Self-endowment raises $40 million - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Self-endowment raises $40 million (/thread-21548.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Self-endowment raises $40 million (/thread-21548.html)
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - BostonCard - 02-13-2021
(02-13-2021, 10:55 PM)CTcard Wrote: Taking the second part first: while I see the logic behind that reasoning, I wonder if there are any specific lines that have led you to that conclusion
Two reasons. One is that they said so. From their FAQ:
Quote:Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of our undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of our peer institutions.
After the cuts, that percentage will be 9%.
The second is that their own actions betray their stated reason (financial). The same FAQ notes the reason that they cut the sports is financial, but that doesn't jibe with the statement that the decision is final and that Stanford will not accept endowing those sports. If it were just about the money, then it would have been easy to reverse the decision if the money could be found (if the $40 million in this thread is correct, then that would cover 1/5 of the total needed, enough to resurrect at least two sports, and that is with the University sabotaging attempts to keep the sports). The fact that the University is refusing to consider an endowment for the sports means it's not about the money. Of course, the University could prove me wrong by accepting the money and reversing at least some of the cuts.
So, if it is not about the money, it is about the influence.
BC
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Spiny_Norman - 02-14-2021
On February 9th, Keep Stanford Wrestling co-chairs, Patricia Miranda '01 and Robert Hatta '97, 36 Sports Strong co-chair Kathy Levinson '77, and Ohio State University President Dr. Kristina Johnson BS '79, MSEE, PhD '83 met via Zoom with Provost Persis Drell and Patrick Dunkley, Deputy Athletic Director.
Their report:
To guide our conversation, we used the presentation found here. Through it, we made the ask that the 11 sports be reinstated and allowed to self-endow. We laid out publicly available and AD-provided budget data which show the cuts made a minimal impact on the overall deficits, which are set to grow and sustain well after COVID and the elimination of 1/3 of the student athletes on campus. We showed that wrestling's ability to raise over $12 million over such a short period of time proves that sports can individually endow themselves. We closed with impassioned personal testimonies supporting the diversity of opportunities and excellence that come with a broad-based sports offering (see notes on the very last slide to see our closing statement to Provost Drell).
In the end, the Provost was unmoved. She stated that her long-term priority is to ensure Stanford's ability to transform lives for more than just student athletes. In the near term, her priority is to provide a 2020-21 season to the 11 eliminated sports and then to support "as many of the remaining sports as possible". She acknowledged our economic data, but vaguely assured us that the financial issues of the department run deeper than these figures show.
Finally, when pressed that our financial solution is a win for all parties and that a resistance to reconsideration in any form could only mean that finances were not the true reason for the cuts, we asked the question: what, then, was the true reason for the cuts? Provost Drell's response: I cannot give you the answers you want.
The primary arguments defending these cuts, in the face of mounting data that they don't meaningfully solve budget deficits, disenfranchise a third of current and would-be student athletes, and anger generations of alumni, amount to "because we said so." We've now heard this from Athletic Director Bernard Muir, several members of the Board of Trustees (including its athletics subcommittee and outgoing Chairman, Jeff Raikes), and Provost Persis Drell. This is not transparency. This is not innovative, creative thinking. This is not the Stanford we know.
And yet, it appears that this is the Stanford of today. Time is running out and direct, logical and good faith dialogue continues to be met by closed minds and an unwillingness to even consider an alternate solution.
Please share this summary with all who might join and support our call to know the real reasons why Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Ask why Ohio State University, facing the same economic challenges of any other university, is supporting all of its 36 varsity sports. Ask why Dartmouth, Brown and William and Mary Universities have reinstated their cut programs. How many articles like this one published today by Sports Illustrated have to be written before Stanford tells us the truth. Bring forward every resource, contact and connection you have, demanding to know why.
We've been told to heal, to move on, to find closure in the wake of these cuts. One cannot find closure unless they understand the reasons behind the events that broke his or her heart.
Until then, we keep fighting.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Goose - 02-14-2021
(02-14-2021, 10:22 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The primary arguments defending these cuts, in the face of mounting data that they don't meaningfully solve budget deficits, disenfranchise a third of current and would-be student athletes, and anger generations of alumni, amount to "because we said so." We've now heard this from Athletic Director Bernard Muir, several members of the Board of Trustees (including its athletics subcommittee and outgoing Chairman, Jeff Raikes), and Provost Persis Drell. This is not transparency. This is not innovative, creative thinking. This is not the Stanford we know.Interesting you should say that. The Stanford I knew (and know) often did/does things "because we said so". Sometimes most people agree with
these actions, sometimes they don't. Many of the changes in the new housing policy seem arbitrary and ill advised to me, but I get no vote. I really don't like much of what I consider to be excessive construction for a University that is not expanding the student body, but I don't get a vote.
My point is that Stanford has been run by the administration that basically has total authority over policy. The idea the students and/or even in large measure the faculty has much influence has never been true.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - winflop - 02-14-2021
(02-14-2021, 11:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(02-14-2021, 10:22 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The primary arguments defending these cuts, in the face of mounting data that they don't meaningfully solve budget deficits, disenfranchise a third of current and would-be student athletes, and anger generations of alumni, amount to "because we said so." We've now heard this from Athletic Director Bernard Muir, several members of the Board of Trustees (including its athletics subcommittee and outgoing Chairman, Jeff Raikes), and Provost Persis Drell. This is not transparency. This is not innovative, creative thinking. This is not the Stanford we know.Interesting you should say that. The Stanford I knew (and know) often did/does things "because we said so". Sometimes most people agree with
these actions, sometimes they don't. Many of the changes in the new housing policy seem arbitrary and ill advised to me, but I get no vote. I really don't like much of what I consider to be excessive construction for a University that is not expanding the student body, but I don't get a vote.
My point is that Stanford has been run by the administration that basically has total authority over policy. The idea the students and/or even in large measure the faculty has much influence has never been true.
You do have a voice and you do have a vote. Your wallet is your voice and your vote.
I stopped giving to the University outside of Athletics several years ago as I saw policies being put forward that did not align with my values and what I think is important in college education.
My takeaway from this summary is the Muir's being given marching orders and may not be on board with the decisions, particularly after the proposals to self-endow these sports. Could see him making a hard push for the Pac-12 commissioner job.
Drell's attitude reminds me of Robin Mamlet, who killed athletics with her admissions policies in the early 2000s.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - BostonCard - 02-14-2021
(02-14-2021, 12:21 PM)winflop Wrote: Drell's attitude reminds me of Robin Hamlett, who killed athletics with her admissions policies in the early 2000s.
To admit or not to admit, that is the question
Whether it is nobler in the mind
To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageously bad football
Or to take arms against a sea of 2* players,
And by admitting end them?
--Robin Hamlet, maybe
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - M T - 02-14-2021
If Stanford chose to cut football because of injuries to student-athletes and the unknown liabilities for concussion-type injuries, I would support that, even though its financial impact would be great. From my understanding of the sports cut, Stanford can't say they are protecting the students' health.
I think of D2 and D3 schools that support athletic programs with no or little financial income from any sport. My undergraduate school offers 16 sports and none make money. True, there are no scholarships & no students are admitted for their athletic abilities. The school is no powerhouse at any sport, but the school supports the teams. No trips to Australia or Japan, no weeks of hotel stay in expensive hotels near campus, no expensive gyms or stadiums.
But as an athlete, I did enjoy my sports. When I earned a chance to go to Nationals, I got the opportunity.
I can believe that Varsity Blues helped focus attention on the role of a university as a sports farm club. If 12% of your admissions are for spots reserved for athletes, then the true academic admissions rate is actually almost 12% lower (down from, say, 5% to 4.4%). Teams might be viewed in terms of their numbers of admissions reserved just for their athletes.
My belief is that football has the biggest impact on reduction of academic admissions rate because of the number of admissions reserved for its scholarships (and more?). But this sacred cow won't be cut. The financial reasons (which is much larger than its bottom-line figures each year, due to alumni gifts) are too great.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Goose - 02-14-2021
(02-14-2021, 12:21 PM)winflop Wrote:I am quite certain the University cares not an iota about my contributions (or lack thereof). The also do not care what I say. They didn't when I was a student and the certainly don't now. It I was a big enough financial contributor they may care an iota, but only an iota. When you have a 27 billion dollar endowment, you aren't likely to worry about a few million here or there.(02-14-2021, 11:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(02-14-2021, 10:22 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The primary arguments defending these cuts, in the face of mounting data that they don't meaningfully solve budget deficits, disenfranchise a third of current and would-be student athletes, and anger generations of alumni, amount to "because we said so." We've now heard this from Athletic Director Bernard Muir, several members of the Board of Trustees (including its athletics subcommittee and outgoing Chairman, Jeff Raikes), and Provost Persis Drell. This is not transparency. This is not innovative, creative thinking. This is not the Stanford we know.Interesting you should say that. The Stanford I knew (and know) often did/does things "because we said so". Sometimes most people agree with
these actions, sometimes they don't. Many of the changes in the new housing policy seem arbitrary and ill advised to me, but I get no vote. I really don't like much of what I consider to be excessive construction for a University that is not expanding the student body, but I don't get a vote.
My point is that Stanford has been run by the administration that basically has total authority over policy. The idea the students and/or even in large measure the faculty has much influence has never been true.
You do have a voice and you do have a vote. Your wallet is your voice and your vote.
I stopped giving to the University outside of Athletics several years ago as I saw policies being put forward that did not align with my values and what I think is important in college education.
My takeaway from this summary is the Muir's being given marching orders and may not be on board with the decisions, particularly after the proposals to self-endow these sports. Could see him making a hard push for the Pac-12 commissioner job.
Drell's attitude reminds me of Robin Hamlett, who killed athletics with her admissions policies in the early 2000s.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Maple Leaf - 02-14-2021
The university has transformed itself from being an educational-research institution to a brand name on the world stage of many different components from education/tech/basic science/medicine/domestic and foreign policy. What role in the future will athletics play is to be determined. My fear is that the brand name folks/advocates will continue to increase the domination in the policy direction. What will be lost are those experiences and real human opportunities that allowed Stanford be at the head of the pack of academic institutions starting in the late 70's. Those real human opportunities included athletic competition. David Packard played football at Stanford, if he was still alive I wonder what his take on this would be? Friends and relatives who are still connected to the university through employment, consultant or volunteer activities have stated that at times it seems that the goal of the administration is to produce the next "Apple-Microsoft-Google-Amazon" creation and everything else can take a back seat.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Goose - 02-14-2021
(02-14-2021, 02:24 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote: David Packard played football at Stanford, if he was still alive I wonder what his take on this would be? Friends and relatives who are still connected to the university through employment, consultant or volunteer activities have stated that at times it seems that the goal of the administration is to produce the next "Apple-Microsoft-Google-Amazon" creation and everything else can take a back seat.I believe it has always been true that the goals of the University administration have never been directly aligned with creating a world-class institution of higher learning. One may say when Jane Stanford was alive it sort of was, but as we now know even she was often at odds with the "management". A private university whose founders/sponsors are dead is a unique institution. There are absolutely no checks and balances on what can become the goals of the administration. Even the "founding grant" can be and has been overlooked when convenient. I think in most of those cases it was for the best. Stanford has managed to become a very good university despite the lack of oversight. That is the good news. We can only hope that the current administration continues that. Often I think Stanford succeeded in the past not because of the administration but in spite of it. Given the OP's take on what is apparently the current set of goals (which I don't doubt for a minute), I hope our luck continues.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - donkey687 - 02-14-2021
There is a lot of speculation about the reason for the cuts. Is it purely financial? Is it to diminish the role of athletics at Stanford? The reality is that this was Bernard Muir's agenda that he pushed through. He cut sports at Delaware. He tried cutting them at Georgetown. He sold it to the board based on finances, and the decision appealed to certain faculty and administrators who are in favor of having less athletes filling up the student population. Why would Bernard push this through and limit his fiefdom? It is because he doesn't care about these sports and he views them as a resource drain on the major sports. Every time I hear Bernard speak he talks about how Stanford is behind in facilities and spending and has lower budgets in many of the major sports. Thus, even though these cut 11 sports didn't have large budgets, he wants money focused on the remaining sports. That is why they are turning down alumni donations to keep these sports. They want the big donors to help build out a new weight room or something for football not to endow the wrestling team. The flaw in his thinking however is that he is viewing donors to Stanford as a zero sum game. Someone who is going to endow fencing may have no interest in supporting other sports. I think Bernard made a miscalculation and the big fundraising campaign they are about to begin to bolster up the major sports is going to be harmed by pissing off so many alumni.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - chrisk - 02-14-2021
A little over a year ago, Stanford withdrew its application for a new long-term land use permit, after reaching an impasse with Santa Clara County over the requirements the county would impose for granting permission.
As a result, Stanford will soon run out of development capacity/entitlements. Reducing the number of athletes would be one way to expand underrepresented students without be able to increase the size of the student body.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 02-14-2021
IIRC, there was a year when Stanford won the Pac-10 (I think that was the number then) in football, men's (and women's, I think) basketball, and baseball. About that time, I was at an alumni event for the part of Stanford I attended. A very prominent faculty member "joked" about how he asked the University President whether he was allowing Stanford to be "turned into a jock school." [I can't swear to it, but I think those were his exact words.] The statement, out of nowhere, indicated to me that this prominent faculty member resented--indeed, was embarrassed by-the then recent success of Stanford athletics. It was clear to me that this faculty member was not really "joking" about what he said to the president.
Like almost all American universities with intercollegiate athletic programs, Stanford has its share of folks who don't like athletics. The question to me is: Who is in charge now? It doesn't seem to me like the ones who are have much devotion to Stanford athletics.
When you (a) claim it is all about the money, (b) state at the same time that you will not reinstate sports even if someone solves the money problem, then © prove you were dead dead serious about (b) by refusing to even consider accepting help from those who solve at least some of the money problems, there is only one logical conclusion: It was NOT about the money.
So what was it about? I don't know for certain and I don't have any proof, but the circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this is about a rise to power by (a) those who resent the prominence of athletics as part of the Stanford community and (b) those who are mad about admissions. With all due respect to those who point out that many schools "lose money" by running intercollegiate athletics programs, Stanford is not comparable to other colleges who use athletics to recruit students who would otherwise go to other schools. Highly selective schools like Stanford are not comparable to regular schools who have to fight and claw for every student they can get. [I have some understanding of these realities from real world experience.] At Stanford, the fight is not over getting more students, it is about who gets the limited spots that are available in a highly competitive environment. If you resent sports, as (unfortunately, imo) a significant percentage of those at Stanford do, you REALLY resent the effect of sports on Stanford admissions. I cannot prove it, though I would relish the challenge to do so if I had the time and the ability to access the information to prove it, but my gut tells me resentment of athletics and their effect on admissions what this is about.
It looks to me like the "anti sports" people are in charge. It has happened before at Stanford. It is possible that, though it will hurt, saner (imo) minds will again take over at some (hopefully not too distant) future point and recognize the value of sports at Stanford. So we MIGHT again bounce back from this. Maybe. Even if we do, this is a self-inflicted wound that is foolish and unnecessary, imo.
What makes Stanford not just special but quite literally unique is the combination of superb academics AND top-notch athletics. Some have one or the other. We are literally the only D-I school that has both. And those in charge are forfeiting what is unique about us.
BTW, from my vantage point, I very much doubt that our AD made these decisions. Decisions like this come from his bosses, not him. Though, again, I cannot prove it, it sure looks to me like he is following marching orders here. Of course, that does not absolve him of responsibility. If he believes in Stanford sports and their importance to the university, why isn't he resigning in protest to protect what he believes in? [I do not say this lightly, as I am well aware from personal experience of how hard a step that is. But if you believe those running a university are taking steps to seriously damage your part of the university and you are not successful in talking them out of doing so, you RESIGN IN PROTEST.]
Those running Stanford do not, obviously, have to care one whit about what I think they are doing to a very special--indeed, unique--institution. But I do not have to like or support what they are doing.
This is a mistake. And I fear t might be just the start.
Those of us who love Stanford sports should do what we can to make sure the University is never again put in the hands of those who resent or fail to support athletics. The Board of Trustees at a place like Stanford has one basic job--selecting the President. The next time they are called upon to do so, our voices need to be heard by them.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Goose - 02-14-2021
I think it probable that many of us are assuming that there is some kind of conspiracy or plan behind what is going on at Stanford. It has been my experience that there usually isn't. Various underlings need to justify their existence either to themselves, their boss, or to their peers. As a result, they have to do something. What they do may often make no sense, but it meets their needs. As is often the case, Dilbert has it right.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-02-14. About as timely as it gets.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - 2006alum - 02-15-2021
A few quick thoughts:
I think people underestimate, a bit, how much pressure the combo of varsity blues and insane acceptance rates have placed on Stanford admissions. Stanford has reached a near breaking point in terms of how competitive it is to get in, and when 13% of students are varsity athletes, that both (a) invites opportunities for the privileged to find a backdoor way in, and therefore lots of pressure on coaches and opportunities for cronyism; and (b) makes it even harder for non-athletic applicants to gain admission. We're talking ~3% acceptance rates for non-athletes.
It does not help that most of the sports Stanford cut were primarily comprised of especially privileged students. There's just no way a poor kid from Kansas is ever going to get to Stanford on a sailing scholarship. Given the larger debates about inequality raging in this country, and especially concerning how admission to universities like Stanford is a golden ticket, that disparity was becoming increasingly glaring.
However, I think everyone here is quite reasonably irked that, once again, the University Administration has made a decision that no one is willing to stand behind as The Decider and take full responsibility for. Moreover, the reason given seems like pretext given the surrounding context. And as has so often been the case, students, staff, and alums seem have had no role in the decisionmaking process and no voice or seat at the table. That, to me, is what is so irksome: it feels like our intelligence is being insulted. They want our donations, but not our input. And they insult us in the process. $$$ is clearly not the reason. And that's fine: just own the decision and be willing to be accountable for the blowback from those who disagree about calibrating the balance of admissions/athletics/privileged applicants. It's not an unreasonable line to draw, though I know many disagree with it. But we can't even really have that debate, because we're shadowboxing around it in the absence of an honest accounting of why it was made.
All of this said, I think institutions belong to those who presently comprise them. I love my alma mater and I have strong views about some of the choices it has made since I graduated, but at the end of the day, the people who live and work there should have a lot more say than I do; they're better situated, more invested, and bear the brunt of the day to day costs of their choices. I can armchair second-guess them, but I can't say for sure I really know the dynamics that led to this decision.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - donkey687 - 02-15-2021
(02-15-2021, 07:56 AM)2006alum Wrote: A few quick thoughts:
I think people underestimate, a bit, how much pressure the combo of varsity blues and insane acceptance rates have placed on Stanford admissions. Stanford has reached a near breaking point in terms of how competitive it is to get in, and when 13% of students are varsity athletes, that both (a) invites opportunities for the privileged to find a backdoor way in, and therefore lots of pressure on coaches and opportunities for cronyism; and (b) makes it even harder for non-athletic applicants to gain admission. We're talking ~3% acceptance rates for non-athletes.
It does not help that most of the sports Stanford cut were primarily comprised of especially privileged students. There's just no way a poor kid from Kansas is ever going to get to Stanford on a sailing scholarship. Given the larger debates about inequality raging in this country, and especially concerning how admission to universities like Stanford is a golden ticket, that disparity was becoming increasingly glaring.
However, I think everyone here is quite reasonably irked that, once again, the University Administration has made a decision that no one is willing to stand behind as The Decider and take full responsibility for. Moreover, the reason given seems like pretext given the surrounding context. And as has so often been the case, students, staff, and alums seem have had no role in the decisionmaking process and no voice or seat at the table. That, to me, is what is so irksome: it feels like our intelligence is being insulted. They want our donations, but not our input. And they insult us in the process. $$$ is clearly not the reason. And that's fine: just own the decision and be willing to be accountable for the blowback from those who disagree about calibrating the balance of admissions/athletics/privileged applicants. It's not an unreasonable line to draw, though I know many disagree with it. But we can't even really have that debate, because we're shadowboxing around it in the absence of an honest accounting of why it was made.
All of this said, I think institutions belong to those who presently comprise them. I love my alma mater and I have strong views about some of the choices it has made since I graduated, but at the end of the day, the people who live and work there should have a lot more say than I do; they're better situated, more invested, and bear the brunt of the day to day costs of their choices. I can armchair second-guess them, but I can't say for sure I really know the dynamics that led to this decision.
I will say it again. This is Bernard's agenda to prioritize bigger sports and divert more resources toward them. I think people in the know will tell you this was driven by the AD not the President or the Board. Less admissions spots for athletes is a side benefit that some faculty and administrators appreciate and latch onto to support the initiative especially after Varsity Blues but this was not the driver of the decision. If it was about admissions spots for privileged students, the wrestling team with a racially and economically diverse team would not have been cut. Stanford has done such an amazing job already diversifying its student base beyond privilege with a high percentage of first generation college students, it doesn't seem like they are lacking in diminishing privilege. There is only one ethnic group at Stanford massively underrepresented relative to is population base in this country. https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-profile/
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Softball Fan - 02-15-2021
https://www.collegefactual.com/rankings/diversity/
Out of the 3,514 schools in the United States that were part of this year’s diversity ranking, Stanford University landed the #2 spot on the list.
If the Stanford administration were to believe these rankings, how much farther would they have to go?
Despite the rankings it must be acknowledged that a poor urban or rural student with no college guidance or SAT preparation has almost zero chance of getting accepted.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - baymeadows3408 - 02-15-2021
This is a super interesting thread and I appreciate everybody's contributions. I'm not plugged into the Stanford scene, so I am not going to speculate about what might be going on within the school administration or athletic department.
I completed my undergraduate education at a big public school in the southwest (University of Arizona) and I currently attend graduate school at a medium-sized public school in the northeast (University of Maine). I like college sports and all of the pageantry and rivalries. Although my interest in Stanford sports has waned a little in recent years, I still call myself a fan. I enjoyed attending football games at the U of A and men's ice hockey games at UMaine.
But there are aspects of college sports that make me feel uncomfortable. At UMaine, I see all of the facilities that are dedicated to athletics, from the hockey arena, football field, baseball and softball fields, basketball court, indoor track, weight rooms, and swimming pools and I wonder about all of the resources that go into maintaining these programs. With a few exceptions, these facilities are not available to the general student body. Having a competitive men's ice hockey team might add a little prestige, but there aren't a lot people in the general public who care about women's ice hockey or America East basketball or football. In other words, I wouldn't expect there to be too many high school students who choose to go to a school because it has a basketball team that competes in the America East conference.
College sports were different way back when when the teams consisted of athletes who came from the general student body. You could make the argument that these teams allowed general students to maintain fitness, learn about discipline and sportsmanship, and socialize, but recruiting and athletic scholarships have changed that. Universities do have recreation programs and club sports for the general student body, but those budgets are minuscule compared the budget of the athletic department.
You can't make a direct contrast between an elite private school that competes in a major conference like Stanford and the flagship public university for a small state in the Northeast, but I do think Stanford is grappling with this issue of what sort of role athletics should play in education. Football generates a lot of publicity, brings in donations, and generates millions in television revenue, but the CTE issue isn't going away. Tournament runs by the men's or women's basketball teams will get attention. The Directors Cup and national championship streaks are nice. But if you were to say the word "Stanford" to the general public, you might get a response that mentions academics, Google or Hewlett-Packard, a football player like Andrew Luck or Richard Sherman, or the Hoover Institution, but you probably aren't going to hear anything about the wrestling or field hockey program. Of course, this depends on who you ask. Ask somebody involved in high school girls' soccer and they might think of Stanford's women's soccer program.
I'm not making any value judgments about college sports or dismissing the worthiness or the Olympic sports. I'm not a Stanford alum, so I feel like I don't have any skin in this battle. It just feels like it's part of a much bigger war about the place college sports should have American society.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - Mick - 02-15-2021
I don't know. 65% of Stanford admits went to public high schools. All 50 states and 55 countries are represented. The Class of 2024 is only 24% Caucasian and 52% female. 19% are first in their families to go to college. I'd say it's a pretty darned diverse school.
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - CTcard - 02-15-2021
(02-13-2021, 11:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Two reasons. One is that they said so. From their FAQ:
Quote:Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of our undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of our peer institutions.
After the cuts, that percentage will be 9%.
Well, I continue to agree with your logic, though that statement isn't quite saying so.
It also isn't quite true, depending I guess on exactly what they consider their peer institutions and some quibbles about level of varsity athlete.
Princeton currently claims "about 18 percent of undergraduates participate in varsity sports, spanning 37 varsity men’s and women’s teams."
Yale, at least in spring 2017, claimed "33 varsity teams and 833 student athletes" which would be about 833/6092 = 13.7%.
Harvard: "Nearly 1200 students — roughly 20 percent of the student body — participate in one of Harvard's 42 varsity teams, the most offered among NCAA Division I colleges."
Columbia: "Columbia University in the City of New York competes in 27 sports and has a total of 844 student athletes" or about 844/9000 = 9.4%
Penn: "University of Pennsylvania competes in 28 sports and has a total of 1033 student athletes" or about 10%.
Cornell: I see conflicting numbers, somewhere between 30 and 37 varsity sports, and at least one site lists 1351 student athletes, or about 9% of undergrads.
Dartmouth: Don't see a number, but see an article in 2019 claiming "over a fifth of the current student body is comprised of varsity athletes."
Brown: "Brown University competes in 33 sports and has a total of 1026 student athletes" or about 10% of undergrads.
Of course there is a similar reconsideration of athletics going on across the Ivy League, with Dartmouth and Brown cutting or moving several sports to club status. Dartmouth appears to have explicitly linked the cuts to the balance of its student body.
Quote:Hanlon wrote that "with 35 varsity teams and the smallest enrollment within the Ivy League, athletic recruitment at Dartmouth has begun to impact our ability to achieve the right balance between applicants who are accomplished in athletics and applicants who excel in other pursuits. To achieve greater flexibility in shaping the incoming class, I asked Harry to reduce the number of recruited athletes in each entering class by 10%."https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2020/07/dartmouth-announces-changes-varsity-athletics-program
RE: Self-endowment raises $40 million - CowboyIndian - 02-15-2021
(02-15-2021, 09:12 AM)baymeadows3408 Wrote: I completed my undergraduate education at a big public school in the southwest (University of Maine)...
Where do you live? Greenland? :)