paid their way through school without them. In fact, it is pretty certain that many more students have side jobs than do faculty members, because there are way more students. The common denominator of these side jobs is that Stanford has literally nothing to do with how they are run, what they do, etc. The existence of these jobs is not in any way dependent on Stanford. Obviously that is not true in Stanford sports, where the teams are run by Stanford and wouldn't exist without Stanford's continuing "support". In many cases the faculty uses IP developed in their research at Stanford, for which the technology transfer  folks extract negotiated licensing fees. The IP is also available for sale to anybody who will pay, unless and until somebody (maybe the inventor, but often not) negotiates an exclusive license (which obviously costs more). This in no way is contrary to Stanford's academic mission, but rather is orthogonal to it.

The academic and "learning" aspects of the underlying research went on previously in the labs at Stanford managed by the faculty member. There is little question such research serves an academic purpose. The fact they accomplished something Stanford can sell is literally incidental to that process. It is a "by-product". Most research can't be monetized. Some can. The faculty member who ran the lab that did the work may or may not get a "side" job out of it. The majority of the IP generated at Stanford goes nowhere, even when the PIs do their very best to "sell" it :-). Some IP generates lots of money for a very long time for Stanford and hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with Stanford. See https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/mak...h-patents/. Some research has made lots of money for the inventor who founded companies to exploit their inventions, even if said companies never produced a viable product (names intentionally omitted:-).

Better examples for your argument are activities like SRI and the Draper Labs, which were contract research facilities created by Stanford and MIT. In the 1970s these organizations were deemed incompatible with the academic purposes of Stanford/MIT and spun off. Athletics may meet the same fate. Today, LBL and SLAC are arguably examples of efforts that universities manage that are not strictly academic. It has been a topic of discussion for decades. The academic justification for university involvement is that high-energy physics research cannot happen without government subsidies. Universities want to do high-energy physics research and teach their graduate students about it, so that "justifies" such involvement. YMMV.

Another possible example is Stanford Health Care. As BC has pointed out, today Stanford may be a health care system with a University attached. However, nobody would argue that a medical school is not a "legitimate" part of the academic goals of the university. In this case, the argument is that the associated heath care system is necessary to educate doctors and (incidentally) prevent Stanford from losing its shirt doing so.

There is still contract research going on at Stanford. Graduate students learn a lot doing it. I know, I was "sold" to NASA Ames for four months. It clearly has academic purpose, but is it "pure"? Again, YMMV. My answer is "it depends".

The problem is that it is almost impossible to make the argument that Stanford's sports programs serves any academic purpose, even peripherally. The "builds character" argument is just about the only one. I am a fan of Stanford sports in general. When the players are amateurs and are playing the sport "for the love of the game", it can be argued that while it isn't academic it is socially useful and at least doesn't conflict with the university's academic mission. Well OK, it has never been exactly that, but that is the "ideal" surrounding its existence. Arguably it has become such a large enterprise within the university it can't be ignored as "minor" and "just a unifying social benefit that the players enjoy doing". When students are being paid by outside sources to attend Stanford and play a sport, there is no way it can be said sports are not creating conflicts with the university's academic mission and standards. For that person, the sport is arguably primary, not a means to an end. IMO that is a bridge way too far.