<p>Stanford is underrated, but I would still put it below Princeton simply in terms of focus for undergraduates and concentration in undergraduate departments. In graduate departments, Stanford kills Princeton, and, in some dimensions, Harvard. Stanford is an excellent school, even for undergraduate education, but I think the programs that Princeton has made to cater to undergraduates (esp. its focus on student:teacher ratio) puts it above Stanford.</p>
<p>Just my thoughts.</p>
<p>Zephyr,</p>
<p>Thanks . . . as noted above I was just anticipating what Byerly may say so those of use who believe that merit scholarships are okay would be ready for the "discussion".</p>
<p>There is little for me to add, because Eagle has, for the most part, fairly stated my views.</p>
<p>I note that, as usual, he declares himself unopposed to merit aid "as long as all financial needs are met", or some such.</p>
<p>Trouble is, this begs the question. Using Stanford as an example, we have a school that pays more in what I properly term "wages" to athletes than does any other college or university in the United States of America. Fine, if that's the choice they want to make: you want a Sears Cup, you have to pay for it!</p>
<p>BUT ... and this is a big "but" .... at the same time, Stanford has announced that it will be a number of years before it can match the need-based financial aid that HYP are now awarding to low income applicants.</p>
<p>So even in the case of a wealthy school like Stanford ---- salaries for athletes inhibit the ability to reduce economic bars to admission and matriculation.</p>
<hr>
<p>Oh, and one last point: I am well aware of NCAA regulations circumscribing the conditions under which a jock school can cancel the pay (ie, "athletic scholarship") of its hirelings. If you are "injured on the job" so to speak, you can't be fired ... (sort of like workmen's compensation insurance!)</p>
<p>BUT ... and this is another big "but" .... you can't quit simply because you've lost your taste for the sport or because a lack of talent sends you permanently to the end of the bench. You are FORCED to show up at every practice, as cannon fodder for the "regulars."</p>
<p>Believe me, I've seen this happen, many times, and it ISN'T PRETTY.</p>
<p>Why are people who aren't playing, and who may want to quit, forced to hang in there? MONEY!</p>
<p>If they quit voluntarily, no matter the circumstances, their "athletic scholarships" will be cancelled in a New York minute. It is not every fullride jock who can voluntarily surrender that financial support, or survive on what lesser sum he may, possibly, be able to beg for in "need-based" aid.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Byerly. Stanford should consider paying their athletes less and start need blind financial aid for international students.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Are you pretending to be deaf or blind? Why do you keep trolling Stanford board about its athletic scholarships when I've already explained to you Stanford athletic scholarships are self-funded and don't draw anything from the general University funds. </p>
[quote]
Partly in response to these concerns, Harvard announced a change in its financial aid program to reduce the burden for low-income students offered admission.</p>
<p>How does Stanford compare in the economic diversity of its student body and in financial aid? As dean of admission and financial aid Robin Mamlet noted in the last issue of this magazine, Stanfords financial aid programs have, for many years, provided a greater level of assistance to low-income families. Harvards programafter the changeswill approach ours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
For most low-income students, our financial aid package is still more favorable than Harvards new package
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Looks like its Harvard that had long lagged behind. I am sorry. If you really care so much about the poor, bash Harvard not Stanford. Okay? LOL! </p>
<p>Please stop trolling and being jealous of Stanford's athletics! To say Stanford's athletics success is paid is idiotic. Other schools such as Texas have bigger athletics budgets than Stanford!</p>
<p>Sam Lee,</p>
<p>I uderstand that Stanford athletics is self funding. I wish more of the schools made this a priority. The issue is the funding of the financial need of all of Stanford's students should come first.</p>
<p>Where I diverge from Byerly is the terminology used around an athletics program. They are not salaried athletes any more than merit academic scholars are paid students. </p>
<p>He points out that economics drives many decisions. When you make a choice against a certain economic benefit there are consequences. It is the bargained for exchange. It is one of the primary reasons many excellent students attend state schools, the sticker price is less. It is also why many students will choose one school over another, the "financial aid" package is better. This is true even between schools that provide for 100% of financial need.</p>
<p>There are two sides to this "self-funding" rationalization. </p>
<p>Many schools have found that it enables a potentially unhealthy "independence" in the athletic department, which can then set its priorities independent of the univerity with which it is ostensibly associated. </p>
<p>Ohio State and Vanderbilt are two schools that learned the downside of the "independent funding" deal, and recently managed to bring runaway athletic departments back under university control. Others have enacted similar reforms. </p>
<p>There are many long articles dealing with this issue, in COHE and elsewhere.</p>
<hr>
<p>NOTE: "Sam Lee" is in error when he compares the Stanford and Texas athletic budgets. </p>
<p>Stanford pays more to so-called "scholar-athletes" than does any other college or university in the United States of America. </p>
<p>One out of 20 Stanford students is a full or partially salaried athletic performer.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Let me get this straight for everyone who hasn't followed this thread.</p>
<p>Initially you had problem with Stanford's athletic scholarship mainly because it's competing with scholarships otherwise available for low-income students. According to you, Stanford said it would be years before they could match Harvard's new policy.</p>
<p>But the facts are:
1. Stanford's athletic scholarships are self-funded.
2. Stanford said it's financial package had always been better than Harvard and Harvard's new policy merely brought its package closer to Stanford's. It's Harvard trying to match Stanford, not the other way around. It appears to me that "Stanford said it would be years before they could match HYP" is just your own fabrication!</p>
<p>You pointed out self-funding can be unhealthy. Is that the case for Stanford? Apparenly not!</p>
<p>So what is your problem with Stanford's athletic scholarships then??</p>
<p>Eagle79,</p>
<p>The thing is Stanford had put all students' need first more so than Byerly beloved Harvard for years. Beware of what kind of "facts" Byerly brought to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NOTE: "Sam Lee" is in error when he compares the Stanford and Texas athletic budgets. </p>
<p>One out of 20 Stanford students is a full or partially salaried athletic performer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Stanford doesn't just send 3 people to the basketball court when Texas sends five just because Stanford is a smaller school, does it? ;) Of course there is higher proportion of students being student-athletes at Stanford than Texas. I still don't see why that's a problem other than being surrounded more by dedicated Olympians. That makes Stanford even better. ;)
I do want to point out that the athletic budgets of other schools like Texas, Ohio State, Michigan...etc) are bigger and they pay their coaches higher salaries and more for their facilities. However, Stanford still comes out on top of the Sears Cup standing.</p>
<p>Eagle79,</p>
<p>Now you see the difference? Stanford had been quietly offering good financial packages to low-income students for years whereas Harvard, who had been offering worse financial package to those students for years, was LOUD to make sure everyone in the world know about its "generous" new policy couple years ago. </p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Being such a person with good social conscience, perhaps you should question Harvard what took the wealthiest school in the world so long to match little Stanford in terms of helping the low income students. ;)</p>
<p>Sam Lee,</p>
<p>My issue is not with Stanford, or Harvard for that matter. It is in the definition of 100% of financial need. Every school defines it differently. 100% at school X may be 110% at school Y. It is my contention that schools should award merit aid as they see fit provided that 100% of financial need is taken care of first.</p>
<p>Byerly brings up a good point about allowing the athletic departments too much leeway. I am hopeful that the new NCAA rules about graduation rates and associated penalties address the issue from an academic standpoint. It is too early to tell but I think these rules are a great start.</p>
<p>Regarding Stanford specifically, I think they have found a great balance between athletics and academics.</p>
<p>If Stanford's athletic department is self-funding and if Harvard's department is not, then it stands to be that Harvard spends more out of pocket expenses on its athletic department than Stanford does! If you think about it, Stanford pays zero dollars out of its academic trust on the sports departments. But Harvard, whose athletic department does not generate its own revenue, must constantly spend money out of its endowment to fund it. </p>
<p>Maybe Harvard needs to cut down on its wasteful athletic funding that detract from its academics.</p>
<p>Collegeperson,</p>
<p>Stanford is a great school that provides for 100% of financial need. However, they do this through PLUS and other private loans, not their own institutional money. According to the USNews statistics on financial aid the percent of Stanford students whose need was fully met after excluding PLUS and other private loans was 86%. For a number of other schools this number is 100%.</p>
<p>Here is a random list of a few schools that fully meet need after excluding PLUS and other private loans: Duke, Princeton, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Williams, Boston College, Harvard. Though just a quick servey I tried to include schools that had athletic scholarships along with those that do not.</p>
<p>This is not to say that Stanford is not a great school, it is. They could just do a bit more on the financial aid side of the equation directly with their own resources.</p>
<p>You didn't even confront the issue I was raising. I said that if Stanford's athletic department is completely self-funding either through advertising revenues, royalties, ticket sales, contracts, endorsements, private donations, or whatever, then Stanford as an academic institution does not give a single penny to the athletic department. Basically, the athletic department gets to do its own thing. Obviously, if the athletic department is extremely successful at getting tons of money for itself through its own means, why are you criticizing their success? If they can afford to fully fund these so called "paid athletes" who are olympic material, why should you bash the university for such lavish spending. It's not like it's coming out of the university's endowment that could have been used for hiring another history professor or building another science facility. For all I care, the athletic department could choose to make gold paved tennis courts or cognac filled swimming pools. It's their money and they raised it through their own means. </p>
<p>Now in the case of other schools whose athletic departments are not self-funding, the university is actually sacrificing resources that could be used on academics in order to fund their athletic departments. Their sports teams are a constant drain on the university's endowment, and the yearly expenses never go away. What's even worse is that most of those sports teams really suck. So what would you rather have, a filthy rich athletic department that you don't have to pay to support or a dirt poor, shameful athletic department that you have to spend millions of dollars a year to support.</p>
<p>I don't know about you, but it seems like Stanford got it right when it comes to athletics and academic funding.</p>
<p>And to confront your issue, you're probably right that Stanford could do more to boost its fin aid policies. I feel this is especially true of Stanford's international student aid. Schools of Stanford's caliber should be need blind for international students. I have always felt this way and I do think the university should do something in the near future to improve this. </p>
<p>I have a feeling, however, that the school recognizes this rather serious issue. Maybe in 5 or 10 years there will be enough funding to support that. After all, the endowment is the fastest growing of all colleges. I expect Stanford to surpass Yale's endowment in the near future.</p>
<p>collegeperson,</p>
<p>We had already discussed Stanford's independent funding of its athletic department earlier in this thread. It is a great thing provided that it does not get too independent. That has not been the case to date and I see no reason why it should in the future.</p>
<p>Further, I do not call scholarship athletes "paid athletes", Byerly does.</p>
<p>Harvard has the largest endowment of any school, 24 billion dollars. Yale comes second with about 12 billion or so. What is Stanford's endowment? If both schools were to spend the same percentage of their endowment on athletics, Harvard would have far, far more left over for academics. This is in response to collegeperson a few posts ago. Also, I wonder how graduate rates compare between the schools. Oh yeah, and who is worried that Harvard's academics are lagging because of the money they are putting into athletics? How about Stanford? Both schools let in people who without their skill in the sport would have no other way of getting in, which is another issue. Collegeperson, at sometime the Stanford athletic money came from the endowment, don't forget that.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should look up the definition of "self-funding." Stanford's athletic dept. is self-funding so it never dips into the endowment (unless it's an endowment the athletic dept. created for itself through its own fundraising). </p>
<p>Also, it's completely irrelevent that Harvard has a huge 24 billion dollar endowment. Yes it's impressive. But what does that have to do with the fact that Harvard's athletic department is not self-funding and therefore dips into the university's endowment. Let me give you an analogy. There are two different wells. The Harvard well contains 24 billion liters of water and the Stanford well contains 10 billion (as of 2005) liters of water. Now of course the Harvard well is a lot bigger, but a bunch of thirsty athletes come to drink from it periodically. With the Stanford well, however, the athetes have go search for their own water sources and drink down by the river.</p>
<p>Harvard offers more sports than Stanford.</p>
<p>Harvard will still accept unqualified students provided their AI is decent and they can play a sport.</p>
<p>With regard to the financing of athletic programs, I think some points need to be made:</p>
<p>First off, it's not really accurate to say that Harvard's athletic department is not self-funding. It's more accurate to say that it's only PARTIALLY self-funding. Let's face it. The Harvard athletic department brings in significant revenue in the form of ticket sales, merchandising, concessions, and all that. It obviously doesn't bring in as much as the the sports at Stanford (especially the money sports like football and men's basketball), but it does bring in something. You can't say that it doesn't bring in anything at all. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would argue that much of this discussion is just a trick of accounting. I don't know if any of you have ever studied accounting, but one basic truism of accounting is that there are many ways you can present the books of an organization to make certain divisions look profitable and others not, and all of these ways are perfectly legal. I would suspect that if Harvard wanted to, it could recalculate the books to make its athletic division look like it was self-funding. I have a feeling that, for accounting purposes, the Stanford athletic department does not really count EVERY single cost that it incurs, and that some of that cost is therefore imposed on the greater university proper. </p>
<p>For example, I highly doubt that the Stanford athletic department paid all the costs to construct Stanford Stadium. The department might pay to add features and renovation of the stadium, but what about the initial construction? I'm fairly certain that little if any of the funding for the initial construction of the stadium did not come from the athletic department. Furthermore, I doubt that the athletic department pays the full rent or full annuity, including interest for the initial construction, to the greater university to use the stadium. In fact, I doubt that it pays anything at all. But why not - isn't that a cost of doing business? The football team can't play (and hence can't generate revenue) without a home field, so, for the purposes of accurate accounting, shouldn't the full cost of building and running that field be counted as a debit? Somebody has to pay that. </p>
<p>Now look, I'm not saying that because I'm trying to unfairly single out Stanford. The point is that I doubt that any school really runs a truly fully self-funding athletic department if you were to truly include all the costs, especially the costs of the real estate they use. Every school uses a cross-subsidy system of some sort, at least with respect to real estate, to aid its athletic program. Let's face it. Stanford Stadium is bigger and more functional than Harvard Stadium, so it would be fair to stick the Stanford athletic department with a bigger real estate bill than the Harvard athletic department.</p>