<p>Well I was partly joking, but it may be worth noting that those don’t exist on UCLA’s campus. It’s not like there’s a huge amount of on-campus crime at night either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not modern schools, modern places… there are plenty of buildings that surround the Mediterranean (Spain, France, Italy) that have no air conditioning… and are hot as crap in the summer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sure… you could. You are still missing the main point here, which is that schools have programs (whether the program is a dining hall, or blue lights, or sports) that provide a value to their campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>dude’s a management science and engineering major. i wouldn’t call him an academic. with that major, he’s not exactly looking for a career in academia . . .</p>
<p>^^you don’t need to stay in academia to be academic, that’s a stupid thing to suggest. did you study philosophy at age 13 like Toby did. Or take 21 credits at Stanford including a class on Prehistoric Archaeology? I’d say Toby clearly passes the bar as an “academic” scholar-athlete!</p>
<p>While carrying Stanford’s football team on his back this season, Gerhart was also carrying a 21-credit course load, featuring courses like Prehistoric Archaeology and Integral Calculus. Your average Stanford student takes 15 credits.</p>
<p>Throw in the fact that he’s also the starting center fielder on Stanford’s baseball team. And that he was the valedictorian at his high school. And that he’s majoring in management sciences and engineering. And that he’s the all-time leading rusher in California high school history. And that he leads the nation in both rushing yards and touchdowns this season. You get the picture of an extraordinary individual.</p>
<p>At 13: Mom and son had meetings to study philosophy, public speaking, biology and anthropology. Their biology professor didn’t think a 13-year-old could do the work. She graded Gerhart’s first exam in front of all the students.</p>
<p>To her disbelief, he had earned the highest score in the class.</p>
<p>Read more: [Student</a>, athlete, in equal measures](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/12/SP9E1B307F.DTL#ixzz0ZbNN29V8]Student”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/12/SP9E1B307F.DTL#ixzz0ZbNN29V8)</p>
<p>Read more: [Student</a>, athlete, in equal measures](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/12/SP9E1B307F.DTL#ixzz0Zb1fV3Q9]Student”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/12/SP9E1B307F.DTL#ixzz0Zb1fV3Q9)</p>
<p>integral calculus is a freshman level class</p>
<p>any engineering major with ‘management’ in the title is designed for students who don’t want to go to graduate school in engineering. it is one of the less technical majors in any engineering school.</p>
<p>it is impressive that he’s studying that subject and not a typical jock subject like communications or kinesiology. you are right: doing college football and baseball is a lot of work and must take a lot of dedication! but his coursework isn’t at the same level (and for good reason, he spends a lot of time on athletics)</p>
<p>so what are you arguing, that you have to go on to graduate school to be an “academic” type person? Or to be truly interested in learning or something? There are plenty of very smart people who have deep knowledge of subject matters who didn’t go to graduate school. Einstein comes to mind as one.</p>
<p>I don’t get your point.</p>
<p>Toby’s high-IQ, varied subject matter interests, gpa at Stanford, valedictorian from a big California high school, etc, etc sure seems like someone who fits the title of “academic”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>einstein has a phd from the university of zurich.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know the program in particular, but I’d bet that Stanford’s management science and engineering program is designed for students who just want to get out in four years and work as a manager in an engineering company. The technical coursework in the degree is probably weaker than in other engineering degrees. </p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with that. But I wouldn’t rank students in that program in the same class as students in math, science, and the other engineering majors, just like I wouldn’t rank athletes in div. I NCAA athletic programs in the same class as students in club athletics (although the difference is less drastic).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t. Doing well in high school doesn’t mean you are an academic. You could even say the same thing about doing well in undergraduate school.</p>
<p>He is doing really well in college for being a two-sport athlete (that must take a lot of dedication! i certainly couldn’t do it.) but compared to a regular engineering student, his academic accomplishments aren’t that impressive. He’s got a 3.25 GPA and is studying management science and engineering.</p>
<p>I’ll stop this discussion though–my picking on toby is pretty lame. My overall point though (or at least should be . . . my argument is all over the place) is that sports don’t enhance your academic abilities–the amount of time you spend on athletics really makes it hard to do well in school.</p>