<p>I felt pretty much the same way, Patient. And some of my kids did have issues with their school choice for the very reasons I had had reservations. But at least it was their own choice.</p>
<p>Will keep sport and gender on the quiet. Biggest push is to get athlete to visit. After that, I lean toward Stanford for diversity of residence, (there's nothing better than having friends all over the world. 89% of Cal kids reside in California), smaller size and deeper pockets.</p>
<p>But athletes quote the stat that if Berkeley were an independent country, it would have won the most Olympic medals?</p>
<p>Thanks for all the advice...</p>
<p>Cheers, best of luck in helping out. As far as diversity of residence though, depending on the sport, that might be attained through international competition in the sport. That would be true in individual sports I guess more than the team sports--i.e., international competitions in gymnastics, track and field, tennis, golf, etc. </p>
<p>Indeed, with D1 scholarship athletes, honestly most of their time really is spent with their teammates. At Stanford the school specifically does not place athletes together as roommates in the first , but at Cal they do at least some of the time, and after that most of the team ends up rooming together in various groups, as it just works out better with the intense schedule, etc. The athletes on the team travel together, eat together, work out together, and seem to hang out together too. I know that a lot of schools are heavily recruiting their athletes from overseas, so in fact that might really not be a distinction between the two schools.</p>
<p>Agreed of course on class size and the overall feel of being on a smaller campus. </p>
<p>Don't know about the stat. UCLA might be up there too. And, if for example it were an Olympic sport and the Cal coach happens to have been involved with the Olympics in that sport and not the Stanford coach, or vice versa, that too obviously would be a big selling point for one or the other. Google it?</p>
<p>Is this your older D? Stanford, definitely, and congrats!!!!</p>
<p>Count your lucky stars if you are the parent of a D! :)</p>
<p>I have no such luck. Only boys at my house, recalcitrant academics at that. Sigh. </p>
<p>Athlete is in our social circle....</p>
<p>Sorry, Cheers! I thought I dimly recalled a conversation about a D taking Latin....my apologies, but I still say Stanford! :-)</p>
<p>That was my post, but again, not my D. No Ds, sadly.</p>
<p>My d. the gymnast should only be faced with such choices! (she'd prefer UCLA to both of them.)</p>
<p>Friends son was faced with such choices and thensome and picked USC.</p>
<p>Cheers, I'm always happy to offer up one of mine :). That part is tongue in cheek of course, but based on my admittedly completely limited experience with raising children honestly the boys are easier, emotionally at least. But that's a topic for another day. </p>
<p>Although people who know my completely ecstatic feeling about Stanford and how good it is, it is really so worthwhile to visit both--and so easy to do both since they are an hour and a few minutes away from each other (except during rush hour). I have certainly heard some things about some coaches in some of the sports at either school that would keep me from making too general a conclusion that Stanford is better. Obviously I'm not getting any more detailed than that primarily because what I've heard is just that, hearsay. It really depends on the sport and the coach. Best of luck to her!!</p>
<p>I was thinking about this post and remembered that one of the top local athletes in our area (I won't specify because otherwise it gets too personal) just committed to UCLA over Cal and Stanford and some others that were trying very hard to get the athlete. In that case money had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision. Just as another illustration that for athletes, the relative appeal of the two schools can be trumped in a particular sport.</p>
<p>Maria Sharapova? :)</p>
<p>well actually a girl in my school got accepted to Stanford, Berkley and UCLA, all fullride scholarships, for softball, and she chose stanford</p>
<p>NJres: ? Don't get it, sorry, haven't kept up with her career?</p>
<p>Decision is in--without a visit--but can hardly go wrong with the two choices.</p>
<p>Athlete already had calls telling her she missed a chance to go to "one of the great party schools!" :)</p>
<br>
<p>I do agree that schools like Stanford with a huge endowment and 100% need met would be most likely to continue scholarship money even if the student could not play the sport. </p>
<br>
<p>I don't think ability to pay is the main issue here. For each sport there is an NCAA limit of how many scholarships each school can offer. If Stanford, or any school, honors the scholarship of an injuried athlete they are decidiing to have one less healthy athlete on scholarship. I think this is the "correct" choice for a school to make but not one they have to make and I applaud schools that have the integrity to stick their commitment when they have a choice.</p>
<p>That's one of the things that sets Stanford apart--their concern for the student and their families. I am sure that there are limits and I have wondered about that issue myself--although perhaps there is fallback to need-based aid as well or instead of honoring the scholarships. </p>
<p>Cheers--a Stanford parent/friend just emailed me some dorm pictures...I do not think that she needs to worry about not finding enough parties. When do these kids study??? :) (I know mine is spending a lot of time in the library because of the distractions in the dorm)</p>
<p>Thanks for that Patient. Forwarded on...</p>