[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie