Good discussion on Penn State scandal

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201207240900

I took a class from the guest on this radio show (Cal sports sociology prof and 49ers consultant Harry Edwards) when I was in high school and he is really insightful (C - were you in that course with me too?). He described how PSU football has become "too big to fail" (biggest student body and alum network in the US, one of the most famous football programs, huge $, TV contracts, scholarships, etc.), and there are so many emotional and financial vested interests that they couldn't tolerate any loose ends, even if it meant keeping child abuse quiet.

Paterno has a long record of showing above-and-beyond concern for his players and community (promoted high standards of conduct and graduation rates among his players, even spoke out against black athlete exploitation ahead of his time), so it's unlikely he just didn't care about those kid victims. That's what makes this lapse so shocking, and strengthens the argument that even such a historic and principled personality was powerless to speak up. I guess he was the victim (not meant to denigrate the true victims of this tragedy) of cognitive dissonance: he knew that even if he "did the right thing", the PSU-football-industrial-complex wouldn't have, so what's the point of fighting an impossible battle? It would have been "noble" for him to resign in protest and maybe go to the media (not the style of old school guys like him), but he knew that his players and the fan base were also counting on him. He didn't want to let his "family" down either (and PSU football is really serious about the "family" thing - it's not just cliche), so that meant letting the kids down instead. Though how can Paterno teach his players about living life right and being good men when he didn't walk the talk when he needed to? Like the Catholic sex abuse, the reputation and preeminence of the organization come first. Big money sport is very similar to big money religion and business, so unfortunately we've seen a lot of this stuff contributing to other scandals too. Powerful organizations and culture can enable their members to reach new heights, but ironically they can also force even moral, prominent individuals into bad decisions that end up hurting/destroying the org.

I don't know much about the NCAA and college sports, but the punishment is also kind of fishy and may not produce the intended results. From the Reggie Bush mess, USC was punished similarly (though much less) with wins erased and postseason ineligibility (not sure if they were fined also). They are another football powerhouse, with a coach who doesn't nearly have the likability and integrity record of Paterno, at least pre-2012. They bounced back rather well, and may now be a top ranked team coming into the new season. So it may not be the end of the world for PSU football (but who cares, it's just amateur football played by barely-literate teens?). Some wondered why the NCAA didn't give PSU the "death penalty" as they did to SMU for illegally paying players and other violations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University_football_scandal). They were banned from intercollegiate competition for a year, but it really hurt the program for a decade since they needed to rebuild recruiting and such. Also SMU de-emphasized football and actually tried to be an institution of higher learning, so while they did recently appear in a minor bowl, they are not a top-ranked program anymore. Obviously that can't be so for PSU, where people literally enroll there for the football team (silly I know, but it's a free country). Though the NCAA's ruling has basically communicated to schools that they can practically kill someone, and their programs will not get the death penalty. But pay players a small fraction of the huge sums you are making off their talents? That is somehow worse than covering up child rape - because it perturbs the system. And we wonder why others think Americans are crazy! And it's not like SMU and USC are the only culprits. The big programs east of the Mississippi are probably just as corrupt, but the NCAA doesn't go after them out of fear, favoritism, or other COI.

I have always had a problem with collective punishment. 99.9% of the PSU community didn't know about the criminality going on (unlike SMU where it was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain). Now their lives will be forever affected. I know they can't expect to have everything go back to the way it was after a big scandal. The program would change even if Sandusky never existed; Paterno would retire someday, PSU would go through slumps, etc. But now innocent people are hurting because of the misdeeds of a few. It's like economic sanctions against Iran/Cuba, or more extreme - nuking Hiroshima. Why not just ban the perpetrators for life, but leave the rest of the program alone - apart from assigning a special auditor and requiring extra training, charity, etc.? I guess the PSU punishment is kind of like letting Lehman fail out of principle? But it's not like other schools are going to clean house now and make sure they haven't been hiding any abuses. They're just going to hide their misdeeds more carefully.

I just don't know the point of it all, it's just college sports. The universities in most other nations don't even have organized intermural sports - if athletes are serious and good, then they are cultivated at a young age by the pro clubs using private money, and don't attend school anymore. You can be a big time jock or a serious student, but not both. The highest paid people in US academics now are not Nobel winners or historical figures, but football coaches. The coaches at Cal and UCLA make over $2M a year (the highest paid public employees in CA) and have probably gotten raises while academic staff were furloughed/laid off and tuition has gone up 50% over the last few years. But football is part of the college "arms race". Schools want to look awesome in order to attract better employees and students. Everyone loves a winner. Some sports make a lot of money for powerful people. Sadly or not, it's more valuable for Cal to spend big $ to get 2 more wins per season, rather than continue to fund an ethnic studies program or expand a medical research lab. And who knows - those intellectual enterprises could be total wastes or money, or possibly lead to significant, lucrative discoveries for the school and humanity. But the +2 wins are definite financial, recruiting, and PR boons, so I guess it's easier and less risky to invest for that goal?

Stanford and Silicon Valley

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all

"...so many [Stf students] will take the exhortation to occupy Wall Street quite literally after graduation. So before making any decision, we ask one, very simple question: What will I get out of it?”- Stf senior in the Daily

Despite the title, this article is more of a guided tour of Stf rather than criticism of Stf's ties to business (apart from the obvious C.O.I. implications and threat to the "pure learning and personal growth" objective of a college education, but these are not unique to Stf). I do think that there is legit concern that Stf is becoming too monolithic and engineering-heavy, but that's where the $ and headline-grabbing innovation is happening.

--------

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201206051000

The guest did mention that for East Coast schools, people would cry foul if a president/chancellor had such overt ties to companies as Hennessey does (if only he had ties to Hennessey Cognac and LVMH group!). Not sure what he bases that on, but at Stf I guess it's no biggie. Every big shot there who isn't a Spanish prof has some connections to some company.

The guest also compared how Cal's endowment is miniscule compared to Stf's, and Stf on paper is actually more racially diverse than Cal. But that doesn't take economic class into account. I am sure that you fellow alum would agree that while Stf had many people of color and foreigners, they (we) often came from upper-middle-class to rich backgrounds. So they (we) probably have more in common culturally with wealthy whites than with rural and/or poor minorities (who may have trouble adjusting to the Stf scene?). A good % of students at Cal are the first in their families to enroll in a top school, or even college in general. UC is more of a way to move up in society, whereas Stf is for the kids of people who have already made it (stereotype I know). 

---------

When the host (Dave Iverson, also a Stanford graduate) stated that Stanford is more diverse than Cal my thought was the same (that the measure of diversity being relied upon to make the claim is not multi-dimensional); nevertheless, it's not the type of claim I would expect to hear on NPR!

I think your email brings up an interesting point... but that point might be transient.  At present Stanford might actually be more affordable for low-income families; given the ties to industry and the alumni network it might also be more likely to afford a given individual a "leg-up" in the world.  Of course, if the "Middle Class Scholarship Act" is passed the reality would be closer to the historical truth.

--------

Reflecting on the classmates I met at Stf, my family was probably in the bottom quartile of wealth there, and you know that I had a fairly comfortable childhood. But privileged upbringings don't necessarily lead to social and self awareness. College is a good time to develop that as part of the maturation process, so spending 4 years in the "Stf-Paly bubble" may actually be a handicap for the rest of the student's life. But since Stf alum usually have financial means, they often can afford to engage in supplemental self-discovery activities like traveling the world, volunteering, and/or attending grad-professional schools - while public school students may need to rush into the rat race (if they're lucky enough to land a job) to support their families and pay back loans.

If business and political forces didn't perpetrate a massive transfer of assets from public service institutions to private elites (exacerbated by the recession), then maybe schools like the UCs would have more $ to maintain a quality educational experience and financial accessibility to the average student. But instead, many public schools are privatizing to some degree in order to cope with financial realities, thereby losing some essence of what made them special and egalitarian. As you said, it's true that Stf financial aid will literally work things out with any student's family so they pay only what they can no matter their situation. It's very generous, but that's not the problem - the bigger challenge is getting accepted at Stf first (admission rates are one of the lowest in the US, much worse now than when we were students - I think it fell from 15% to 8%). And in order for that to happen, you need legacy, connections, and/or demonstrated student excellence. All those come easier with wealth. Stf has a new fin aid program for families with household incomes below $100K (Ivy League has similar). So that is basically the plan for the 99% (well 80% actually). I wonder what the median family income is at Stf. vs. Cal. It could be 2X, and it's not like Cal families are poor.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/april1/stanford-admission-rate-2013-040109.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/?mod=wsj_share_twitter

Stf enjoys more donations partly because of their business partnerships (firms give because they want access to student and professor talent) and the quality of their people generate more IP royalties and alum charity. But also Stf's prestigious and large endowment gets access to prime investment opportunities that smaller institutions and maybe even the UCs can't tap. So the rich get richer. Iverson and the guest seemed to suggest that this is partially due to Cal's liberal, populist "bias" and Stf's conservative, pro-business appeal - the giants of Wall St. and Si Valley are turned off by Cal. Both schools are good at most things, but Berkeley has a rep for excellence in physical sciences, humanities, etc., while Stf may be better known for engineering and professional education, which are more relevant to businesses today. So I don't blame the VCs for preferring to tap the Stf pool over Cal, but it's just too bad that equally good if not better students and faculty at the UCs get less access to partnerships, jobs, and other opportunities.

Those with privilege shouldn't work to amass more privilege, especially at the expense of others who are deserving - I think Leland Stanford would agree with that (the later-in-life philanthropist Mr. Stanford, not the robber-baron Mr. Stanford). Those who make it to the top should send the elevator back down for others. Buildings at Cal are literally crumbling, classes cancelled, and staff are getting furloughed, while Apple gave Stf $50M last year (investment, not charity LOL) and Phil Knight donated untold millions to his alma mater to build the nicest b-school in the world (http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/about/knightcenter/). Why give charity to the rich? It's part of the bigger national issue. So of course Stf has the luxury to look all generous and righteous, allowing students whose families make under $X to attend for free (but what % of students is that exactly?). They are only able to be so "generous" because they exploited huge advantages in the zero-sum game vs. other schools (esp. public schools who are burdened by much more bureaucracy and uncertain budgets).