[jonnyss]

true, but...imo deadlines are not imposed for the sake of education - ie students and faculty - but rather for the convenience of administrators, who gradually feel like they own the school.

I am one of the vocal critics of Stanford's excess of administrators and these administrator's unintended assumption of powers. That said, AFAIK the faculty is the group that controls graduate admissions. If some administrator(s) are making it harder than it needs to be, I strongly suspect the faculty would put them in their place very quickly. The graduate admissions process is a jealously guarded faculty prerogative. They aren't going to be pushed around in that regard. For that reason, the way it is is probably the way the faculty wants it to be.

faculty certainly control the particular students admitted. i believe they defer to administrators on the exact timeline and, in particular, on flexibility of deadlines. maybe i'm wrong...

I'm pretty familiar with grad aid funding processes - administrators (and faculty) are dealing with and trying to allocate limited available grad aid funding.  Unless there are large new gifts or reinvestments of unused gift/endowment income, central- and local grad aid resources (i.e. school- or departmentally controlled endowments) pretty much just grow by annual cost rise. Allocations/acceptance rates are carefully planned out in 3-5 time horizons.  Use of available Stanford grad aid resources may be mitigated by support from external research grants or fellowships, but those resources are not ongoing or predictable.  Trust me in saying that most administrators are trying to help faculty maximize bang-for-the buck with the available resources.  

Also keep in mind that right now, the highest institutional priority in grad aid planning is costing out and accommodating the financial impacts of grad student unionization.

does it help that a grad transfer for women's basketball will presumably come with a full scholarship plus likely nil money?

[jonnyss]

true, but...imo deadlines are not imposed for the sake of education - ie students and faculty - but rather for the convenience of administrators, who gradually feel like they own the school.

I am one of the vocal critics of Stanford's excess of administrators and these administrator's unintended assumption of powers. That said, AFAIK the faculty is the group that controls graduate admissions. If some administrator(s) are making it harder than it needs to be, I strongly suspect the faculty would put them in their place very quickly. The graduate admissions process is a jealously guarded faculty prerogative. They aren't going to be pushed around in that regard. For that reason, the way it is is probably the way the faculty wants it to be.

faculty certainly control the particular students admitted. i believe they defer to administrators on the exact timeline and, in particular, on flexibility of deadlines. maybe i'm wrong...

I'm pretty familiar with grad aid funding processes - administrators (and faculty) are dealing with and trying to allocate limited available grad aid funding.  Unless there are large new gifts or reinvestments of unused gift/endowment income, central- and local grad aid resources (i.e. school- or departmentally controlled endowments) pretty much just grow by annual cost rise. Allocations/acceptance rates are carefully planned out in 3-5 time horizons.  Use of available Stanford grad aid resources may be mitigated by support from external research grants or fellowships, but those resources are not ongoing or predictable.  Trust me in saying that most administrators are trying to help faculty maximize bang-for-the buck with the available resources.  

Also keep in mind that right now, the highest institutional priority in grad aid planning is costing out and accommodating the financial impacts of grad student unionization.

does it help that a grad transfer for women's basketball will presumably come with a full scholarship plus likely nil money?