[BostonCard]

[quote author=pefloresjr link=topic=10204.msg92537#msg92537 date=1405636271]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie
[/quote]

I think the world treats athletes and non-athletes differently, and specifically the United States. We have historically developed traditions in this country of making collegiate athletics centerpieces of the athletic world. It is a very uniquely American thing.  In Europe, for example, there are no college football (soccer) teams that are a springboard of sorts for national and professional teams. I think if our traditions had evolved to make collegiate arts centers cultural centerpieces then you would see the equivalent emphasis from a monetary perspective on attracting top talent.  But college symphony isn't a "thing" the way college football is, and aspiring artists don't necessarily go to college, and you don't see large collegiate art shows.  That's not to say that watching the Stanford Symphony orchestra play Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor and Mendelssohn: Symphony No. 3 in A minor “Scottish” on November 8 and 9 in the brand new and beautiful Bing Concert Hall wouldn't be a delightful way to spend an evening.  But it isn't nearly the event that, say, Stanford - Utah game a week later will be, and it won't attract the audience.

But still, the beautiful and brand spanking new Bing Auditorium, and the under construction McMurty arts building http://arts.stanford.edu/new-building-ne...t-history/ are proof that Stanford, at least, takes the arts seriously.  We do have a world class sculpture collection, and the Bing concert hall is quite impressive.  But the way the art and music world has developed is very different from the way that collegiate athletics has developed, so I don't think it is appropriate to try to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the two.

To specifically answer your question: 1) Football teams are an almost strictly US phenomenon; orchestras exist worldwide, and most major cities have one.  2) There are specialized schools where musicians go to learn performance; as much as we might think of Alabama as a football school with some academics attached, there are entire schools, like Julliard, that are devoted exclusively to teaching music, which doesn't really exist for collegiate athletics.  Moreover, many musicians don't go to college; in major athletics, only baseball (and to some extent hockey) do players go straight from high school to a career in professional leagues (this also happens in some of the other individual sports).

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=pefloresjr link=topic=10204.msg92537#msg92537 date=1405636271]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie
[/quote]

I think the world treats athletes and non-athletes differently, and specifically the United States. We have historically developed traditions in this country of making collegiate athletics centerpieces of the athletic world. It is a very uniquely American thing.  In Europe, for example, there are no college football (soccer) teams that are a springboard of sorts for national and professional teams. I think if our traditions had evolved to make collegiate arts centers cultural centerpieces then you would see the equivalent emphasis from a monetary perspective on attracting top talent.  But college symphony isn't a "thing" the way college football is, and aspiring artists don't necessarily go to college, and you don't see large collegiate art shows.  That's not to say that watching the Stanford Symphony orchestra play Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor and Mendelssohn: Symphony No. 3 in A minor “Scottish” on November 8 and 9 in the brand new and beautiful Bing Concert Hall wouldn't be a delightful way to spend an evening.  But it isn't nearly the event that, say, Stanford - Utah game a week later will be, and it won't attract the audience.

But still, the beautiful and brand spanking new Bing Auditorium, and the under construction McMurty arts building http://arts.stanford.edu/new-building-ne...t-history/ are proof that Stanford, at least, takes the arts seriously.  We do have a world class sculpture collection, and the Bing concert hall is quite impressive.  But the way the art and music world has developed is very different from the way that collegiate athletics has developed, so I don't think it is appropriate to try to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the two.

To specifically answer your question: 1) Football teams are an almost strictly US phenomenon; orchestras exist worldwide, and most major cities have one.  2) There are specialized schools where musicians go to learn performance; as much as we might think of Alabama as a football school with some academics attached, there are entire schools, like Julliard, that are devoted exclusively to teaching music, which doesn't really exist for collegiate athletics.  Moreover, many musicians don't go to college; in major athletics, only baseball (and to some extent hockey) do players go straight from high school to a career in professional leagues (this also happens in some of the other individual sports).

BC