<p>If you are really that "concerned", you should write letters to NCAA. Stanford may not hold the standards of Ivies when it comes to the athletes, but it's up there among the Div-1 schools yet you seem to love targeting Stanford. Schools like Texas, Georgia (where there's actually some basketball 101 exam given out) Colorado...etc are where what you mentioned happen the most. Why didn't you deliver your messages of "concern" on their boards? Looks to me you have other motives.</p>
<p>I don't care much about them, Sammy (ie, Colorado, Geoirgia etc) .... </p>
<p>Stanford, however is a cut above and worth redeeming, if it'd just stop fancying itself as a jock power school, hiring players to wear the school colors, and realize that its main purpose is education.</p>
<p>The $2 million + spent on football salaries at Stanford could be better invested in need-based financial aid.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>You and I had this discussion before and you simply ignored various sources I provided that said Stanford athletics schlarships are self-funded by the athletics program and not drawn from the funds that provide need-based scholarships. Stanford meets 100% of the demonstrated need and there's no evidence to show they do any worse than most Ivies in terms of FA.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=157331&page=6&highlight=pell+grants%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=157331&page=6&highlight=pell+grants</a></p>
<p>Of course, this would give you the opportunity once AGAIN to tell us how Harvard is the most generous with their new policy. That, I believe is your real point and we all know your "reputation" on this board. ;)</p>
<p>Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!</p>
<p>That "self funded" stuff is a crock. Doesn't matter if the millions for athletic scholarships come out of one endowment fund or another. </p>
<p>Arguably, in fact, it may be even more troubling to have athletic funding "off the books", so to speak, and not subject to prioritizing relative to other - more appropriate - educational endeavors.</p>
<p>well not to get into the fighting thing...but i've heard that alumni give money to the athletic program out of their own pocket. now, they do this b/c they want ATHLETICS too get the money and be better. so if stanford somehow used this money for educational purposes and not athletics (which i'm guessing would be illegal), then the alumni and other people would stop giving money. so we'd be at the same position as far as fin aid goes, and we'd have no/a lot less money for athletics. </p>
<p>just a thought....</p>
<p>This is stupid. Alumni and current students like to have good sports teams. What in the world is wrong with that? Harvard has crappy teams? Good, enjoy your crappy teams while we enjoy watching our good pac ten teams.</p>
<p>word.......</p>
<p>from what i know, harvard only has womens tennis going for them...and they're not even in the top 20.</p>
<p>I don't know about the PAC-10 teams, but Stanford should smother San Jose State of the WAC this weekend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
from what i know, harvard only has womens tennis going for them...and they're not even in the top 20.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Harvard women tennis team was BLANKED by Stanford twice in a row at the NCAA tournament. They couldn't even get ONE point!</p>
<p>^stanford didn't play harvard in the ncaa championships this year. it was at the team indoors. but yeah, stanford won 5-0. they didn't win a "team" point, meaning they didn't win any of the matches. but i'm sure that someone on the harvard squad won at least ONE point in a match. i could be wrong though. haha.</p>
<p>Of course the Stanford women's tennis team is salaried ... no wonder they're good.</p>
<p>I see the women's squash team is being upgraded to the professional level, too.</p>
<p>... and like the New York Yankees, for whom money is no object, they hired the best to kick off the "program"!</p>
<p>According to the Crimson article, she wasn't "hired." She approached Stanford, and the article says there are no scholarships for Women's squash.</p>
<p>The earlier Crimson article is incorrect on that score.</p>
<p>Did you miss this paragraph in the Stanford story?</p>
<p>" ....By creating additional opportunities for female student-athletes through a varsity squash program, Stanford continues to advance its commitment to gender equity between its men's and women's sport programs. Stanford continuously monitors and evaluates itself on a Title IX basis. By adding these scholarships, the University further improves financial aid opportunities for women which was already well within the legal requirements set forth by Title IX (which requires the total amount of financial assistance awarded to men and women be substantially proportionate to their participation rates in athletic programs".</p>
<p>The whole point of adding a Title 9 qualifying women's "athletic scholarship" suportted program was to even things up so they could add more <em>mens'</em> "athletic scholarships"!</p>
<p>"Stanford does not yet offer scholarships for squash, though scholarships could be granted in the future since Stanford is not subject to the Ivy League ban on athletic scholarships."</p>
<p>Yes, I read that, but I believe they have moved beyond that preliminary stage.</p>
<p>The top squash players are getting $$$ now to go places other than the Ivies. You either give merit money or, like a Trinity, you recruit your whole team from Pakistan, etc.</p>
<p>As you know, no Merit $ at Stanford. Maybe the women's squash players just wanted to go to Stanford...</p>
<p>Sure .</p>
<p>What is it, over $12 million dollars a year in athletic scholarships?</p>
<p>Yes. Maybe closer to $13,000,000 now.</p>