<p>Without reading any of the other comments, here’s my simple take:</p>
<p>Both great schools. If he wants more of an old-school, elite, prestige feel, he should be a Tiger. If he leans more toward the new, techy, next-gen feel, he should head out to Palo Alto.</p>
<p>“The athletes don’t have a choice.”</p>
<p>Sure they do. They can be professional athletes, paid in scholarship money, or they can be college students on a sports team. They make that choice before they enroll, but it’s a choice.</p>
<p>“The athletes in revenue sports have to make the sport a top priority. That’s why they are there.”</p>
<p>Yes, it is why they are there. That really says it all, doesn’t it? I guess we agree.</p>
<p>^^ And your point is??? If you don’t want to play NCAA sports, that’s fine. There are club sport or intermural options for students. If you are recruited by a coach for a college team, you are making a commitment. That doesn’t mean you are not also a student. You have to balance it all, just as you did with your music. I really wish we could let go of all the “evil college athlete” threads…</p>
<p>Both are superb, of course, but have such a different, what, feel. No one can decide which feels right but him. For what it’s worth, son’s gf at Stanford was a recruited track athlete, but decided after a couple of years that she had other priorities and quit the team. Not saying your son would do this, only that he won’t be locked in. I’ll add that I never heard a word about athletes at Stanford not being up to the mark academically: quite the contrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree (obviously, I would. lol) Ignorance breeds contempt in this arena.</p>
<p>Hanna, your comments might be correct for the cash sports at big D1 schools which serve as farm teams for pro teams, but most other athletes are not “professional” merely because they’ve accepted a sports scholarship. First of all, full scholarships are rare. Most kids aren’t getting more than a few thousand dollars, which just compensates them for the fact that athletes will have no time for a work study job or other part time employment to pay for books or personal expenses. Also, if we’re speaking about track, track is a cheap sport compared to many others. Therefore, many track athletes are not among the economic elite. Those kids play ice hockey, squash, crew, etc. In our state, a lot of top sprinters come from poor school districts. These kids might not have as much of a “choice” as you assume. It’s running in college or working at McDonald’s.</p>
<p>Niece plays basketball at Princeton; her close high school friend at Stanford. Both girls were surprised by how much more reasonable Princeton’s practice/game/travel requirements were compared to Stanford’s.</p>
<p>Also, students at Stanford tend to be “stuck” in Palo Alto (pretty, but not terribly exciting) if they don’t have access to a car. Students at Princeton can take advantage of East Coast’s far superior public transportation to travel up & down the seaborad, including to some of the most interesting cities in the US. I don’t know where OP is from and so maybe this is a moot point. But for my Colorado daughter who is at school in Boston, the ability to easily travel to NYC and other areas, is a major plus.</p>
<p>This is a fabulous dilemma which needs to be solved only by OP’s son and family. It truly requires the alignment of the mind and the heart. Can’t go wrong either way.</p>
<p>MOWC, I stated my point in post #30:</p>
<p>"I think you can’t blame a professor for concluding that a student making those requests prioritizes the sport ahead of the class. "</p>
<p>I made that comment because the thread was addressing the possibility of professors treating athletes differently from non-athletes. It seems natural to me that athletes would be treated differently when/if they seek special treatment (like a whole bunch of excused absences). I don’t think that’s unfair. If a student does not seek special treatment, then the professor should not single him out with special criticism OR special leniency.</p>
<p>because we’re talking about stanford and princeton, it doesn’t really apply; however; for MANY universities, their inter-collegiate athletics brings in a LOT of money to the school. not just to the athletics department. As such; there’s many valid points for their importance. And as much as you might want to be idealist and say that the primary job of a college/university is to educate minds; it’s difficult to do that educating if you don’t have the money. College athletics bring millions of dollars to schools; they bring a high level of student pride to the school; they are great advertising for a university for future potential students; and there are a means of offering some students a college education that many wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise. The pros of college athletics outweigh the negatives by more than imaginable.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting little document: the University of Florida Athletic Department’s budget report for the 2007-2008 and projection for the 2008-2009 year.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.uaa.ufl.edu/uaa/Executive_Summary_2007-2008.pdf[/url]”>http://www.uaa.ufl.edu/uaa/Executive_Summary_2007-2008.pdf</a></p>
<p>Of note:</p>
<p>The Athletic Department has revenues of $70-$80 million. Its contribution back to the University is approximately 1% of that. (Their pie chart says 2%, but that’s a big round-up of the projected 2009 number; the actual 2008 number was 1%.) That doesn’t count athletic scholarships, of course, or the publicity benefits to the University of having big-time football and basketball teams that were on TV a lot last year. It doesn’t count increased alumni giving spurred by athletic success (or the competition for alumni giving that the Athletics Department itself represents). But the actual contribution of dollars to the University is pitiful in relation to revenue.</p>
<p>In 2007-2008, actual revenues were $12.5 million higher than budgeted, no doubt due to the huge success of Florida’s marquee teams that year. The contribution to the University increased . . . $17,000. Like, one student’s tuition worth.</p>
<p>Only football and basketball (and ancillary rights, like TV broadcast rights) produce net revenue. Everything else costs about $12 million, net.</p>
<p>This is the Athletic Department’s document, not some investigative reporting smear job.</p>
<p>I am not trying to attack college athletics here. As a culture, we believe athletics are important to personal and social development. I am certain the University of Florida and its students have reaped tremendous benefits from its athletics programs. But afadad is dead wrong above when he says “athletics brings in a LOT of money to the school, not just to the athletics department.” Florida is the top of the heap, and intercollegiate athletics brings in a relatively tiny amount of money to the school. The Athletics Department barely pays for itself. If that’s the case with Florida, home of the national champions, what is the chance that athletics even pays for itself at Joe Sixpack U, much less makes a significant monetary contribution to the school?</p>
<p>JHS hits the nail right on the head. A program that pays for itself is rare, but intangible benefits are what colleges are all about.</p>
<p>Speaking of athletic department money, Stanford recently announced a $5 million shortfall in its athletic budget due to the economy, which led to some job losses. For prospective student-athletes, this may or may not impact their athletic opportunities at Stanford. This might be an appropriate inquiry for OP’s S to raise with the Stanford coach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Katliamom, while Stanford could not be compared to an urban school such as Penn or Columbia, it is hardly Grinnell or Williams! The definition of being stuck is all relative. Fwiw, students who happen to own a car might prefer to leave it parked and use the private/ public network of transportation to travel to San Francisco. Also, Stanford is smack between two international airports (SFO/SJC) with plenty of airlines allowing for reasonable travel opportunities and cost. </p>
<p>Of course, the West Coast is quite different from the East Coast. For some that is a negative; for others a big bonus.</p>
<p>JHS; you pick 1 school and 1 article. Are you telling me that you know for sure that every athletic department only gives between 1-2% of their revenue to the school? And for the school you mentioned; it it between $800,000 and $1,600,000. Even if that is a paltry amount compared to their revenue, that’s still more than the school had. But the point is, that is one school. There are plenty of schools out there that give more back than 1%.</p>
<p>Also; your article validated what I said about the other benefits. Your article said: ("That doesn’t count athletic scholarships, of course, or the publicity benefits to the University of having big-time football and basketball teams that were on TV a lot last year. It doesn’t count increased alumni giving spurred by athletic success (or the competition for alumni giving that the Athletics Department itself represents). That goes along with all the benefits I mentioned.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that the athletic departments bring a lot to a school. Sometimes it a lot of money. Sometimes it’s pride for the school. Sometimes it’s simply good advertising. This is about Stanford and Princeton. That is totally different. Especially Princeton which isn’t a D1 school. And both being Ivy/West Coast Ivy; fall into a different category with athletics.</p>
<p>Princeton IS D1.</p>
<p>Sorry; should have clarified they were D1-AA and Not D1-A. As in the same league as Stanford, with a different level and exposure to their high dollar sports programs such as Football and Basketball.</p>
<p>^^We are talking about a runner here, not a football player. The NCAA Div. 1AA/!A subdivisions apply only to football. For all other NCAA sports there is only one plain old Div. I. And both the Pac-10 (Stanford) and the Ivy League (Princeton) are Div. I conferences. So for a runner, NCAA status-wise, the two schools are equivalent.</p>
<p>Now Stanford undoubtedly has a stronger track/XC program than Princeton does. But that is a function of their athletic scholarships, coaching, and their success in recruiting and not due to any difference in their NCAA status (since there is none).</p>
<p>I agree; but my last couple posts were talking about money brought into a university from their athletic teams. Which is usually the football/basketball world. But you are correct. It is D1</p>
<p>afadad, my understanding is that athletics is a money loser practically everywhere, except for the intangible benefits (which of course may be substantial). I went looking for something to test your statement to the contrary, and the Florida budget was the first thing I saw. Florida is certainly an outlier – the most successful program in the country over the past few years in the only two important revenue sports – so really its budget doesn’t prove anything, except that it’s possible to win national championships in both sports and still not make much of an actual monetary contribution to your University beyond the athletes’ tuitions. I would welcome it if you could prove that most, or even a bunch, of college athletics departments at any level of competition make a meaningful direct financial contribution to the school’s general fund.</p>