How does Stanford do it?

gt7282c@prism said:
Ranked #8 with a 10-2 regular season.

Meanwhile... tied for #6 academically (with MIT) by US News & World Report, and a student body of just under 7000.

I don't get how they manage to be successful both on the field and in the classroom. Is it that the PAC-12 as a whole is far more mediocre than the teams we face? Is there a vastly different set of standards between their students and their athletes? Does their distinction as a private university vs. a public one grant them certain benefits that other institutions do not have access to?

What?

(A bit envious of the tree at the moment.)
Click to expand...

All that plus...have you ever been to that part of the country? Beee u tiful
 
Mmmmm, maybe because they care about the TOTAL university and don't go in for making excuses. Just a guess.
 
MtownJacket said:
Stanford gets smarter students that don't have to try as hard to be successful. Hence hanging out in swimsuits during finals week.
Click to expand...

Also, their classes are easier and they are allowed to drop a class an hour before the final exam if they want. Seriously.
 
andrew said:
Exactly. The whole "Tech doesn't offer degrees athletes want" thing is a joke.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely why Tech loses the small pool of available smart football recruits to other schools.
 
beej67 said:
It's absolutely why Tech loses the small pool of available smart football recruits to other schools.
Click to expand...

True, it could be a legitimate reason for losing the the small number of football recruits that legitimately do want to go to school and don't consider business an acceptable undergrad major for some reason.

I'm sure there are some football players who are legitimately interested in journalism or sports management or agriculture but are not interested in getting a business degree from a top 50 program. I have a feeling the number is very small though, because with a good business degree from Tech and football on your resume you'll be able to go into most fields that other non-STEM degrees would grant you access to.

I think it would be mainly limited to kids who really want to do journalism or something like that where competition is high and there are a large number of people who actually went to school for it. Not sure how many of those there are.

We've also been historically successful, at least in the Gailey years, with getting smart and very good football players to come here, so I don't think I buy the "varied major" (as opposed to "very easy major") argument as a significant factor in our recruiting. A factor? Occasionally, but a small one thanks to our business school, in my opinion.
 
Being private also makes it far easier for them to do whatever they think is needed, quickly. It's really only a similar situation based on a surface analysis.
 
1) Track record of hiring some great coaches (Walsh, Harbaugh, ?Shaw).

2) Recruiting nationally. They are terrible in-state and always will be, but they scour nationally to find the types of kids/parents that want a meaningful education.

3) Stanford academics (minus the engineering programs) are cake-walks. While they are plenty of self-motivated students there, you can just as well scoot by and graduate with a decent GPA. That can't really happen at Tech. Despite the watering down at Stanford, their prestige is significantly higher than Tech's.
 
a5ehren said:
Being private also makes it far easier for them to do whatever they think is needed, quickly. It's really only a similar situation based on a surface analysis.
Click to expand...

Tech needs to go private, and get out from underneath the thumb of the board of regents.
 
beej67 said:
Tech needs to go private, and get out from underneath the thumb of the board of regents.
Click to expand...

Would be nice for a variety of reasons (continuing state budget cuts being #1), but I can't even imagine the logistics of how it would work out.

Would probably cost over $1B, right?
 
beej67 said:
Tech needs to go private, and get out from underneath the thumb of the board of regents.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Absolutely needs to happen.

It will be a growing trend in the next decade. UC-Berkeley has been debating doing this for a while.

Financially, it has to happen. State funding will continue to dwindle.
 
beej67 said:
Tech needs to go private, and get out from underneath the thumb of the board of regents.
Click to expand...

I don't really see this happening for at least three reasons:

Tech is a crown jewel in the state's educational portfolio from a PR standpoint.

Tech brings in cash, and costs very little.

Tech lacks the political clout to make that sort of move.

I'd love to hear more explanation of the mechanism for actually making it happen, as I'm unfamiliar with the separation of state vs. school assets (if there is any difference), etc.
 
cincytechie said:
Agreed. Absolutely needs to happen.

It will be a growing trend in the next decade. UC-Berkeley has been debating doing this for a while.

Financially, it has to happen. State funding will continue to dwindle.
Click to expand...

Interesting; but how does this work exactly? Is there enough private/foundation money out there for a decoupling from the USG to really be feasible? To maintain some modicum of tuition affordability?
 
Winning Percentages for schools in the USN&WR top 50 Universities that field FBS teams from 2000-2012:

#46 Texas 79.87%
#24 USC 78.43%
#44 Miami 70.00%
#41 Wisconsin 69.23%
#29 Michigan 66.00%
#31 Boston College 64.71%
#46 Penn State 62.42%
#36 Georgia Tech 61.29%
#17 Notre Dame 60.56%
#21 Cal 55.70%
#24 UVA 51.68%
#24 UCLA 51.33%
#12 Northwestern 50.00%
#6 Stanford 49.30%
#27 Wake 47.95%
#30 UNC 46.26%
#46 Washington 43.15%
#46 Illinois 40.97%
#17 Rice 38.03%
#17 Vanderbilt 29.58%
#8 Duke 17.86%

Winning Percentages for schools in the USN&WR top 50 Universities that field FBS teams from 1990-2012:

#44 Miami 73.23%
#46 Texas 72.26%
#29 Michigan 71.14%
#46 Penn State 69.85%
#24 USC 69.34%
#41 Wisconsin 65.33%
#17 Notre Dame 63.57%
#36 Georgia Tech 59.59%
#31 Boston College 58.36%
#24 UVA 58.02%
#30 UNC 55.28%
#24 UCLA 55.09%
#46 Washington 55.09%
#21 Cal 52.46%
#6 Stanford 50.78%
#12 Northwestern 44.85%
#46 Illinois 42.47%
#17 Rice 42.26%
#27 Wake 41.86%
#17 Vanderbilt 29.76%
#8 Duke 23.31%
 
beej67 said:
Tech needs to go private, and get out from underneath the thumb of the board of regents.
Click to expand...

Agreed. While I think there are many restrictions in place to getting to that point (like buying land/buildings the BoR/USG helped fund), I think actions like Campaign GT which started a few years ago are subtle moves to get us in a strong enough financial position to go private. Peterson has also mentioned several times the pitiful amount of funding that Tech gets from the state. I think GT will go private in my lifetime and I think the pieces are starting to fit into place for us to do so.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
This is brought up every time this gets discussed. Does GIT as a legal entity not already own title to the land and buildings?
Click to expand...

Even if they did, you think the state is just going to let that walk away for nothing?
 
You guys that can't figure out how Stanford does it need to stop by the campus on a warm, sunny California afternoon. You will wonder no more.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
This is brought up every time this gets discussed. Does GIT as a legal entity not already own title to the land and buildings?
Click to expand...

No, they are wholly owned by the state government and by virtue of having taken money from them are subject to their whims. Any deal would have to provide the state government with some cash in order to use their assets and for them to even consider a deal. Do you think that the BOR and state legislature is just going to hand over something that in their mind, they paid for?
 
How do the private Falcons get to use/profit from a public building and have a new one built every 20 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top