[oldalum]

I'm with dabigv on this. The get-a-job-and-come-back-later example is inapposite--those people have left college entirely to do something else. 

This is demonstrably incorrect. Quite a few people leave Stanford and take a job because they have to. They need the money or their family needs the money. They have every intention to return. Others leave because they have a time-sensitive opportunity. For example, they join a start-up. If it works out, they are open to not finishing their degree. If it doesn't, they intend to return. It has always been a big plus that at Stanford you could do this. You didn't have to go through admissions again, although there were still administrative requirements involved. The "40 year decision" was exactly that, and part of that was the ability to interrupt your undergraduate education if necessary/desirable. The paeans to the wonderful contacts one makes at Stanford often make this an attractive option.
You misunderstood my sentence, sorry for not being more clear. By leaving college entirely, I did not mean they did not intend to return. I meant, during their time away from Stanford, they did not become a student at another 4-year college. In my opinion, they can do any of the things you mention and still return, EXCEPT transfer to a different college.  You are treating the transfer to T Tech as a job that happens to be at another university, but that ignores the requirement of being an enrolled STUDENT in a degree track, in good standing, at that college. You seem to regard that as a purely technical, nuisance requirement. Current environment in 2024 notwithstanding, I am unwilling to treat 4-year universities as universities attached to semi-pro athletic teams.  

Getting $$$ from NIL may make playing a sport a job now, but those people are also students: they have to enroll in college and pass a specified minimum number of units.  If someone transfers to a different university for any reason--an academic major, play a sport, music, be closer to family, whatever--they presumably plan to get a degree from that university.

There is no reason to assume that attending a particular university means you intend to receive a degree there. Athletics requires that you are making progress towards a degree, so on paper you need to be a degree candidate. This is an anachronism left over from the distant past when athletes were not paid to play. This is part of the inherent contradiction of today's college athletics. In today's brave new world going elsewhere to get paid $1.2M is no different than pausing your education to take any other job. The student athletes are merely responding to the environment that they must exist within. Loose wording on my part again, sorry. I meant, they should be presumed to be getting a degree from that university. That seems like the point of being admitted to a degree track. People can take individual courses at community colleges without any expectation they'll be getting a degree out of it, but 4-year universities are different, they don't allow that. To me it doesn't matter if the transferring student, athlete or otherwise, does not actually intend to get a degree from that university. By applying to a degree track, that university is assuming they want to get a degree, else they are taking up a space from someone who does. They should be treated as such by that institution and by the institution they transferred from. Which is why I think they should give up the right of return. If they want to return, they can apply again as a transfer student if they still qualify.

If they don't, they shouldn't be transferring, and we shouldn't be honoring their wish to return. If you want to graduate from Stanford, then attend 4 years like everyone else (who didn't first come as a transfer from a different college). I think you give up that option when you transfer out, for any reason. Come back for grad school if you want and can.

Lots of people don't graduate from Stanford in four years. They do other things. Sometimes they just take a year off. Sometimes they attend classes at Podunk U near home while they deal with family issues. They train for the Olympics. They join the Peace Corps. The "like everyone else" context is IMO inaccurate. While going through in four years with no interruptions is the most common, it is far from the universal condition.
Sorry again I should have been clearer. I did not intend to mean (nor did I say) 4 consecutive years. To be clearer I guess I should have said attend for 180 units, or for transfer students whatever remains after you transfer in.

I "get it" that many consider wearing another university's uniform to be a "traitorous" act. When college athletics was completely amateur that might have been a reasonable belief. Given that in the NIL era at least some Stanford athletes themselves are at Stanford not out of any particular loyalty but rather because Stanford offered the most NIL money, I personally find it hard to assign any weight or moral force to any "loyalty" requirement. We have already accepted that isn't the case. It is the money, plain and simple. We (and the rest of the world) can't have it both ways. If it is all about the money, and that is OK, then it must be OK without stigma. The stigma would be rational only if it were about more than the money. It isn't anymore, unfortunately.
At least for me, that has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

If someone actually wants to return to Stanford to finish their education, that to me is a plus and should be encouraged. Presumably that is why they were admitted in the first place. If they were admitted for other reasons, that in itself is a different problem. I don't at all support downgrading the admission to Stanford by removing the "right of return". Students who do not compete in college athletics do this all the time and we don't stigmatize or condemn them. IMO it in very inconsistent to treat athletes differently, given that they are ab initio not competing for "Stanford and glory", but rather for the money.

I'm all in favor of the right of return. Great example is Casey Jacobsen who returned many years later after time out for a pro career, broadcasting, and having a family. But my opinion is that anyone, not just athletes, who transfers to a different 4-year university for any reason, should not automatically be granted a right of return. That is the sole disqualifying reason I am in favor of. No inconsistency there, it applies to equally to everyone who transfers universities for any reason. People can still make college a smorgasbord where they take one year from college X and 2 from college Y and finish up with a year at college Z, if that's what they want and can make it work. I just don't think they should be given a right of return to college X. That's an opinion, nothing more. Colleges can make their own rules, I'm arguing for what I think Stanford's rule should be.

[oldalum]

I'm with dabigv on this. The get-a-job-and-come-back-later example is inapposite--those people have left college entirely to do something else. 

This is demonstrably incorrect. Quite a few people leave Stanford and take a job because they have to. They need the money or their family needs the money. They have every intention to return. Others leave because they have a time-sensitive opportunity. For example, they join a start-up. If it works out, they are open to not finishing their degree. If it doesn't, they intend to return. It has always been a big plus that at Stanford you could do this. You didn't have to go through admissions again, although there were still administrative requirements involved. The "40 year decision" was exactly that, and part of that was the ability to interrupt your undergraduate education if necessary/desirable. The paeans to the wonderful contacts one makes at Stanford often make this an attractive option.
You misunderstood my sentence, sorry for not being more clear. By leaving college entirely, I did not mean they did not intend to return. I meant, during their time away from Stanford, they did not become a student at another 4-year college. In my opinion, they can do any of the things you mention and still return, EXCEPT transfer to a different college.  You are treating the transfer to T Tech as a job that happens to be at another university, but that ignores the requirement of being an enrolled STUDENT in a degree track, in good standing, at that college. You seem to regard that as a purely technical, nuisance requirement. Current environment in 2024 notwithstanding, I am unwilling to treat 4-year universities as universities attached to semi-pro athletic teams.  

Getting $$$ from NIL may make playing a sport a job now, but those people are also students: they have to enroll in college and pass a specified minimum number of units.  If someone transfers to a different university for any reason--an academic major, play a sport, music, be closer to family, whatever--they presumably plan to get a degree from that university.

There is no reason to assume that attending a particular university means you intend to receive a degree there. Athletics requires that you are making progress towards a degree, so on paper you need to be a degree candidate. This is an anachronism left over from the distant past when athletes were not paid to play. This is part of the inherent contradiction of today's college athletics. In today's brave new world going elsewhere to get paid $1.2M is no different than pausing your education to take any other job. The student athletes are merely responding to the environment that they must exist within. Loose wording on my part again, sorry. I meant, they should be presumed to be getting a degree from that university. That seems like the point of being admitted to a degree track. People can take individual courses at community colleges without any expectation they'll be getting a degree out of it, but 4-year universities are different, they don't allow that. To me it doesn't matter if the transferring student, athlete or otherwise, does not actually intend to get a degree from that university. By applying to a degree track, that university is assuming they want to get a degree, else they are taking up a space from someone who does. They should be treated as such by that institution and by the institution they transferred from. Which is why I think they should give up the right of return. If they want to return, they can apply again as a transfer student if they still qualify.

If they don't, they shouldn't be transferring, and we shouldn't be honoring their wish to return. If you want to graduate from Stanford, then attend 4 years like everyone else (who didn't first come as a transfer from a different college). I think you give up that option when you transfer out, for any reason. Come back for grad school if you want and can.

Lots of people don't graduate from Stanford in four years. They do other things. Sometimes they just take a year off. Sometimes they attend classes at Podunk U near home while they deal with family issues. They train for the Olympics. They join the Peace Corps. The "like everyone else" context is IMO inaccurate. While going through in four years with no interruptions is the most common, it is far from the universal condition.
Sorry again I should have been clearer. I did not intend to mean (nor did I say) 4 consecutive years. To be clearer I guess I should have said attend for 180 units, or for transfer students whatever remains after you transfer in.

I "get it" that many consider wearing another university's uniform to be a "traitorous" act. When college athletics was completely amateur that might have been a reasonable belief. Given that in the NIL era at least some Stanford athletes themselves are at Stanford not out of any particular loyalty but rather because Stanford offered the most NIL money, I personally find it hard to assign any weight or moral force to any "loyalty" requirement. We have already accepted that isn't the case. It is the money, plain and simple. We (and the rest of the world) can't have it both ways. If it is all about the money, and that is OK, then it must be OK without stigma. The stigma would be rational only if it were about more than the money. It isn't anymore, unfortunately.
At least for me, that has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

If someone actually wants to return to Stanford to finish their education, that to me is a plus and should be encouraged. Presumably that is why they were admitted in the first place. If they were admitted for other reasons, that in itself is a different problem. I don't at all support downgrading the admission to Stanford by removing the "right of return". Students who do not compete in college athletics do this all the time and we don't stigmatize or condemn them. IMO it in very inconsistent to treat athletes differently, given that they are ab initio not competing for "Stanford and glory", but rather for the money.

I'm all in favor of the right of return. Great example is Casey Jacobsen who returned many years later after time out for a pro career, broadcasting, and having a family. But my opinion is that anyone, not just athletes, who transfers to a different 4-year university for any reason, should not automatically be granted a right of return. That is the sole disqualifying reason I am in favor of. No inconsistency there, it applies to equally to everyone who transfers universities for any reason. People can still make college a smorgasbord where they take one year from college X and 2 from college Y and finish up with a year at college Z, if that's what they want and can make it work. I just don't think they should be given a right of return to college X. That's an opinion, nothing more. Colleges can make their own rules, I'm arguing for what I think Stanford's rule should be.