[81alum]

It has been decades since I taught at Stanford, so I cannot intelligently comment on whether Ms. Lee's comments are accurate for Stanford.

However, I recognize a great deal of what she says for my current (state) institution.  Our athletes do get substantially more academic resources than our average students.  On the one hand I think it is great that the academic achievement of our student-athletes has dramatically improved over the last 15 years since this policy began.  But the academic achievement of ALL of our students would have improved had all of them received the same level of counseling, tutoring, enforced study-hall, etc.  I've heard serious student-service professionals discuss trying to find the funding to give all of our students the same level of academic support that our student-athletes receive--but they always fail to do so.  As a result, our student-athletes now have a higher GPA and a higher 4 year graduation rate than the student body as a whole.  I am proud of their academic achievements but saddened at the unequal treatment our other students receive.

Now, consider that the scholarships of our student-athletes are mostly paid for by student fees.  Namely, our average students pay hundreds of dollars a year above tuition to fund the special services that the athletes receive and that they (the typical students) don't get.  Few of our students understand this, but once in a while they do the research and figure it out, and then they are bitter.  They sound a lot like Ms. Lee.

Now, let me say something about the assertion that student-athletes work hard--20 hours a week--and other students are not in a position to criticize.  Well, I worked  20 hours a week in Green Library shelving and checking out books the whole time I was a student at Stanford, and I was not an athlete.  In my era Stanford had more than 1000 students on work study like me.  We worked our way through Stanford, too, and we contributed to the University while we did it. 

I hope Ms. Lee is wrong, and that Stanford these days is nothing like my current institution.  But I would not reject her criticisms out-of-hand.

[81alum]

It has been decades since I taught at Stanford, so I cannot intelligently comment on whether Ms. Lee's comments are accurate for Stanford.

However, I recognize a great deal of what she says for my current (state) institution.  Our athletes do get substantially more academic resources than our average students.  On the one hand I think it is great that the academic achievement of our student-athletes has dramatically improved over the last 15 years since this policy began.  But the academic achievement of ALL of our students would have improved had all of them received the same level of counseling, tutoring, enforced study-hall, etc.  I've heard serious student-service professionals discuss trying to find the funding to give all of our students the same level of academic support that our student-athletes receive--but they always fail to do so.  As a result, our student-athletes now have a higher GPA and a higher 4 year graduation rate than the student body as a whole.  I am proud of their academic achievements but saddened at the unequal treatment our other students receive.

Now, consider that the scholarships of our student-athletes are mostly paid for by student fees.  Namely, our average students pay hundreds of dollars a year above tuition to fund the special services that the athletes receive and that they (the typical students) don't get.  Few of our students understand this, but once in a while they do the research and figure it out, and then they are bitter.  They sound a lot like Ms. Lee.

Now, let me say something about the assertion that student-athletes work hard--20 hours a week--and other students are not in a position to criticize.  Well, I worked  20 hours a week in Green Library shelving and checking out books the whole time I was a student at Stanford, and I was not an athlete.  In my era Stanford had more than 1000 students on work study like me.  We worked our way through Stanford, too, and we contributed to the University while we did it. 

I hope Ms. Lee is wrong, and that Stanford these days is nothing like my current institution.  But I would not reject her criticisms out-of-hand.

[Jamesy]

Some background on athletes partying. https://mailchi.mp/fountainhopper/foho-1...e-eviction

[Jamesy]

Some background on athletes partying. https://mailchi.mp/fountainhopper/foho-1...e-eviction

[Mick]

Next she will say  the Bill Gates if the world had an unfair advantage

Oh, those types of comments are very common these days.

People like Gates, Bezos, and Musk are as rich and powerful as they are not because of hard work or any admirable qualities like that. They merely got lucky in the gene pool lottery.

They and Zuckerberg are also all psychopaths. I'll never understand why people worship rich and powerful more than celebrate humane and honest.

I don't think very many people worship them.
Some people do admire what they have accomplished and are accomplishing.

Unfortunately there are very many people who believe that if you are a "celebrity" the you must be smart, insightful, and generally correct. How do you think Trump got elected?

Same reason Meryl Streep testifies before Congress about the evils of UDMH/Alar.  She has degrees in dramatic arts from Vassar and an MFA from Yale, but does not have the underlying scientific training to be an authority on Alar.  Doesn't stop any of us from opining, of course, but she tried to set policy, as do a number of other celebrities.  

I have much admiration for Fred Gwynne (played Herman Munster, among other things) and his stance on celebrity opinions.  A reporter asked him his opinion on a political issue, and Fred (Harvard, '51) replied that actors live in a make-believe world and shouldn't opine on real-world events because regular people overvalue celebrity opinions, or words to that effect.  Smart guy, Mr. Gwynne.

---

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

The Wilbur food service could make those things simultaneously true.

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

[Mick]

Next she will say  the Bill Gates if the world had an unfair advantage

Oh, those types of comments are very common these days.

People like Gates, Bezos, and Musk are as rich and powerful as they are not because of hard work or any admirable qualities like that. They merely got lucky in the gene pool lottery.

They and Zuckerberg are also all psychopaths. I'll never understand why people worship rich and powerful more than celebrate humane and honest.

I don't think very many people worship them.
Some people do admire what they have accomplished and are accomplishing.

Unfortunately there are very many people who believe that if you are a "celebrity" the you must be smart, insightful, and generally correct. How do you think Trump got elected?

Same reason Meryl Streep testifies before Congress about the evils of UDMH/Alar.  She has degrees in dramatic arts from Vassar and an MFA from Yale, but does not have the underlying scientific training to be an authority on Alar.  Doesn't stop any of us from opining, of course, but she tried to set policy, as do a number of other celebrities.  

I have much admiration for Fred Gwynne (played Herman Munster, among other things) and his stance on celebrity opinions.  A reporter asked him his opinion on a political issue, and Fred (Harvard, '51) replied that actors live in a make-believe world and shouldn't opine on real-world events because regular people overvalue celebrity opinions, or words to that effect.  Smart guy, Mr. Gwynne.

---

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

The Wilbur food service could make those things simultaneously true.

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

[oldalum]

I have much admiration for Fred Gwynne (played Herman Munster, among other things) 

His performance as the judge in My Cousin Vinny is an endearing and enduring classic, the cap to a long career in theater, TV, and film.

[oldalum]

I have much admiration for Fred Gwynne (played Herman Munster, among other things) 

His performance as the judge in My Cousin Vinny is an endearing and enduring classic, the cap to a long career in theater, TV, and film.

[Goose]

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

It used to be said the Jesuits are exempt from the Constitution and can inflict cruel and unusual punishments. They argue the aren't unusual, they use them regularly.

[Goose]

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

It used to be said the Jesuits are exempt from the Constitution and can inflict cruel and unusual punishments. They argue the aren't unusual, they use them regularly.

[teejers1]

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

I think Stern Hall got the level 6 food in the early 80s . . . 

P.S.  Agree 100% about Gwynne in My Cousin Vinny.  Very good performance.  (BTW, I think that's when Marissa Tomei became the cat's meow!).

[teejers1]

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

I think Stern Hall got the level 6 food in the early 80s . . . 

P.S.  Agree 100% about Gwynne in My Cousin Vinny.  Very good performance.  (BTW, I think that's when Marissa Tomei became the cat's meow!).

[Mick]

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

I think Stern Hall got the level 6 food in the early 80s . . . 

P.S.  Agree 100% about Gwynne in My Cousin Vinny.  Very good performance.  (BTW, I think that's when Marissa Tomei became the cat's meow!).

Two Yout's
https://youtu.be/K6qGwmXZtsE?t=110

[Mick]

When I was in college, SAGA was our food service.  It was a large, public company that served all kinds of restaurants and institutions.  They graded their food on a 1-5 basis, 1 being the best.  In the early 1980s, midlevel restaurants received the "1" level food.  The University of California system received the "3" level food.  The California Penal System received the "4" level food.  And SCU received the "5" level food, basically the food that was so bad that it wasn't fit for convicts.

I think Stern Hall got the level 6 food in the early 80s . . . 

P.S.  Agree 100% about Gwynne in My Cousin Vinny.  Very good performance.  (BTW, I think that's when Marissa Tomei became the cat's meow!).

Two Yout's
https://youtu.be/K6qGwmXZtsE?t=110

[cctop]

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

There was a Daily article last year about grad students foraging for food on campus because their stipends were not enough to cover expenses:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/28...ty-crisis/

Here's a followup article regarding the success of a pop-up food pantry:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/17...-students/

[cctop]

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

There was a Daily article last year about grad students foraging for food on campus because their stipends were not enough to cover expenses:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/28...ty-crisis/

Here's a followup article regarding the success of a pop-up food pantry:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/17...-students/

[Mick]

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

There was a Daily article last year about grad students foraging for food on campus because their stipends were not enough to cover expenses:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/28...ty-crisis/

Here's a followup article regarding the success of a pop-up food pantry:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/17...-students/

Ten years ago my oldest and I were touring UC-Berkeley.  There was a student tour guide who seemed fixated on food availability and assuring the parents and students that students would have enough food availability to survive on the UCB campus.  I don't know whether it's an issue at Cal either now or then, but I found it odd that she brought it up at least seven times during a 45 minute tour.  The fact that she was at least 50 pounds overweight made it seem even stranger.

I think it's reprehensible that a University with Stanford's resources underfeeds a portion (or all) of their student body, or did in the past.  Personally, I thought Ms. Li's comments were hyperbole, but apparently there's some truth to it.

[Mick]

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

There was a Daily article last year about grad students foraging for food on campus because their stipends were not enough to cover expenses:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/28...ty-crisis/

Here's a followup article regarding the success of a pop-up food pantry:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/17...-students/

Ten years ago my oldest and I were touring UC-Berkeley.  There was a student tour guide who seemed fixated on food availability and assuring the parents and students that students would have enough food availability to survive on the UCB campus.  I don't know whether it's an issue at Cal either now or then, but I found it odd that she brought it up at least seven times during a 45 minute tour.  The fact that she was at least 50 pounds overweight made it seem even stranger.

I think it's reprehensible that a University with Stanford's resources underfeeds a portion (or all) of their student body, or did in the past.  Personally, I thought Ms. Li's comments were hyperbole, but apparently there's some truth to it.

[2006alum]

It has been decades since I taught at Stanford, so I cannot intelligently comment on whether Ms. Lee's comments are accurate for Stanford.

However, I recognize a great deal of what she says for my current (state) institution.  Our athletes do get substantially more academic resources than our average students.  On the one hand I think it is great that the academic achievement of our student-athletes has dramatically improved over the last 15 years since this policy began.  But the academic achievement of ALL of our students would have improved had all of them received the same level of counseling, tutoring, enforced study-hall, etc.  I've heard serious student-service professionals discuss trying to find the funding to give all of our students the same level of academic support that our student-athletes receive--but they always fail to do so.  As a result, our student-athletes now have a higher GPA and a higher 4 year graduation rate than the student body as a whole.  I am proud of their academic achievements but saddened at the unequal treatment our other students receive.

Now, consider that the scholarships of our student-athletes are mostly paid for by student fees.  Namely, our average students pay hundreds of dollars a year above tuition to fund the special services that the athletes receive and that they (the typical students) don't get.  Few of our students understand this, but once in a while they do the research and figure it out, and then they are bitter.  They sound a lot like Ms. Lee.

Now, let me say something about the assertion that student-athletes work hard--20 hours a week--and other students are not in a position to criticize.  Well, I worked  20 hours a week in Green Library shelving and checking out books the whole time I was a student at Stanford, and I was not an athlete.  In my era Stanford had more than 1000 students on work study like me.  We worked our way through Stanford, too, and we contributed to the University while we did it. 

I hope Ms. Lee is wrong, and that Stanford these days is nothing like my current institution.  But I would not reject her criticisms out-of-hand.

Thanks for sharing your views, 81. FWIW, they're very similar to mine. My experience in undergrad was that the athletes definitely received preferable treatment in almost every aspect of their relationship with the university. It didn't overly bother me insofar as I felt like there were more than enough resources to go around. But given that we are in the era of sky-high tuition, major budget cuts, and <5% admissions rates, I can see why there's a strong argument to reduce the number of expensive country club sports that aren't really achieving any of the university's academic goals. Whereas the football and basketball programs are genuinely affording higher ed opportunities otherwise likely to be unavailable to our student-athletes, everyone I know in college who was on, for example, the sailing team was from a feeder high school where plenty of their peers got into Stanford-like schools whether or not that knew how to man a skiff.

[2006alum]

It has been decades since I taught at Stanford, so I cannot intelligently comment on whether Ms. Lee's comments are accurate for Stanford.

However, I recognize a great deal of what she says for my current (state) institution.  Our athletes do get substantially more academic resources than our average students.  On the one hand I think it is great that the academic achievement of our student-athletes has dramatically improved over the last 15 years since this policy began.  But the academic achievement of ALL of our students would have improved had all of them received the same level of counseling, tutoring, enforced study-hall, etc.  I've heard serious student-service professionals discuss trying to find the funding to give all of our students the same level of academic support that our student-athletes receive--but they always fail to do so.  As a result, our student-athletes now have a higher GPA and a higher 4 year graduation rate than the student body as a whole.  I am proud of their academic achievements but saddened at the unequal treatment our other students receive.

Now, consider that the scholarships of our student-athletes are mostly paid for by student fees.  Namely, our average students pay hundreds of dollars a year above tuition to fund the special services that the athletes receive and that they (the typical students) don't get.  Few of our students understand this, but once in a while they do the research and figure it out, and then they are bitter.  They sound a lot like Ms. Lee.

Now, let me say something about the assertion that student-athletes work hard--20 hours a week--and other students are not in a position to criticize.  Well, I worked  20 hours a week in Green Library shelving and checking out books the whole time I was a student at Stanford, and I was not an athlete.  In my era Stanford had more than 1000 students on work study like me.  We worked our way through Stanford, too, and we contributed to the University while we did it. 

I hope Ms. Lee is wrong, and that Stanford these days is nothing like my current institution.  But I would not reject her criticisms out-of-hand.

Thanks for sharing your views, 81. FWIW, they're very similar to mine. My experience in undergrad was that the athletes definitely received preferable treatment in almost every aspect of their relationship with the university. It didn't overly bother me insofar as I felt like there were more than enough resources to go around. But given that we are in the era of sky-high tuition, major budget cuts, and <5% admissions rates, I can see why there's a strong argument to reduce the number of expensive country club sports that aren't really achieving any of the university's academic goals. Whereas the football and basketball programs are genuinely affording higher ed opportunities otherwise likely to be unavailable to our student-athletes, everyone I know in college who was on, for example, the sailing team was from a feeder high school where plenty of their peers got into Stanford-like schools whether or not that knew how to man a skiff.

[CompSci87]

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

There was a Daily article last year about grad students foraging for food on campus because their stipends were not enough to cover expenses:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/28...ty-crisis/

Here's a followup article regarding the success of a pop-up food pantry:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/17...-students/

Ten years ago my oldest and I were touring UC-Berkeley.  There was a student tour guide who seemed fixated on food availability and assuring the parents and students that students would have enough food availability to survive on the UCB campus.  I don't know whether it's an issue at Cal either now or then, but I found it odd that she brought it up at least seven times during a 45 minute tour.  The fact that she was at least 50 pounds overweight made it seem even stranger.

I think it's reprehensible that a University with Stanford's resources underfeeds a portion (or all) of their student body, or did in the past.  Personally, I thought Ms. Li's comments were hyperbole, but apparently there's some truth to it.

Wow. Back in the 80s as a PhD student with a research assistantship, my stipend was plenty to live on. I lived off campus (renting a room in a house) and bought my own groceries or ate at restaurants. I'm sure it helped that stipends were not subject to income tax back then!

[CompSci87]

3.  The "food insecurity" comment I don't understand at all.  And maybe because I was on a campus where every student was guaranteed buffet-style dining 19 meals a week.  There are Stanford students who don't have access to food?

There was a Daily article last year about grad students foraging for food on campus because their stipends were not enough to cover expenses:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/28...ty-crisis/

Here's a followup article regarding the success of a pop-up food pantry:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/17...-students/

Ten years ago my oldest and I were touring UC-Berkeley.  There was a student tour guide who seemed fixated on food availability and assuring the parents and students that students would have enough food availability to survive on the UCB campus.  I don't know whether it's an issue at Cal either now or then, but I found it odd that she brought it up at least seven times during a 45 minute tour.  The fact that she was at least 50 pounds overweight made it seem even stranger.

I think it's reprehensible that a University with Stanford's resources underfeeds a portion (or all) of their student body, or did in the past.  Personally, I thought Ms. Li's comments were hyperbole, but apparently there's some truth to it.

Wow. Back in the 80s as a PhD student with a research assistantship, my stipend was plenty to live on. I lived off campus (renting a room in a house) and bought my own groceries or ate at restaurants. I'm sure it helped that stipends were not subject to income tax back then!

[BostonCard]

Back not too long ago, when I was in medical school, there was a small scandal in Boston when it was discovered that pediatric oncology fellows were on food stamps.

I'm inclined to say that the problem is not so much that the athletes get extra benefits so much as that benefits for regular students are bad.  Students should have access to excellent mental and physical health care, should not have issues finding food, and should have access to whatever academic resources are needed to succeed.

BC

[BostonCard]

Back not too long ago, when I was in medical school, there was a small scandal in Boston when it was discovered that pediatric oncology fellows were on food stamps.

I'm inclined to say that the problem is not so much that the athletes get extra benefits so much as that benefits for regular students are bad.  Students should have access to excellent mental and physical health care, should not have issues finding food, and should have access to whatever academic resources are needed to succeed.

BC

[fullmetal]

I think that students do have access to academic help -- there's office hours and peer tutoring available on par with what the student-athletes have, and the reason student-athletes have "special access" is that they can't attend the normal office hours or tutoring sessions with their practice schedules.  It's nothing extra.

Access to healthcare was a boondoggle for students as well as student-athletes, imo.  If you could prove your case that your injury was directly related to your sport, then you were covered, otherwise you were not.  Mental health services were available but in short supply as Stanford didn't have that many counselors/therapists as -- so good luck finding one that worked with your schedule.  I didn't understand the healthcare system anyway...it's something I hope the incoming frosh know about these days, but I'm not betting on it.

I don't understand a grad student whose stipend won't cover food.  Were they a master's student coming in from industry who was expected to have resources to cover some of their expenses?  Or were they cheaping out on things just to see if they could?

Anyway, I'll beat the drum again: the 11 sports that were dropped didn't have all the bells and whistles that the student was complaining about.  You can guess which big-ticket sports get the red carpet treatment, and using that luxury to justify the dead of 11 other sports is wholly unjustified and misplaced anger.

[fullmetal]

I think that students do have access to academic help -- there's office hours and peer tutoring available on par with what the student-athletes have, and the reason student-athletes have "special access" is that they can't attend the normal office hours or tutoring sessions with their practice schedules.  It's nothing extra.

Access to healthcare was a boondoggle for students as well as student-athletes, imo.  If you could prove your case that your injury was directly related to your sport, then you were covered, otherwise you were not.  Mental health services were available but in short supply as Stanford didn't have that many counselors/therapists as -- so good luck finding one that worked with your schedule.  I didn't understand the healthcare system anyway...it's something I hope the incoming frosh know about these days, but I'm not betting on it.

I don't understand a grad student whose stipend won't cover food.  Were they a master's student coming in from industry who was expected to have resources to cover some of their expenses?  Or were they cheaping out on things just to see if they could?

Anyway, I'll beat the drum again: the 11 sports that were dropped didn't have all the bells and whistles that the student was complaining about.  You can guess which big-ticket sports get the red carpet treatment, and using that luxury to justify the dead of 11 other sports is wholly unjustified and misplaced anger.

[akiddoc]

I've heard this "food insecurity" mantra from undergrads at Stanford before. I've never seen evidence that any Stanford student is in that situation while living on campus. It's a popular thing to say. It's not real at Stanford but is real at many public universities where kids commute to school and some are disadvantaged. I guess Stanford undergrads don't want to feel left out in the contest to be disadvantaged. 

My son's school has tutoring for the athletes. My son says they are useless. The tutoring for the regular students is superior. Can't comment on Stanford specifically. Almost every school now provides tutoring to the entire student body when needed.

[akiddoc]

I've heard this "food insecurity" mantra from undergrads at Stanford before. I've never seen evidence that any Stanford student is in that situation while living on campus. It's a popular thing to say. It's not real at Stanford but is real at many public universities where kids commute to school and some are disadvantaged. I guess Stanford undergrads don't want to feel left out in the contest to be disadvantaged. 

My son's school has tutoring for the athletes. My son says they are useless. The tutoring for the regular students is superior. Can't comment on Stanford specifically. Almost every school now provides tutoring to the entire student body when needed.

[JohnR34231]

I've heard this "food insecurity" mantra from undergrads at Stanford before. I've never seen evidence that any Stanford student is in that situation while living on campus. It's a popular thing to say. It's not real at Stanford but is real at many public universities where kids commute to school and some are disadvantaged. I guess Stanford undergrads don't want to feel left out in the contest to be disadvantaged. 

My son's school has tutoring for the athletes. My son says they are useless. The tutoring for the regular students is superior. Can't comment on Stanford specifically. Almost every school now provides tutoring to the entire student body when needed.

Actually I am a tutor and I often hear it the other way. Students tell me the services provided to the entire student body are useless.

[JohnR34231]

I've heard this "food insecurity" mantra from undergrads at Stanford before. I've never seen evidence that any Stanford student is in that situation while living on campus. It's a popular thing to say. It's not real at Stanford but is real at many public universities where kids commute to school and some are disadvantaged. I guess Stanford undergrads don't want to feel left out in the contest to be disadvantaged. 

My son's school has tutoring for the athletes. My son says they are useless. The tutoring for the regular students is superior. Can't comment on Stanford specifically. Almost every school now provides tutoring to the entire student body when needed.

Actually I am a tutor and I often hear it the other way. Students tell me the services provided to the entire student body are useless.

[Phogge]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

[Phogge]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

[JohnR34231]

Next she will say  the Bill Gates if the world had an unfair advantage

Oh, those types of comments are very common these days.

People like Gates, Bezos, and Musk are as rich and powerful as they are not because of hard work or any admirable qualities like that. They merely got lucky in the gene pool lottery.

They and Zuckerberg are also all psychopaths. I'll never understand why people worship rich and powerful more than celebrate humane and honest.

"When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people"
-Abraham Heschel

Given this, I'd say Bill Gates has at least a couple of kind bones in his body.

Bill and Melinda Gates have been named the most generous philanthropists in the US. The philanthropists have donated more than $36 billion to charitable causes, including $4.8 billion last year. Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the couple has focused on global health, education, and poverty.Aug 20, 2018

[JohnR34231]

Next she will say  the Bill Gates if the world had an unfair advantage

Oh, those types of comments are very common these days.

People like Gates, Bezos, and Musk are as rich and powerful as they are not because of hard work or any admirable qualities like that. They merely got lucky in the gene pool lottery.

They and Zuckerberg are also all psychopaths. I'll never understand why people worship rich and powerful more than celebrate humane and honest.

"When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people"
-Abraham Heschel

Given this, I'd say Bill Gates has at least a couple of kind bones in his body.

Bill and Melinda Gates have been named the most generous philanthropists in the US. The philanthropists have donated more than $36 billion to charitable causes, including $4.8 billion last year. Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the couple has focused on global health, education, and poverty.Aug 20, 2018

[Mick]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

I can't comment on Bellarmine's cafeteria food save for the fact that the off-campus restaurants were extremely popular.  Breakfast burritos for $1, lunch for $2, and the volume was such that the restaurants managed to stay afloat.

It was de rigeur to invite a Jesuit or three if you had a party at SCU.  You could count on them bringing a bottle of something you couldn't afford as an undergrad.  Jesuits were very popular at SCU parties.  They brought a full bottle, usually stayed no more than an hour, and they had great stories.

---

Actually I am a tutor and I often hear it the other way. Students tell me the services provided to the entire student body are useless.

I used a tutor when I was a freshman, and found it a less-than-enlightening experience.  The tutor was an extremely smart and well-trained junior, in her major.  I was just trying to get through it.  My example's 40 years old, but I distinctly recall three things:

1) She had almost zero patience.  And I suppose I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to make minimum wage teaching students either.
2) She knew a bunch of shortcuts, but failed to explain (a) what they were and (b) that she was using them.  Essentially, I had to decipher a foreign language.
3) She plowed through a pint of Haagen-Dasz in the 45 minute tutoring session.  I couldn't afford Haagen Dasz.  I was impressed.

Hopefully the selection and training of tutors has improved a great deal.  I, too, found it a useless experience and never went back.  I went to a kid who was doing well in the class and offered to type up a paper for him in exchange for a tutoring session.  Went perfectly.

[Mick]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

I can't comment on Bellarmine's cafeteria food save for the fact that the off-campus restaurants were extremely popular.  Breakfast burritos for $1, lunch for $2, and the volume was such that the restaurants managed to stay afloat.

It was de rigeur to invite a Jesuit or three if you had a party at SCU.  You could count on them bringing a bottle of something you couldn't afford as an undergrad.  Jesuits were very popular at SCU parties.  They brought a full bottle, usually stayed no more than an hour, and they had great stories.

---

Actually I am a tutor and I often hear it the other way. Students tell me the services provided to the entire student body are useless.

I used a tutor when I was a freshman, and found it a less-than-enlightening experience.  The tutor was an extremely smart and well-trained junior, in her major.  I was just trying to get through it.  My example's 40 years old, but I distinctly recall three things:

1) She had almost zero patience.  And I suppose I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to make minimum wage teaching students either.
2) She knew a bunch of shortcuts, but failed to explain (a) what they were and (b) that she was using them.  Essentially, I had to decipher a foreign language.
3) She plowed through a pint of Haagen-Dasz in the 45 minute tutoring session.  I couldn't afford Haagen Dasz.  I was impressed.

Hopefully the selection and training of tutors has improved a great deal.  I, too, found it a useless experience and never went back.  I went to a kid who was doing well in the class and offered to type up a paper for him in exchange for a tutoring session.  Went perfectly.

[JohnR34231]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

I can't comment on Bellarmine's cafeteria food save for the fact that the off-campus restaurants were extremely popular.  Breakfast burritos for $1, lunch for $2, and the volume was such that the restaurants managed to stay afloat.

It was de rigeur to invite a Jesuit or three if you had a party at SCU.  You could count on them bringing a bottle of something you couldn't afford as an undergrad.  Jesuits were very popular at SCU parties.  They brought a full bottle, usually stayed no more than an hour, and they had great stories.

---

Actually I am a tutor and I often hear it the other way. Students tell me the services provided to the entire student body are useless.

I used a tutor when I was a freshman, and found it a less-than-enlightening experience.  The tutor was an extremely smart and well-trained junior, in her major.  I was just trying to get through it.  My example's 40 years old, but I distinctly recall three things:

1) She had almost zero patience.  And I suppose I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to make minimum wage teaching students either.
2) She knew a bunch of shortcuts, but failed to explain (a) what they were and (b) that she was using them.  Essentially, I had to decipher a foreign language.
3) She plowed through a pint of Haagen-Dasz in the 45 minute tutoring session.  I couldn't afford Haagen Dasz.  I was impressed.

Hopefully the selection and training of tutors has improved a great deal.  I, too, found it a useless experience and never went back.  I went to a kid who was doing well in the class and offered to type up a paper for him in exchange for a tutoring session.  Went perfectly.

Yep, patience is definitely a requirement for tutoring. In statistics, you explain a z score twenty times. You come to a problem and tell students that
they need to take a z score. The response is "Z score? What's that?".

[JohnR34231]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

I can't comment on Bellarmine's cafeteria food save for the fact that the off-campus restaurants were extremely popular.  Breakfast burritos for $1, lunch for $2, and the volume was such that the restaurants managed to stay afloat.

It was de rigeur to invite a Jesuit or three if you had a party at SCU.  You could count on them bringing a bottle of something you couldn't afford as an undergrad.  Jesuits were very popular at SCU parties.  They brought a full bottle, usually stayed no more than an hour, and they had great stories.

---

Actually I am a tutor and I often hear it the other way. Students tell me the services provided to the entire student body are useless.

I used a tutor when I was a freshman, and found it a less-than-enlightening experience.  The tutor was an extremely smart and well-trained junior, in her major.  I was just trying to get through it.  My example's 40 years old, but I distinctly recall three things:

1) She had almost zero patience.  And I suppose I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to make minimum wage teaching students either.
2) She knew a bunch of shortcuts, but failed to explain (a) what they were and (b) that she was using them.  Essentially, I had to decipher a foreign language.
3) She plowed through a pint of Haagen-Dasz in the 45 minute tutoring session.  I couldn't afford Haagen Dasz.  I was impressed.

Hopefully the selection and training of tutors has improved a great deal.  I, too, found it a useless experience and never went back.  I went to a kid who was doing well in the class and offered to type up a paper for him in exchange for a tutoring session.  Went perfectly.

Yep, patience is definitely a requirement for tutoring. In statistics, you explain a z score twenty times. You come to a problem and tell students that
they need to take a z score. The response is "Z score? What's that?".

[Maple Leaf]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

Reminds me the high quality beverages to be found in the "private collections" in a couple of Faculty Clubs and Department Lounges............one of the perks of having a part time on campus student job working in the maintenance department back in the day when that was allowed (no insurance of course).  The stogies that were also available were of excellent quality, it was a crack up to see students walking around campus chewing/puffing away on a prime 'Caribbean'.

[Maple Leaf]

LOL Mick. The cafeteria food at SI was brutal. Tried it once as a freshman and never went back. A year later they put in vending machines with no hot food. The liquor in the Jebbies residence was first rate however.

Reminds me the high quality beverages to be found in the "private collections" in a couple of Faculty Clubs and Department Lounges............one of the perks of having a part time on campus student job working in the maintenance department back in the day when that was allowed (no insurance of course).  The stogies that were also available were of excellent quality, it was a crack up to see students walking around campus chewing/puffing away on a prime 'Caribbean'.