[81alum]

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, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

The vast majority of the 340 Division I schools do in fact subsidize athletics programs by drawing upon general support dollars.  At a few dozen of them the "revenue sports" like football, men's basketball, and women's basketball may bring in enough money to pay for themselves, but certainly not enough money to pay for the rest of the ICA programs.  At quite a few of those 340 schools the revenue sports do not even pay for themselves.  By "pay for themselves" I mean that TV money, gate receipts, and philanthropy needs to cover  all the expenses of travel, athletic scholarships, coaches salaries, facilities, etc.  It rarely happens.

Where does the difference come from?  At my place of work, the athletics program consumes about 10% of the entire university budget and it still runs a deficit of several million dollars a year.  Just the annual deficit alone would be enough to pay for 300 classes a year.  This at a place where a chronic shortage of space in classes delays the graduation of many students.  Allocating scarce resources to a program that is largely (but not entirely) entertainment when you cannot provide basic classes for the student body is indeed a case of tragically misplaced priorities.

Stanford is one of the few programs where one can say unequivocally that is not true.  One can make the cultural argument--as you suggest--that athletics should not be elevated over other cultural achievements like classical music.  I'm willing to have that discussion.  But at least at Stanford--even if one were to concede that athletics is nothing more than a frill--we have the knowledge that it does not detract from the core mission or anything else that the University does.

Where this leaves me is with a stronger reason than ever to cheer for Stanford athletics--knowing that Stanford alone seems to have its priorities straight.  Call it smug superiority if you like, but when we beat other schools, I not only revel in our athletic superiority, I also derive pleasure from knowing that my program did it while keeping high admissions standards for our athletes and not sacrificing the well being of our other students--something that few of our opponents can claim.

[81alum]

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, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

The vast majority of the 340 Division I schools do in fact subsidize athletics programs by drawing upon general support dollars.  At a few dozen of them the "revenue sports" like football, men's basketball, and women's basketball may bring in enough money to pay for themselves, but certainly not enough money to pay for the rest of the ICA programs.  At quite a few of those 340 schools the revenue sports do not even pay for themselves.  By "pay for themselves" I mean that TV money, gate receipts, and philanthropy needs to cover  all the expenses of travel, athletic scholarships, coaches salaries, facilities, etc.  It rarely happens.

Where does the difference come from?  At my place of work, the athletics program consumes about 10% of the entire university budget and it still runs a deficit of several million dollars a year.  Just the annual deficit alone would be enough to pay for 300 classes a year.  This at a place where a chronic shortage of space in classes delays the graduation of many students.  Allocating scarce resources to a program that is largely (but not entirely) entertainment when you cannot provide basic classes for the student body is indeed a case of tragically misplaced priorities.

Stanford is one of the few programs where one can say unequivocally that is not true.  One can make the cultural argument--as you suggest--that athletics should not be elevated over other cultural achievements like classical music.  I'm willing to have that discussion.  But at least at Stanford--even if one were to concede that athletics is nothing more than a frill--we have the knowledge that it does not detract from the core mission or anything else that the University does.

Where this leaves me is with a stronger reason than ever to cheer for Stanford athletics--knowing that Stanford alone seems to have its priorities straight.  Call it smug superiority if you like, but when we beat other schools, I not only revel in our athletic superiority, I also derive pleasure from knowing that my program did it while keeping high admissions standards for our athletes and not sacrificing the well being of our other students--something that few of our opponents can claim.