[TonyLima]

I think it is a false narrative that the graduate transfers have a legitimate chance to stay to finish their undergraduate work if they only wanted to.  It used to be true that athletes and non-athletes could do that but my understanding is that Stanford now insists that you show your progress to finish in four years.  They allow athletes to take higher than normal loads, and in fact assist in this with summer units, so that they too, finish and get out in four years. I think this is a crucial Stanford change that needs to happen to keep Stanford from being hurt in multiple sports.  I don't think we can blame Shaw for this problem.  However, it is a big issue for our next coach.  I think that athletes should be allowed to be on a five year track with the understanding that their fifth year of scholarship is not guaranteed and they might have to go on regular financial aid.  I also think this should be made available to other Stanford students who have reasons to need five years.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Different school, but I recall that many of my engineering friends and virtually everyone with a double major took five years to finish. Completing an undergrad degree in three years, on the other hand, was so rare that only one person in our class of 850 was able to do it.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's it was very common that Engineering and Architectural Bachelor of Science degrees were 5-year programs, which if you were draft eligible could present some dicey issues with one's draft board.

I am MIT BS Chem Eng class of 1969.  Almost everyone majoring in engineering got the degree in four years.  One of my pals was an architecture major.  That program took five years, but he got some weird MA type degree.  IIRC.

---

“Dad, I want your advice.  I have been excepted in Indiana’s _____ Masters program.  I can play my last year there.  I can’t get in to Stanford’s _____ Masters program.  But I could stay for a fifth year of undergraduate work.  I like my teammates and we have a new coach coming in. Indiana has a good  _______ program.  That’s the area I hope to be in for my career. 
What are your thoughts?”

Assume your son has no NFL chance.  He will be playing his last year of football.

I'm completely w/Lex here. I teach at Stanford. Students often ask me for advice about graduate school or other post-graduation plans. Suppose an undergrad came to me and said, "I could start grad school at ___ next fall, my admission was fast tracked and it'd be fully funded. Or, I could hang around here as a super senior for a quarter, apply to graduate school all over again and, if accepted, find a way to pay for it. A year from next fall. What do you think?" It seems fairly obvious how I should advise them.

These kids are 22! They are just about to graduate and are itching to start their lives. The idea that loyalty to the university or team should drive their decision here is completely ludicrous, and I can't imagine even considering it when responding to the student. If they're aiming for the NFL, they absolutely should go wherever will make that most likely. We don't even pay them! If they're aiming for a career that involves graduate school, they should absolutely take the free graduate school. 

For the kids who are only thinking about football, the way to fix this problem is simple. When the senior asks, "where will I maximize my chance for the NFL?" "Where can I win a championship" or "Where can I have fun playing football", the answer needs to be "right here." A decade ago, it was. It can be again. The problem isn't an outbreak of selfishness.

Outstanding.  Happy to hear you teach at Stanford.

[TonyLima]

I think it is a false narrative that the graduate transfers have a legitimate chance to stay to finish their undergraduate work if they only wanted to.  It used to be true that athletes and non-athletes could do that but my understanding is that Stanford now insists that you show your progress to finish in four years.  They allow athletes to take higher than normal loads, and in fact assist in this with summer units, so that they too, finish and get out in four years. I think this is a crucial Stanford change that needs to happen to keep Stanford from being hurt in multiple sports.  I don't think we can blame Shaw for this problem.  However, it is a big issue for our next coach.  I think that athletes should be allowed to be on a five year track with the understanding that their fifth year of scholarship is not guaranteed and they might have to go on regular financial aid.  I also think this should be made available to other Stanford students who have reasons to need five years.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Different school, but I recall that many of my engineering friends and virtually everyone with a double major took five years to finish. Completing an undergrad degree in three years, on the other hand, was so rare that only one person in our class of 850 was able to do it.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's it was very common that Engineering and Architectural Bachelor of Science degrees were 5-year programs, which if you were draft eligible could present some dicey issues with one's draft board.

I am MIT BS Chem Eng class of 1969.  Almost everyone majoring in engineering got the degree in four years.  One of my pals was an architecture major.  That program took five years, but he got some weird MA type degree.  IIRC.

---

“Dad, I want your advice.  I have been excepted in Indiana’s _____ Masters program.  I can play my last year there.  I can’t get in to Stanford’s _____ Masters program.  But I could stay for a fifth year of undergraduate work.  I like my teammates and we have a new coach coming in. Indiana has a good  _______ program.  That’s the area I hope to be in for my career. 
What are your thoughts?”

Assume your son has no NFL chance.  He will be playing his last year of football.

I'm completely w/Lex here. I teach at Stanford. Students often ask me for advice about graduate school or other post-graduation plans. Suppose an undergrad came to me and said, "I could start grad school at ___ next fall, my admission was fast tracked and it'd be fully funded. Or, I could hang around here as a super senior for a quarter, apply to graduate school all over again and, if accepted, find a way to pay for it. A year from next fall. What do you think?" It seems fairly obvious how I should advise them.

These kids are 22! They are just about to graduate and are itching to start their lives. The idea that loyalty to the university or team should drive their decision here is completely ludicrous, and I can't imagine even considering it when responding to the student. If they're aiming for the NFL, they absolutely should go wherever will make that most likely. We don't even pay them! If they're aiming for a career that involves graduate school, they should absolutely take the free graduate school. 

For the kids who are only thinking about football, the way to fix this problem is simple. When the senior asks, "where will I maximize my chance for the NFL?" "Where can I win a championship" or "Where can I have fun playing football", the answer needs to be "right here." A decade ago, it was. It can be again. The problem isn't an outbreak of selfishness.

Outstanding.  Happy to hear you teach at Stanford.