2003: can anyone touch Stanford?

Knower wrote:

Ummm, Kempainen didn't go to Stanford. Smart guy, professional guy, accomplished guy, but not a Stanford guy.

Notice I mention Vin's history as well, he DID run for him, smarty!

Hey ex_rgs,

You are right and I was wrong; man that hardly ever happens! The last time I was wrong was the day I saw a fat chick turn down a piece of cake. To you ex_rgs, I apologize unconditionally.

Hey Knower:

Based on what you and others in the Palo Alto loop are writing in about Stanford, a majority of students are from a plethora of cultural backgrounds (no doubt in my mind) and purportedly blue-collar families (not so sure about that). Then they attend Stanford, work hard, get connected, become wildly successful and rich beyond their dreams, and reinvest this new money into their alma mater. Could be. The athletic department has $1 billion in the kitty to work with, mainly donated from stoked Cardinal alums (John Arrigilla = $400 million plus alone). Your athletic department is nonpariel. Title IX is not much of an issue as Stanford fields every women's team imagineable in order to comply with gender equity and swell their men's numbers. Your campus also features one of the best complexes of collegiate athletic facilities in the nation.

A few Stanford students may have had that blue-collar upbringing, though I remain instilled with the indelible impression that most Stanford students' families are well off to begin with. Perhaps that's a total bias on my part and I'll own up to it if I'm wrong. I did attend Berkeley in the 1980s when Cal was the undisputed academic No. 1 so no academic inferiority complex is at work here. Indeed there is a deep sense of school rivalry on my part as well as a healthy respect which may well taint my impressions. Conversely, some Stanford students think Berkeley students never shower, smoke haybales of pot in between tear-gassings, etc., although Cal sustains close to 50 primarily conservative, wealthy Republican fraternities on its fraternity row.

Still, do you have any statistical evidence to prove your point? The point being is the median income of families of Stanford students comparable to the average or below-average income of a middle-class citizen in the immediate region? I'd like to know whether this is true from a numbers standpoint, not a "Well all of my friends' parents were farmers and cops so everyone I know at Stanford is poor," type of argument.

Stanford is rather expensive and the admissions standards are particularly rigorous. And yet, generous grants and endowments are available, which bring the cost of tuition down to roughly $10K per year (plus the grants) if the system is "worked" properly.

Since I have one impression and it may be incorrect, please show me how I am wrong. I still maintain research of statistical evidence will bear out that Stanford students as a whole benefit from families with median incomes higher than the average college-aged individual. That doesn't dilute their excellent performances, but facts are facts.

One Keg,

There is no way I can prove this to you. I can only offer my own experience which could be wrong or right.

One of the ways the University propels it's "higher academic standard" it to have a huge tuition, but as you already stated, almost no one pays that full tuition. They get the best of the best and just about all get financial assistance in the form of scholarship or grant.

Certainly some very privilidged students go there, as is the case with almost any univertsity. I had a roommate in undergraduate school (not Stanford) who's dad was a multi millionaire. They had a live-in maid and he had never done laundry.

I would just say that the impression that all those students are affluent is way off.

Fair enough. Good luck to you guys. Every top college distance program has its own particular coaching appeal and selling point(s) angle, as well as its shining moments and dark times. Stanford, Arkansas, Colorado, BYU, NAU, Oregon, Georgetown, Providence, Michigan, Wisconsin, EMU, Villanova, etc., are all fierce rivals but the athletes share the same pain and generally respect oneanother at a base level. Each unique, high-achieving program raises the bar and forces other programs to strive to be better; a metaphoric microcosm of life.

Back during the Atlanta Olympics the BBC did a feature on Stanford and the number of Olympians the school was generating. They did a medal table breakdown that went something like this;

1. USA

2. China

3. CIS

4. Germany

5. Great Britain

6. Stanford

7. Australia

8. France

9. Kenya

10. Japan

(tale for demonstrative purposes only; please don't try to verify or you'll go mad)

You get the picture, there are world class athletes in every discipline down on the Farm. If you want to rub shoulders with the best its the only place to go; and you'll get a pretty decent education too.

can someone please explain to me how the f*** vin gets all of them. I mean sure, it\'s cool to train in nice weather and yeah, it\'s great to train with good runners. But don\'t half of these guys realize that running for someplace else they\'d actually get to RUN at nationals rather than go and watch if they\'re lucky. Also, college isn\'t free. How much money does the team get to offer to all these guys? Go someplace else and maybe they get a good chunk of money given to them. Standford\'s basketball and football teams, although not the best anymore, are still good, so obviously they offer money to those teams and if they\'re like anyone else a great bit, so now they have to match it with the girls, I mean, I just don\'t understand. Does he drug them and convince them? Is he like vito corleone and just this guy people are attracted to? I don\'t know either. But somethings gotta give. Where does the money come from and where do these kids\' heads go?

a. the kids who go to stanford are aiming for the top. they don't care about making nationals, they want to win it.b. unlike you, they can spell stanford.c. what does everyone think of stanford's chances in 2010???

Let me tell you boy's something. You don't even need a god damn degree. People at standford are just f***ing nerds. The real smart people are the hillbillies. Who made america what it is? The billies did. I bet those Stanford pussies can't even change their own oil in their car. Without hillbillies you wouldn't even have food because they do the farming and stock raising that puts it on your plate. Even the car you drive was probably built by a billy. Now who's the rulling class? We can live without TV and DVD players. Can you live without food? You people need a reality check. billies do the things that matter, the Stanford people just do stupid shit like write books. What the hell does that matter? If the rich educated people are soo good then why is europe a piece of shit and the USA which was started by rednecks so great? By the way isn't the SF bay controlled by all the gay?