+1 |
I went to Duke on athletic scholarship. I was a poor kid and no matter where I went because of athletics and academic the wealthy and often unpleasant students did not matter to me because again, no social life no matter what. Duke isn’t that much different than Stanford. My daughter was a physician there. Both are comopetituve and wealthy. Other child went to Princeton - it was more intense than Duke - that’s for sure. My kids were not poor so likely did enjoy social life - as I intended, |
Baltimore? Pittsburgh? |
Richmond is considered to have that rep. |
And the athletes! My son and his teammates had a blast at Stanford and have gone on to do well in a variety of fields, as have their friends from other teams. Both the general alumni network and the athlete one are very strong. |
We demand a zip code! We can't derail this thread further without one. |
PP here. Yes, the athletes are quite happy too — they’re a tight knit group. |
Mom of the unhappy daughter here. Obviously I’m not naming the city, but it was chosen in part because there’s no major tech presence — DD did not want to be surrounded by people like her former classmates or her soon-to-be coworkers. |
Stanford is one of the places where the recent athletes don't seem to do quite as well professionally though. There are wonderful exceptions but it was too bad when I was on campus how concentrated athletes, especially in sports like football and basketball, were in certain majors. What is Science, Technology & Society anyway? |
I am an alum and I disagree with this. Their alumni athletes do very, very well, probably because they tend to be excellent students too. In some ways they fit the current Stanford mold well: exceptionally competitive and exceptionally project management oriented. |
Sounds like a terrible fit, but not surprising whatsoever. I guess she wanted the name more than a good fit. |
The academic profiles of Stanford's revenue-generating or close to revenue-generating sport athletes also don't stack up well with the Ivy League athletes in those sports, so it isn't shocking they might not do quite as well. Science, Technology & Society has been big in football for a while. The athletes have a lot of academic support though, which Stanford doubled down on after some trouble with the Lopez twins. Guys like Andrew Luck and Christian McCaffrey have done better than just about anyone in their years too ![]() |
Stanford is a powerhouse for Olympic athletes (296 medals) and they have won at least one national championship for 47 consecutive years and counting. |
Their academic profiles might not match the Ivies, but you are flat-out wrong about their outcomes. They do exceptionally well and also as a group are some of the wealthiest and most regular donors to the school. Maybe you don’t have visibility into the alumni? You said you were “on campus” — what does that mean? Because I don’t know any alumni that would say what you did about the outcomes of the athletes. |
+1 many of Stanford’s athletes go on to successful careers. The closest comparison is Duke and many of their athletes go on to success in business and other endeavors (as we saw in recent news with the group of Duke athlete alumni making that $7B bid for the Washington Commanders), Stanford is likely the same. It shouldn’t be too surprising as first and foremost Stanford and Duke are crème-de-la-crème universities, with athletics second. |