[Maple Leaf]

I don't think it is greedy either but if I were her I wouldn't want a bunch of internet articles written about me saying "Kiki left Stanford for the money." or some equivalent verbiage. There would be if she admitted it.

Why would that bother her or be a negative? Most of us take a job when we leave Stanford that pays a lot more than we made while we were in school. In this world of 750K NIL going to USC to play basketball is no different than going to the WNBA except it pays much better. If it were me, I would in no way be ashamed of doing that. Well, the going to USC part maybe :-).

IMO the sisterhood/brotherhood aspect of sports is often misunderstood. We love our biological brothers and sisters, but we also  know and endorse the fact they will lead there own lives probably well apart from our own. Doesn't remove the relationship, but the relationship always had the expectation that it would change with time. In college sports, the relationship is inherently ephemeral. Part of the team turns over each and every year. This isn't new and isn't driven by NIL, the NCAA, or any such thing. Nothing bad about that.

Of course, she should do what’s right for her. That’s what being on a team is all about. As the old saying goes, there’s no I in TEAM…but it’s at the very heart of NIL.

It’s true that part of the team turns over each year, but it’s not necessarily true that the most important part of the team turns over earlier than expected and under circumstances that are likely to be very damaging to the team. Everyone knew Brink would be moving on, but the team would still be in decent shape because Iriafen would be there to take her place. 
Or not…

I'm sure the team knew that Kiki was graduating after this year.  Or at least that is was a possibility.  And given that, I think it's commonly known that she would then have to make a decision to have her 4th year at Stanford or elsewhere, and that decision could be based on graduate school desires, money from NIL, proximity to family, etc.  But I don't think her finishing her degree early is likely a surprise to the team.  I think it may have been to us fans, as she didn't receive the press that Brink did.  In my opinion, a student that is able to finish their Stanford degree in 3 years while playing a sport is something to applaud.  She is literally the epitome of the ideal Stanford student ... somebody that excels at what they do.  She excelled in the classroom and on the court, and she is getting rewarded with the ability to profit off that success now.  Kudos to her.

totally agree.

[Maple Leaf]

I don't think it is greedy either but if I were her I wouldn't want a bunch of internet articles written about me saying "Kiki left Stanford for the money." or some equivalent verbiage. There would be if she admitted it.

Why would that bother her or be a negative? Most of us take a job when we leave Stanford that pays a lot more than we made while we were in school. In this world of 750K NIL going to USC to play basketball is no different than going to the WNBA except it pays much better. If it were me, I would in no way be ashamed of doing that. Well, the going to USC part maybe :-).

IMO the sisterhood/brotherhood aspect of sports is often misunderstood. We love our biological brothers and sisters, but we also  know and endorse the fact they will lead there own lives probably well apart from our own. Doesn't remove the relationship, but the relationship always had the expectation that it would change with time. In college sports, the relationship is inherently ephemeral. Part of the team turns over each and every year. This isn't new and isn't driven by NIL, the NCAA, or any such thing. Nothing bad about that.

Of course, she should do what’s right for her. That’s what being on a team is all about. As the old saying goes, there’s no I in TEAM…but it’s at the very heart of NIL.

It’s true that part of the team turns over each year, but it’s not necessarily true that the most important part of the team turns over earlier than expected and under circumstances that are likely to be very damaging to the team. Everyone knew Brink would be moving on, but the team would still be in decent shape because Iriafen would be there to take her place. 
Or not…

I'm sure the team knew that Kiki was graduating after this year.  Or at least that is was a possibility.  And given that, I think it's commonly known that she would then have to make a decision to have her 4th year at Stanford or elsewhere, and that decision could be based on graduate school desires, money from NIL, proximity to family, etc.  But I don't think her finishing her degree early is likely a surprise to the team.  I think it may have been to us fans, as she didn't receive the press that Brink did.  In my opinion, a student that is able to finish their Stanford degree in 3 years while playing a sport is something to applaud.  She is literally the epitome of the ideal Stanford student ... somebody that excels at what they do.  She excelled in the classroom and on the court, and she is getting rewarded with the ability to profit off that success now.  Kudos to her.

totally agree.

[82lsju]

I'm sure the team knew that Kiki was graduating after this year.  Or at least that is was a possibility.  And given that, I think it's commonly known that she would then have to make a decision to have her 4th year at Stanford or elsewhere, and that decision could be based on graduate school desires, money from NIL, proximity to family, etc.  But I don't think her finishing her degree early is likely a surprise to the team.  I think it may have been to us fans, as she didn't receive the press that Brink did.  In my opinion, a student that is able to finish their Stanford degree in 3 years while playing a sport is something to applaud.  She is literally the epitome of the ideal Stanford student ... somebody that excels at what they do.  She excelled in the classroom and on the court, and she is getting rewarded with the ability to profit off that success now.  Kudos to her.

Agreed.  Given that she will probably have been in school for 12 quarters by this June (three F-W-S years, and three summer terms) graduating in three years is not all that surprising.  I would expect more athletes to graduate in three years in the future, especially early entry football players as they will have had 14 quarters completed at the end of their junior year.

[82lsju]

I'm sure the team knew that Kiki was graduating after this year.  Or at least that is was a possibility.  And given that, I think it's commonly known that she would then have to make a decision to have her 4th year at Stanford or elsewhere, and that decision could be based on graduate school desires, money from NIL, proximity to family, etc.  But I don't think her finishing her degree early is likely a surprise to the team.  I think it may have been to us fans, as she didn't receive the press that Brink did.  In my opinion, a student that is able to finish their Stanford degree in 3 years while playing a sport is something to applaud.  She is literally the epitome of the ideal Stanford student ... somebody that excels at what they do.  She excelled in the classroom and on the court, and she is getting rewarded with the ability to profit off that success now.  Kudos to her.

Agreed.  Given that she will probably have been in school for 12 quarters by this June (three F-W-S years, and three summer terms) graduating in three years is not all that surprising.  I would expect more athletes to graduate in three years in the future, especially early entry football players as they will have had 14 quarters completed at the end of their junior year.

[Goose]

Agreed.  Given that she will probably have been in school for 12 quarters by this June (three F-W-S years, and three summer terms) graduating in three years is not all that surprising.  I would expect more athletes to graduate in three years in the future, especially early entry football players as they will have had 14 quarters completed at the end of their junior year.

Additionally many students admitted to Stanford have AP credits that adds to their units total. Probably not 15 units worth, but enough to matter if you want to graduate early.

[Goose]

Agreed.  Given that she will probably have been in school for 12 quarters by this June (three F-W-S years, and three summer terms) graduating in three years is not all that surprising.  I would expect more athletes to graduate in three years in the future, especially early entry football players as they will have had 14 quarters completed at the end of their junior year.

Additionally many students admitted to Stanford have AP credits that adds to their units total. Probably not 15 units worth, but enough to matter if you want to graduate early.

[BillBradley]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

[BillBradley]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

[JohnR34231]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

If Stanford had matched it, would U$C have upped it?

[JohnR34231]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

If Stanford had matched it, would U$C have upped it?

[Goose]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

If Stanford had matched it, would U$C have upped it?

Independent of the counterfactuals regarding the numbers, we will never know what the decision process actually was for what did happen, let alone what might have happened. KiKi made a choice for her own reasons. She may or may not be able to give you a clear line of reasoning about how she decided and so far she has not. Probably it will stay that way, so theorizing about the "how and why" is pointless.

[Goose]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

If Stanford had matched it, would U$C have upped it?

Independent of the counterfactuals regarding the numbers, we will never know what the decision process actually was for what did happen, let alone what might have happened. KiKi made a choice for her own reasons. She may or may not be able to give you a clear line of reasoning about how she decided and so far she has not. Probably it will stay that way, so theorizing about the "how and why" is pointless.

[82lsju]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

[82lsju]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

[BillBradley]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

If Stanford had matched it, would U$C have upped it?

Independent of the counterfactuals regarding the numbers, we will never know what the decision process actually was for what did happen, let alone what might have happened. KiKi made a choice for her own reasons. She may or may not be able to give you a clear line of reasoning about how she decided and so far she has not. Probably it will stay that way, so theorizing about the "how and why" is pointless.

You're missing something - it's fun (at least for some of us) to speculate and to discuss hypotheticals. So that's the point.

---

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

She could have stayed for another year regardless, right? 

I'm of the opinion that if Stanford would have offered her the same NIL deal, she would have stayed. I think that was the major factor in the decision. She is taking risk going to USC, in a different system, playing with Juju. She could have a terrible year there. She knows she would have been the star at Stanford and she would have been option #1, with the same players and mostly the same coaching staff. Will be interesting to see how this works out for her.

[BillBradley]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

If Stanford had matched it, would U$C have upped it?

Independent of the counterfactuals regarding the numbers, we will never know what the decision process actually was for what did happen, let alone what might have happened. KiKi made a choice for her own reasons. She may or may not be able to give you a clear line of reasoning about how she decided and so far she has not. Probably it will stay that way, so theorizing about the "how and why" is pointless.

You're missing something - it's fun (at least for some of us) to speculate and to discuss hypotheticals. So that's the point.

---

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

She could have stayed for another year regardless, right? 

I'm of the opinion that if Stanford would have offered her the same NIL deal, she would have stayed. I think that was the major factor in the decision. She is taking risk going to USC, in a different system, playing with Juju. She could have a terrible year there. She knows she would have been the star at Stanford and she would have been option #1, with the same players and mostly the same coaching staff. Will be interesting to see how this works out for her.

[M T]

If Iriafen were a faculty member at USC, where would she rank in salaries with $750K for a year?

Another side of the pay-to-play era --- Coaches buying a team with big NIL bucks to get their own contract beefed up.  Having Gottlieb's extension announced on the heels of the announcement of the acquisition of Iriafen was kinda blatant.  At least the AP article on Gottlieb ended with "Terms of Gottlieb’s contract were not disclosed."

[M T]

If Iriafen were a faculty member at USC, where would she rank in salaries with $750K for a year?

Another side of the pay-to-play era --- Coaches buying a team with big NIL bucks to get their own contract beefed up.  Having Gottlieb's extension announced on the heels of the announcement of the acquisition of Iriafen was kinda blatant.  At least the AP article on Gottlieb ended with "Terms of Gottlieb’s contract were not disclosed."

[82lsju]

If Iriafen were a faculty member at USC, where would she rank in salaries with $750K for a year?

Another side of the pay-to-play era --- Coaches buying a team with big NIL bucks to get their own contract beefed up.  Having Gottlieb's extension announced on the heels of the announcement of the acquisition of Iriafen was kinda blatant.  At least the AP article on Gottlieb ended with "Terms of Gottlieb’s contract were not disclosed."

far below professor Caleb Williams and I'd assume professor Juju Watkins, but of course neither are paid by the University so the faculty will have to take their complaints elsewhere.

and Gotteib's salary is not likely to be known unless she becomes one of the top five paid employees at USC, which seems unlikely, and disclosed in UCS's form 990 (same applies at Stanford and any other private University regarding coaching salaries)

[82lsju]

If Iriafen were a faculty member at USC, where would she rank in salaries with $750K for a year?

Another side of the pay-to-play era --- Coaches buying a team with big NIL bucks to get their own contract beefed up.  Having Gottlieb's extension announced on the heels of the announcement of the acquisition of Iriafen was kinda blatant.  At least the AP article on Gottlieb ended with "Terms of Gottlieb’s contract were not disclosed."

far below professor Caleb Williams and I'd assume professor Juju Watkins, but of course neither are paid by the University so the faculty will have to take their complaints elsewhere.

and Gotteib's salary is not likely to be known unless she becomes one of the top five paid employees at USC, which seems unlikely, and disclosed in UCS's form 990 (same applies at Stanford and any other private University regarding coaching salaries)

[chrisk]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

Wouldn’t a co-term year be a reasonable option?

[chrisk]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

Wouldn’t a co-term year be a reasonable option?

[martyup]

The bottom line is that she turned her back on Stanford and embraced the dark side.  It sucks!

[martyup]

The bottom line is that she turned her back on Stanford and embraced the dark side.  It sucks!

[JohnR34231]

The bottom line is that she turned her back on Stanford and embraced the dark side.  It sucks!

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

[JohnR34231]

The bottom line is that she turned her back on Stanford and embraced the dark side.  It sucks!

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

[Goose]

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

IMO we are going to see many more players, both those that have "emerged as a star" and those who have not (and probably will not) changing schools. So will all other schools. NIL is part of the issue, obviously. If you can get more money elsewhere, that is a reason to move. However, every athlete's situation is different.

The "40 year decision" and the academic programs at Stanford have different levels of attraction to different people. An athlete that is "all basketball" (or all any other sport) may not care at all about having a Stanford degree vs a degree from X, vs no degree at all. They may find Stanford's academics a hindrance to their "real reason" to be in college at all and are only at Stanford because that was the best opportunity sports-wise at the time. There is obviously a continuum of "values" and trade-offs on this subject. The vast majority of athletes at Stanford probably value a degree from Stanford to some extent. Some also value the education and think it superior to what they would get elsewhere. Others do not. It then becomes a trade-off among these factors the athletes have to make about leaving with no Stanford degree or staying to get one. Things like playing time, NIL money and guesses at the relative levels of athletic "success" also will be factored in. Some will stay, some won't. Each and every year, the athlete makes this choice. They are not in Kansas anymore :-).

There will also be other athletes, like KiKi, who get the degree and have achieved whatever cachet that delivers to them. The question before these athletes is fundamentally different. If they desire to get a post-graduate education, they can get it paid for by athletics. It may be they can't do that at Stanford because they can't get into the program they want. It may be that they can get admitted but think the programs available at another school fit their future needs/desires better than remaining at Stanford will. In some cases it may just be geography. They intend to live in place X so having a "local" degree and "local" contacts is valuable to them. We have had some non-star football players do exactly that. Makes eminent sense IMO.

It makes almost no sense to stick around and "waste a year" in a degree program that you don't care about (and probably won't actually finish) just to play a sport. It may make sense to somebody who is in effect taking a "year out", or if there is big NIL money they won't get elsewhere, but otherwise probably not. There is definetly something to be said for broadening your academic and sports experience base. Highly motivated and ambitious people (like we try to attract to Stanford) probably will find moving on to be a better choice. Expecting them to do otherwise is pointless.

The "problem" for Stanford (as uncountable other posts have stated) is that these transfers are heavily weighted in the "out" direction and that will probably not change much if at all. That is just how it is.

[Goose]

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

IMO we are going to see many more players, both those that have "emerged as a star" and those who have not (and probably will not) changing schools. So will all other schools. NIL is part of the issue, obviously. If you can get more money elsewhere, that is a reason to move. However, every athlete's situation is different.

The "40 year decision" and the academic programs at Stanford have different levels of attraction to different people. An athlete that is "all basketball" (or all any other sport) may not care at all about having a Stanford degree vs a degree from X, vs no degree at all. They may find Stanford's academics a hindrance to their "real reason" to be in college at all and are only at Stanford because that was the best opportunity sports-wise at the time. There is obviously a continuum of "values" and trade-offs on this subject. The vast majority of athletes at Stanford probably value a degree from Stanford to some extent. Some also value the education and think it superior to what they would get elsewhere. Others do not. It then becomes a trade-off among these factors the athletes have to make about leaving with no Stanford degree or staying to get one. Things like playing time, NIL money and guesses at the relative levels of athletic "success" also will be factored in. Some will stay, some won't. Each and every year, the athlete makes this choice. They are not in Kansas anymore :-).

There will also be other athletes, like KiKi, who get the degree and have achieved whatever cachet that delivers to them. The question before these athletes is fundamentally different. If they desire to get a post-graduate education, they can get it paid for by athletics. It may be they can't do that at Stanford because they can't get into the program they want. It may be that they can get admitted but think the programs available at another school fit their future needs/desires better than remaining at Stanford will. In some cases it may just be geography. They intend to live in place X so having a "local" degree and "local" contacts is valuable to them. We have had some non-star football players do exactly that. Makes eminent sense IMO.

It makes almost no sense to stick around and "waste a year" in a degree program that you don't care about (and probably won't actually finish) just to play a sport. It may make sense to somebody who is in effect taking a "year out", or if there is big NIL money they won't get elsewhere, but otherwise probably not. There is definetly something to be said for broadening your academic and sports experience base. Highly motivated and ambitious people (like we try to attract to Stanford) probably will find moving on to be a better choice. Expecting them to do otherwise is pointless.

The "problem" for Stanford (as uncountable other posts have stated) is that these transfers are heavily weighted in the "out" direction and that will probably not change much if at all. That is just how it is.

[82lsju]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

Wouldn’t a co-term year be a reasonable option?

maybe, but her major "design engineering" does no appear to have a co-term option

https://engineering.stanford.edu/admissi...ngineering

[82lsju]

If Stanford would have matched the $750K NIL deal, would Kiki have stayed?

was she accepted to a grad school program?

Wouldn’t a co-term year be a reasonable option?

maybe, but her major "design engineering" does no appear to have a co-term option

https://engineering.stanford.edu/admissi...ngineering

[BostonCard]

The design engineering major is what used to be called product design and has a lot of overlap with mechanical engineering, which does offer a co-term, if that is what she wanted to do.

BC

[BostonCard]

The design engineering major is what used to be called product design and has a lot of overlap with mechanical engineering, which does offer a co-term, if that is what she wanted to do.

BC

[SkiBum80]

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

IMO we are going to see many more players, both those that have "emerged as a star" and those who have not (and probably will not) changing schools. So will all other schools. NIL is part of the issue, obviously. If you can get more money elsewhere, that is a reason to move. However, every athlete's situation is different.

The "40 year decision" and the academic programs at Stanford have different levels of attraction to different people. An athlete that is "all basketball" (or all any other sport) may not care at all about having a Stanford degree vs a degree from X, vs no degree at all. They may find Stanford's academics a hindrance to their "real reason" to be in college at all and are only at Stanford because that was the best opportunity sports-wise at the time. There is obviously a continuum of "values" and trade-offs on this subject. The vast majority of athletes at Stanford probably value a degree from Stanford to some extent. Some also value the education and think it superior to what they would get elsewhere. Others do not. It then becomes a trade-off among these factors the athletes have to make about leaving with no Stanford degree or staying to get one. Things like playing time, NIL money and guesses at the relative levels of athletic "success" also will be factored in. Some will stay, some won't. Each and every year, the athlete makes this choice. They are not in Kansas anymore :-).

There will also be other athletes, like KiKi, who get the degree and have achieved whatever cachet that delivers to them. The question before these athletes is fundamentally different. If they desire to get a post-graduate education, they can get it paid for by athletics. It may be they can't do that at Stanford because they can't get into the program they want. It may be that they can get admitted but think the programs available at another school fit their future needs/desires better than remaining at Stanford will. In some cases it may just be geography. They intend to live in place X so having a "local" degree and "local" contacts is valuable to them. We have had some non-star football players do exactly that. Makes eminent sense IMO.

It makes almost no sense to stick around and "waste a year" in a degree program that you don't care about (and probably won't actually finish) just to play a sport. It may make sense to somebody who is in effect taking a "year out", or if there is big NIL money they won't get elsewhere, but otherwise probably not. There is definetly something to be said for broadening your academic and sports experience base. Highly motivated and ambitious people (like we try to attract to Stanford) probably will find moving on to be a better choice. Expecting them to do otherwise is pointless.

The "problem" for Stanford (as uncountable other posts have stated) is that these transfers are heavily weighted in the "out" direction and that will probably not change much if at all. That is just how it is.

Well said, on many good points.
One slight caveat, is that it seems like Stanford's NIL is a work in progress, with the emphasis on progress,
given the recent university embrace of Lifetime Cardinal, and its apparent recent success, eg Raynaud.

[SkiBum80]

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

IMO we are going to see many more players, both those that have "emerged as a star" and those who have not (and probably will not) changing schools. So will all other schools. NIL is part of the issue, obviously. If you can get more money elsewhere, that is a reason to move. However, every athlete's situation is different.

The "40 year decision" and the academic programs at Stanford have different levels of attraction to different people. An athlete that is "all basketball" (or all any other sport) may not care at all about having a Stanford degree vs a degree from X, vs no degree at all. They may find Stanford's academics a hindrance to their "real reason" to be in college at all and are only at Stanford because that was the best opportunity sports-wise at the time. There is obviously a continuum of "values" and trade-offs on this subject. The vast majority of athletes at Stanford probably value a degree from Stanford to some extent. Some also value the education and think it superior to what they would get elsewhere. Others do not. It then becomes a trade-off among these factors the athletes have to make about leaving with no Stanford degree or staying to get one. Things like playing time, NIL money and guesses at the relative levels of athletic "success" also will be factored in. Some will stay, some won't. Each and every year, the athlete makes this choice. They are not in Kansas anymore :-).

There will also be other athletes, like KiKi, who get the degree and have achieved whatever cachet that delivers to them. The question before these athletes is fundamentally different. If they desire to get a post-graduate education, they can get it paid for by athletics. It may be they can't do that at Stanford because they can't get into the program they want. It may be that they can get admitted but think the programs available at another school fit their future needs/desires better than remaining at Stanford will. In some cases it may just be geography. They intend to live in place X so having a "local" degree and "local" contacts is valuable to them. We have had some non-star football players do exactly that. Makes eminent sense IMO.

It makes almost no sense to stick around and "waste a year" in a degree program that you don't care about (and probably won't actually finish) just to play a sport. It may make sense to somebody who is in effect taking a "year out", or if there is big NIL money they won't get elsewhere, but otherwise probably not. There is definetly something to be said for broadening your academic and sports experience base. Highly motivated and ambitious people (like we try to attract to Stanford) probably will find moving on to be a better choice. Expecting them to do otherwise is pointless.

The "problem" for Stanford (as uncountable other posts have stated) is that these transfers are heavily weighted in the "out" direction and that will probably not change much if at all. That is just how it is.

Well said, on many good points.
One slight caveat, is that it seems like Stanford's NIL is a work in progress, with the emphasis on progress,
given the recent university embrace of Lifetime Cardinal, and its apparent recent success, eg Raynaud.

[BobK]

Lifetime Cardinal isn’t as recent as you believe nor recently embraced. Being all in took a leadership change at the president provost level however

[BobK]

Lifetime Cardinal isn’t as recent as you believe nor recently embraced. Being all in took a leadership change at the president provost level however

[jacket3ree]

She is getting my favorite named degree: "DESIGN-BS"  (I could easily be an adjunct professor looking as some of the uh, stuff, on my desk right now. A.k.a. Bachelor of Science in Design.)  Really cool looking program.

Surprised she's not going to RISD and starting her own basketball team.  <rim shot>

There are lists for everything, including the most valuable product/industrial design degrees.  I think this is mostly about getting back to LA, playing for Gottlieb, making a lot of money in a short period of time to set herself up for what comes next, and at least making the Final Four.  USC has an MS in Product Development Engineering jointly offered by the aerospace and mechanical engineering departments at Viterbi. 

I wondered if this is the mother of all product design engineering degrees, so I found plenty of lists. Here's a ranked list "from sources across the web" (maybe this is AI - wohoo) returned from the query "best product design engineering graduate programs in the United States". Offered primary in the spirit of how silly these lists can be, but oddly enough there are several P5 basketball schools on this list. Plus whatever league all the art schools play in.

1. Georgia Tech
2. RIT (Rochester - legit design school is my understanding)
3. Arizona State
4. Auburn
5. Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh - underrated gem IMO)
6. ArtCenter College of Design (Pasadena)
7. Drexel
8. NC State
9. Stanford
10. Michigan
11. Iowa State
12. Kansas State
13. MIT
14. UC Berkeley
15. Clemson
16. College for Creative Studies (Santa Barbara)
17. Ohio State
18. Illinois Urbana-Champaign
19. Northwestern
20. Pratt Institute (Brooklyn)
21. Purdue
22. USC
23. Parsons School of Design | The New School
24. Cedarville University (Ohio)
 
No RISD?  This list might be bogus.....Wait, it stopped at 24th, so I'll slot them in 25th.

[jacket3ree]

She is getting my favorite named degree: "DESIGN-BS"  (I could easily be an adjunct professor looking as some of the uh, stuff, on my desk right now. A.k.a. Bachelor of Science in Design.)  Really cool looking program.

Surprised she's not going to RISD and starting her own basketball team.  <rim shot>

There are lists for everything, including the most valuable product/industrial design degrees.  I think this is mostly about getting back to LA, playing for Gottlieb, making a lot of money in a short period of time to set herself up for what comes next, and at least making the Final Four.  USC has an MS in Product Development Engineering jointly offered by the aerospace and mechanical engineering departments at Viterbi. 

I wondered if this is the mother of all product design engineering degrees, so I found plenty of lists. Here's a ranked list "from sources across the web" (maybe this is AI - wohoo) returned from the query "best product design engineering graduate programs in the United States". Offered primary in the spirit of how silly these lists can be, but oddly enough there are several P5 basketball schools on this list. Plus whatever league all the art schools play in.

1. Georgia Tech
2. RIT (Rochester - legit design school is my understanding)
3. Arizona State
4. Auburn
5. Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh - underrated gem IMO)
6. ArtCenter College of Design (Pasadena)
7. Drexel
8. NC State
9. Stanford
10. Michigan
11. Iowa State
12. Kansas State
13. MIT
14. UC Berkeley
15. Clemson
16. College for Creative Studies (Santa Barbara)
17. Ohio State
18. Illinois Urbana-Champaign
19. Northwestern
20. Pratt Institute (Brooklyn)
21. Purdue
22. USC
23. Parsons School of Design | The New School
24. Cedarville University (Ohio)
 
No RISD?  This list might be bogus.....Wait, it stopped at 24th, so I'll slot them in 25th.

[mbdude]

Van Oelofen to USC, Beers to Oklahoma

[mbdude]

Van Oelofen to USC, Beers to Oklahoma