StanUSwagU dateline='[url=tel:1768376131' Wrote: 1768376131[/url]']
Let me add a hypothetical that might change the analysis and maybe unify your 2 perspectives::
I have stated on this board, and have felt for almost 2.5 decades, that Stanford MUST enlarge & diversify its undergraduate enrollment; Enlarge it by 2500 undergrads total, 625 per class (frosh, soph, jun, senior), and DIVERSIFY it to be less 'specialized & nerdy' [A little more like Duke & NotreDame's, Cal's GeorgiaTech's, UCLA's, Wisconsin's undegraduate classes as far as being less nerdy & more sports-loving....I can see BC and Goose, gnashing their teeth, but IMO Duke and NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech students are 'high caliber people, we at Stanford do not have 'higher ethics or morals or academic-ethics-standards' than Duke or ND, GeorgiaTach or these others in that list ...just look at all our Academic Scandals of the last decade, that hopefully i dont have to air out here]
Had this been done 25years ago (yes i know this would have required getting the okay from Santa Clara county to build more on Stanford/County land, but lets assume this had been done)
That would mean a substantially larger Alumni base & FanBase out and about ( spouses of Alums, siblings of Alums, kids of Alums, etc ) almost exponential, when you consider the multiplicative & orthogonal 6 degrees of separation between these 'extra Alums; over the last 20 years & who they have as relatives and significant others, etc
Just maybe if we had this Larger undergraduate base for the last 25 years (that was less nerdy and more diverse), maybe 1 or 2 of these Alums or Significant others or Relatives of these Alums, would be 'someone Financially Successful (e.g half billionaire); ... who 'Loved Sports' like a T Boone Pickens (OklahomaState) or a Mark Cuban (Indiana) or the Guy from TexasTech, and then they would be happy to Donate to Stanford Football & Stanford Sports.
Yes, my model is hypothetical (no guarantee), but hopefully one can understand the underlying concept here:
THE LARGER & MORE DIVERSE YOUR UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES ARE over a 25year span, (its all about volume & numbers), your university has a 'slightly better chance; of having 1 or 2 of these Diverse Undergraduates, go on to become Massively Financially Successful & A CollegeFootballFan, who would then Donate like a MarkCuban or TBoonePickens.
Then (to unify BC & Calfans positions), Stanford could:
• BC's point: Have that 1 or 2 'Rich Half Billionaire' Football Fanatic Alums, who would want to 'Donate' to StanfordFootball, without doing the tradeoff of the AcademicSide and the AD
• CalFans point: Have the ability to 'Go All In' on Funding to Produce a 'Competitive Top 25 Football Program (like a NotreDame)
*************
And yes, BC, I am fully aware there is little to no data to support a CORRELATION or GUARANTEE between a 'LARGER More Diverse Undergraduate & Alumni Base' & '1 or 2 of those Alums or Alum's significant others or relatives becoming a 'Half Billionaire College Football Loving Alum' who wants to donate to their alma-maters AD or Football Program, ...but just with the 'Law of Larger Numbers' ..to me this gives us a better chance. And it seems like we have come to this idea of Enlarging the Undergraduate Class now (albeit about 20 years tardy IMO).
We don’t agree on a lot, but I am wholeheartedly behind Stanford increasing undergraduate enrollment (as, I think, the University is). My reasons have nothing to do with minting another decabillionaire who might love sports and can sugar daddy a winning team. But the rationale:
* Stanford every year gets more deserving applicants than it has spots for
* Even if you exclude undevelopable land, Stanford is still a large campus and has room for more people
* Enrollment expansion can allow for a more diverse student body, as you point out. While I would not prioritize sports fans over, say, violinists or chess prodigies, I do think that if you have more slots to play around with there is less pressure to exclude otherwise phenomenal individuals who might have a yellow flag
* Even a fairly substantial expansion of the student body, say to 10,000 undergrads, would not fundamentally change the character of the school. But it would make an immense difference to several thousand people a year.
Yes, our neighbors in SCC and Palo Alto have put major barriers to this (ironic, since Stanford grads contribute a non-insubstantial share of the tax base), but I feel like the mood is changing, and we are seeing a rise of the YIMBY’s (yes in my back yard) and the advocates of an abundance economy. Part of that, I think, should be increasing the abundance of access to elite Universities.
If it has the added effect of increasing the number of fans and the attendance at sports events (and donations to the athletic department), that’s great, but not, in my mind, a compelling reason to expand the student body.
BC
![[Image: su-jurisdictions10x16-1024x640.jpeg?h=13...k=3244sutY]](https://oga.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21581/files/styles/card_1900x950/public/media/image/su-jurisdictions10x16-1024x640.jpeg?h=1336e95a&itok=3244sutY)
![[Image: 6Q4YEROBAEHCQ3J2A7EPKFEQNI.jpg?auth=4615...smart=true]](https://images.ajc.com/resizer/v2/6Q4YEROBAEHCQ3J2A7EPKFEQNI.jpg?auth=4615a6e2e704999ef964e2e066d404b79621497ca5d012a7434f673085fbe43e&width=1920&height=1263&smart=true)
