<p>I’m shocked, shocked to find there are athletic scholarships going on at Stanford. All the power to Stanford for upgrading women’s squash to the varsity level and tapping into an endowment source to provide scholarship money to these deserving women student-athletes. There is no shame in that. Stop buying into this line that there is something inherently wrong with athletic scholarships or that providing them means that the student-athletes are salaried professionals. Sure, some schools abuse the system by manufacturing grades or coursework, or providing prohibited perks under-the-table, but Stanford does not. Stanford’s athletic program adds a positive dimension to student life without sacrificing the school’s overall academic excellence. Perhaps there are some sore feelings about the freshman squash phenom who jumped ship from Crimson to Cardinal!</p>
<p>Speaking for myself, I've been needling Stanford about its heavy reliance on salaried athletes for a number of years - on this site and elsewhere. My feeling is that (contrary to the views of others - presumably including Sammy and yourself) the huge resources poured into athletic scholarships at a Stanford or a Duke tarnish, rather than burnish, their reputations as academic institutions. This latest maneuver simply provides a textbook example - special treatment accorded an athletic transfer.</p>
<p>stop hating. it's getting kind of sad.</p>
<p>In my view, the academic reputations of Stanford or Duke are neither tarnished nor burnished by the fact that the schools offer athletic scholarships and strive for athletic excellence at the highest level. Their reputations as academic institutions speak for themselves. And although the Ivies do not offer merit scholarships to their recruited athletes, it is disingenuous to suggest that they do not provide their athletically-endowed recruits with special treatment (e.g., likely letters, flexible deadlines, a lot of attention, and maybe a teeny bit of leeway on the grades and test scores). I imagine that the talented squash phenom received a little bit of special treatment from Harvard when she was being recruited as a high school senior. By the way, when you are referring to her “special treatment” as a transfer to Stanford, are you referring to the fact that she is a triple legacy? Such an advantage would be unheard of at the Ivies!</p>
<p>Byerly......i think your the reason Harvard fell from 1 to 2. and Farmdad is right, the academic reputation of Stanford speaks for itself. But we really don't need to tell you that do we. Im sure your skilled at Google, why don't you take a little search. And please don't pretend that some Harvard athletes don't get "significant financial aid", you know just enough so they go there..... tell me why are you this board again? Go bother someone from Yale.</p>
<p>My belief is that if Stanford made fewer admissions compromises with recruited athletes, it would challenge for the top in the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>yeah kind of like CalTech and MIT</p>
<p>Byerly, I’m in total agreement with you on this. Stanford’s approach to athletics is probably the single greatest obstacle to its reaching a 1, 2, or 3 position in the US News rankings. The fact that Stanford is ranked 4 while recruiting athletes the way that it does and excelling in athletics on the national level is a testament to how strong the school is academically. Now, if obtaining a top 3 ranking on USN&WR was all that was important, then this might be a problem. But in reality, having a big-time athletic program without compromising academic excellence in ways that matter is worth this sacrifice, in my opinion, because it’s fun... even though the football team will often break your heart.</p>
<p>nah, you can't get your heart broken if you don't let yourself care too much too begin with.</p>
<p>when they start winning, i'll start lettin myself believe that they may just keep winning some...and then they'll be able to break my heart.</p>
<p>I second FarmDad. Being 1,2, and 3 on US News may mean a lot to you, Byerly, but apparently it doesn't mean all that much to Stanford. Actually US News ranked Stanford #2 in the beginning. Go figure! LOL!</p>
<p>Since Stanford's FA isn't more stingy than most Ivies (that it's not as generous as Harvard is a moot point since that's the case for all other Ivies), why does it matter? That just shows the regular FA and athletic scholarships operate pretty independently.</p>
<p>In fact, Stanford was #1 in a couple of the early USNews rankings - in 1983 and 1987. It was #2 to Harvard in 1990 and 1991, and #3 in 1993, but has not ranked that highly since. </p>
<p>Only when its rank dropped to #4 or #5 thereafter, did Stanford's then-President write an angry "open letter" denouncing USNews.</p>
<p>Tough loss today.</p>
<p>Man, stanford football really sucks! I don't see how you'll win a single game this year.</p>
<p>Frankly, Byerly, we don't care about football.</p>
<p>Thank God for the women's volleyball team, right?</p>
<p>LoL, indeed. And I'm always cheering for swimming, tennis, and synchronized swimming =p To me, there are more important things than football. School pride and athletics are important, but football itself is not a huge deal to me. My boyfriend will probably kick me for dissing football... sorry dear.</p>
<p>C'mon Stanford, make the Pac 10 look more respectable by winning a few!</p>
<p>byerly,</p>
<p>i think women's tennis is much more dominant than women's volleyball. anyway, why exactly do you care so much about stanford athletics?</p>
<p>"The Blue Devils lost to a Division I-AA team two weeks ago. How are we expected to play a competitive game against Alabama or Florida State?</p>
<p>A schedule dominated by Ivy League schools and other academic rivals would better serve our school's needs.</p>
<p>All in all, we don't aim to be in the BCS championship, but we should be able to compete.</p>
<p>And score some points..." (Chronicle, October 3, 2006)</p>
<p>Stanford may have its best shot at home next weekend against Arizona - also winless in the Conference.</p>