The price of athletics at Stanford | The Stanford Daily
Cost to Stanford was $100 million. Net annual cost was $67 million.
Looking at the byline:
Opinion by From the Community
Feb. 22, 2015, 8:39 p.m.
suggests that some have had these questions for at least 7 years, and nothing has changed in the interim.
The last comment to this opinion piece probably best summarizes the argument justifying the cost.
âJeremy, your article doesnât account for the second-order effects of a good athletic department (particularly a good football/basketball team)⊠and this happens at every school.
When the football and/or basketball teams move into the âeliteâ spectrum, the # of applicants rises (Stanfordâs has almost doubled since just 7 or 8 years ago⊠some of that can be attributed to increased financial aid packages, etc, but not entirely) donations skyrocket, and the schoolâs âbrandâ becomes significantly more valuable. That has led to millions and millions and millions of dollars for Stanford over the past few years alone.â
2 Likes
Well, they tried to drop 6 or 7 sports and then backed off after the outcry.
Itâs just my opinion.
As the competition to get accepted to the very top academic schools gets increasingly more difficult, I think there will be growing outcry at these top schools for supporting special populations as the perception that their admissions advantage is increasing vs non-hooked applicants.
As an anecdotal aside, my son is a recruited athlete for a non-revenue sport at a mid-major. Their facilities are being completely updated because of a $1,000,000 donation to the program.
2 Likes
Likely by a former student-athlete.
People who advocate for abolishment of college sports sometimes forget that these state of the art fitness centers, which benefit the entire community, are not going to build themselves.
7 Likes
@skieurope Very likely, and this wouldnât be happening without that donation. They already have excellent facilities, but now theyâll have amazing ones.
I think the most pressure will be felt by the publics; they have enormous pressure to be strictly âmeritocraticâ and itâs hard to see how the present configuration on the Supreme Court will justify âhooksâ of any kind under their its reading of the Equal Protection Clause. Top privates have a little more wriggle room - but, not much.
Maybe.
I am just using hypothetical examples with only using standardized test results for comparison
A well-regarded public university has a median SAT score 1300. If the school is accepting special populations with scores in the 1100 range, that is âacceptableâ since the magnitude of the boost is considered slight.
A well-regarded private university has a median SAT score of 1550. Special populations are accepted with scores In the 1100 range. That may not be considered acceptable because the boost is no longer considered slight, especially since the median SAT score for unhooked applicants has risen 100 points over the past 10 years but for special populations it has remained relatively flat.
1 Like
And, itâs not only gym facilities. Hereâs a timely article about a $25M donation toward science facilities by a former Wesleyan hockey player:
A Legacy of Giving Back: Marc Casper â90 â Wesleyan University Magazine
1 Like
Is the hypothesis here that some or most recruited student-athletes arenât as nearly as smart (nicer way of saying âdumber thanâ) as the rest of the population of students?
If so, IMO, the amount of work in their sport to become a recruited athlete AND also manage their schoolwork is not nearly being given itâs just due.
10 Likes
I know the amount of work required to be a recruited athlete. One of my children was a D1 recruited athlete. I also know there are differing admissions standards that vary depending on the school
As well as the sport.
1 Like
So whatâs the point here? The cost of athletics is huge and/or student athletes shouldnât be given a bump in admissions? I donât get it.
And Iâm sure a lot of us responding on this thread either have a family member or members that were college athletes and/or were one themselves. Thatâs why weâre here on this thread 
2 Likes
Iâm obviously pro-college sports, as my my kids are too. Neither goes to Clemson, but I recalled this article about Clemson.
2 Likes
I guess you donât see the point.
Some people think athletics is a luxury and other think itâs integral to the college experience.
Some people think that athletes as well as other special populations bring diversity and other advantages to the campus. Others feel they are receiving too much preferential treatment.
This is a controversy where there has been no consensus opinion for a long time. I was only stating my personal opinion that recent admissions trends could make this controversy (which involves more than just athletics) become more heated.
Itâs just an opinion, so Itâs ok to disagree.
I didnât know what the point was with this thread. It didnât seem clear to me. But maybe Iâm thick-headed.
You will always have people who disagree with college sports, but is there really âcontroversyâ?
College sports arenât going anywhere, nor is the student-athletes admissions advantage, so it seems the people who donât want college sports or the admissions advantage are just yelling âget off my lawn.â
2 Likes
Ballerinas, musicians, singers, and actors, unless they are majoring in dance, music, or theatre, do not get recruited for their extracurricular activities, but varsity athletes do. Artistic applicants have to meet academic requirements before their utility is even considered, and then that is only for club participation. Varsity athletes, most of whom will not continue their sport post graduation, enjoy major hooks while talented artists, who also do not major in their activity, do not.
Student ballet companies, orchestras, and other like clubs add entertainment where a number of D1 sports like golf, sailing, and even crew or squash are difficult, if not impossible, for students on campus to spectate. Such activities can produce banners and trophies for display however, which seems to be prioritized.
I agree that athletes add dimension and vitality, but so do other kids who work hard at their craft, juggling many hours of training or practice in addition to their studies. Any person driven to succeed and manage that balance is likely to work hard post graduation. So my response to the identification of varsity athletes as powerful future donors would be to say that many other groups might be as inclined to become generous alumni if they were treated as well.
I know driven teens who were varsity athletes or committed artists in both public and private high schools. From my experience, the administrators and teachers in the public high school did not seem to favor the varsity athletes in the classroom and on campus, but the ones in the private high school most definitely did. So aside from college admission, sports can influences earlier academic opportunities, assessments, and support as well.
Americans loves sports; they permeate our society. I donât see our population as more athletically active than other countries, however, and people are sensitive to comparisons of intelligence while sports heroes are celebrated.
I love sports tremendously, and institutions are free to do what they like while students can select where to apply, but athletes do enjoy greater advantages and more choices.
5 Likes
Iâve followed Michigan admissions via CC for many years now and have tracked stats posted here.
Using this site as a sample, a very small one at that, the STAMPS (School of Art & Design) admittances to Michigan have always had lower admitted stats to Michigan than rest of the admitted population.
So do we get rid of the artists? 