<p><a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News;
<p>“Real estate developer John Arrillaga, 60, has given $100 million to Stanford. It is the largest single gift ever from an individual to the university.”</p>
<p>Impressive commitment to the university.</p>
<p>I swear it won’t be long before Stanford becomes Arrillaga University. How on earth did he become so wealthy?</p>
<p>There are many billionaires in the world. $100 million is just a piece of cake for them.
Though this guy is great.</p>
<p>Too bad the money goes to the jockocracy, as usual.</p>
<p>Byerly, how do you know?</p>
<p>“Too bad the money goes to the jockocracy, as usual.”</p>
<p>1) Arrillaga has previously donated large sums of money to Stanford’s athletic department, but has also donated money for housing and a major alumni center. I assume that you know this.</p>
<p>2) The current donation is to the university, not to the athletic department. The university has been relatively quiet about exactly what it will be used for, but the word is that it will be for various academic programs.</p>
<p>3) Despite centuries of history and wealthy alums, Harvard’s largest donation until very recently was “only” $70 million … although I believe that Larry Ellison may have recently donated $115 million. As you probably know, Stanford as an institution didn’t seem to learn about fundraising until relatively recently … yet has still had numerous donations that are several times larger.</p>
<p>I think Ellison’s donation was $200 million</p>
<p>i think byerly is just jealous that stanford totally rules in sports</p>
<p>Stanford simply gets what it pays for … it pays more to salaried athletic performers than does any other college or university in the United States of America.</p>
<p>In the Ivy League, athletes are, by choice, amateurs; no money changes hands based on athletic performance. </p>
<p>Financial aid is given on the basis of need only.</p>
<p>“Need” is defined differently by different institutions. Stanford does get what it pays for, sure, and they pay a lot for it, including 12 million dollars a year in athletic scholarships. But if you think that your precious Harvard does not recruit athletes and have unofficial scholarships through finaid going to students who coaches know will qualify for aid, then you are kidding yourself.</p>
<p>Of course Harvard recruits athletes - all the Ivies vigorously recruit. They have to in order to staff up so many teams. Harvard, for example, has more Div I varsity teams, and more Div I varsity athletes, than any other school in the United States of America.</p>
<p>The majority of ALL students receive need-based aid, and I don’t doubt this is true of athletes as well. But nobody is paid to play. Many Ivy recruits decide, eventually, to concentrate on their studies. They are free to do so because their financial aid is not dependent on athletic participation.</p>
<p>Let one of those “student-athletes” at Stanford decide he’s sick of football or swimming or tennis and he’ll lose his “scholarship” within 24 hours!</p>
<p>“Let one of those “student-athletes” at Stanford decide he’s sick of football or swimming or tennis and he’ll lose his “scholarship” within 24 hours!”</p>
<p>Byerly, some of the folks that you derisively refer to as “student-athletes” quit their sports because of injury, lack of interest, to focus on academics (gasp), or for other reasons. Although this would likely cause them to lose their scholarships at Florida State or Ohio State, this is not the practice at Stanford. Don’t believe me? One of the people in the above situation was recently elected mayor of a large Northeastern city at age 36 – go ask him.</p>
<p>This topic has been discussed at length on this board before. Although you generally seem well-informed, your inability to incorporate “new” information that conflicts with your existing biases is shocking at times.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>I’ve observed how adept you are when it comes to manipulating numbers or generating statistics to demonstrate a given point, so I won’t get into that conversation with you; I’m not really motivated enough to go number hunting. That said, I think my personal observations - both as a Stanford student, and as an employee of several Stanford offices, including branches of the Office of Undergraduate Admission - offer some counterpoints to your statements.</p>
<p>First, you write, “Too bad the money goes to the jockocracy, as usual.” I can’t help but think you’re missing the forest for the trees here, that your familiarity with certain athletic department figures or practices has distorted your overall idea of the University and the way it apportions funding. As Snack correctly points out, it’s almost certain this new money won’t go toward new athletic facilities or the endowment from which athletic scholarships are funded. </p>
<p>What’s more, your “as usual” quip is troublingly ambiguous. </p>
<p>Do you mean Arillaga’s donations generally fund athletics rather than academics? If that’s the case, then you’re correct-- in a sense. His contributions have helped build two major athletic facilities on campus, but it’s difficult to call this a triumph of athletics over academics, since these buildings are hardly the exclusive province of Varsity athletes. Indeed, they’re open to all students. Most of my studies were in funding-starved “fuzzy” disciplines, so far be it from me to suggest more money shouldn’t be designated for academic programs. Even so, I feel the student body benefits physically and mentally from these facilities and that they were justifiable expenses. Without adequate space for recreation and fitness, how much would students’ studies suffer? One might argue that facilities were adequate before the newest Arillaga-funded athletic center was built. It’s a valid point, although not a very strong one. Having used Stanford gyms for many years, I can say from personal experience that they’re definitely nice, but not amazing. Indeed, prior to the new addition, they were often overcrowded. They’re certainly not exceptionally lavish, like the college equivalent of the Dallas Mavericks locker room or something.</p>
<p>Now, if “as usual” applied to Stanford’s overall attitude, then you’re woefully mistaken. Hewlett, Bing, and many of the University’s other most heralded donors have contributed primarily to academic programs. Much of the remainder has been filtered into housing programs-- and if you’re familiar with the academic mission of Stanford’s Residential Education office, you know housing donations are also academic, in a sense. Factor in the Campaign for Undergraduate Education and it’s hard to seriously criticize the way Stanford distributes money. </p>
<p>You have a point when it comes to Ivy League athletes and their entirely need-based financial aid. The policy gives student-athletes greater liberty if they want to drop the “athlete” monicker. I have some friends who took advantage of this flexibility. At the same time, you paint with broad strokes, and I don’t think everything is a pefect as your picture suggests.</p>
<p>To begin, Stanford’s increasingly generous aid packages need to be considered in this ex-athlete scenario; in most cases, if someone leaves a team and loses their scholarship, they probably won’t go from paying $0 to paying $45,000. The school won’t un-admit someone who quits a team, nor will it disqualify them from financial aid consideration. Harvard makes it easier, yes, but it’s not like Stanford athletes are forced to compete.</p>
<p>Second, Stanford holds athletes to a very high standard. It would be ridiculous to claim all athletes at Stanford - or at Harvard, for that matter - are as academically qualified as their non-athletic peers-- some aren’t. But athletes routinely accomplish amazing scholastic feats, and I recall seeing published SAT averages for both the football and basketball teams that were over 1300-- not as high as the rest of the student body, but pretty high nonetheless. I think this is all pretty well-documented, so hopefully you’ll accept it as a given, since I don’t want to go looking for hard numbers. </p>
<p>Now, in the Ivy League, I assume the standard is similarly high. That said, at my high school, football players - many of whom had sub-1100 SATs - were routinely accepted at Princeton-- six of them during the four years I was there. At the same time, only one “regular student” got in, despite the fact my school offers over 20 AP courses and sends three to five students (many of whom apply unsuccessfully to Princeton) to Stanford most years. What’s more, these Princeton-acceptees generally acquired unusually generous aid packages or theretofore unheard of scholarships, even if the students came from fairly comfortable backgrounds. Most of us assumed these were the sort of “unofficial scholarships” of which DRab wrote.</p>
<p>I recognize that my high school’s small sampling doesn’t necessarily mean anything in the grand scheme. And I know that Princeton’s admissions practices might not reflect the rest of the Ivy League, let alone Harvard. Nevertheless, it at least raises the possibility that the Ivy League’s lower standards could be as troubling as Stanford’s funding decisions. That is, it suggests criticism should be applied both ways, if at all. Do you have any statistics about this? Please don’t take the question as a challenge; I’m genuinely curious.</p>
<p>This message has grown lengthy and verbose, so I’ll end it here; hopefully it provides a fuller portrait of Stanford funding and Stanford athletics than has been offered in this thread to this point.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Hewlett Packard money is very impressive, and has not been funnelled to athletics.</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford jocks may have higher academic credentials than the NCAA minimums at the typical IAA school, but they are well below the lowest Ivies (probably Penn or Cornell, but certainly not Princeton) which must comply with rigid “Academic Index” limitations, under which they can recruit and enroll only a tiny handful of atheletes at or below the Stanford median. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>See: Lincoln, “Playing the Game: Inside Athletic Recruiting in the Ivy League”, Nomad Press, 2004.</p>
<p>See also: <a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349217[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349217</a> for a good explanation of the tight limitations on athletic recruiting at Harvard.</p>
<p>With all due respect, I challenge your claim that “football players - many of whom had sub-1100 SATs - were routinely accepted at Princeton-- six of them during the four years I was there (at your school).”</p>
<p>I have a question. A guy from my school is really good at wrestling; he’s won state three times, and he’s ranked top ten in the nation. Anyways, his family is very wealthy, and he needs no need-based aid. However, he received a full ride to Columbia and a lot of money from Cornell… What kind of money is this… My school called it “merit money;” however, not only do Ivy League schools not give merit money, but he’s not a top student (3.6, 1280m/cr). Where is this money from…?</p>
<p>wow, byerly has over 5000 posts, you cant F with that…</p>