[ColoradoTree]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Is stopping out no longer a thing?  It wasn't a big deal for athletes back in the early 2000s, at least, to take a quarter or two off and then come back without issue, to try and make the Olympics in their chosen sport. In my view, leaving early for a pro career in football is a difference of degree from that, not in kind. 

Of course, those athletes taking a quarter or two off to compete in high-level amateur sports retained eligibility, so they rightly didn't lose their scholarship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't football players who go pro and return to take classes have to pay full freight anyway, since they're no longer on (or eligible for) the Stanford team?  

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

[ColoradoTree]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Is stopping out no longer a thing?  It wasn't a big deal for athletes back in the early 2000s, at least, to take a quarter or two off and then come back without issue, to try and make the Olympics in their chosen sport. In my view, leaving early for a pro career in football is a difference of degree from that, not in kind. 

Of course, those athletes taking a quarter or two off to compete in high-level amateur sports retained eligibility, so they rightly didn't lose their scholarship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't football players who go pro and return to take classes have to pay full freight anyway, since they're no longer on (or eligible for) the Stanford team?  

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.