I don't truly know the answer to your question Spectator, but the majority (if not all, don't know every individual circumstance) of those listed as 'pro' have signed representing agency agreements and the amateurs have not.  This may be co-incidental but I suspect not.  Apart from college ambitions, I can't think of any reason why a player would not declare themselves a professional.  Maybe to do with the funding structure in their home countries??

On the subject of Stirling, Colin Fleming has long sung its praises.  However, the main difference between tennis at a UK uni and an American one is the competition structure.  There are so many tennis programs at unis in the States that there are plenty of teams to play against.  Not so here.  Competition here is based on the British Tour and home Futures events and thus is more limited.

It would have to be looked at much more long term and with many more players involved before I'd say you could begin to make much assessment of the tennis pros and cons of very different routes for these players of a level where there did seem be be a genuine choice to be made.

Even then, given the players haven't randomly gone down the routes they have but chosen these ( eg. the player that chooses to go straight to the tour is more likely to make that way work, most things being equalish than an other player who perhaps felt more suited by maturity or any number of reasons to go the college route and so went that way ).

Fling much more data in from many more players in after a number of years and as I say something may emerge of some interest but I would still be very wary of so many different variables and motivations involved.

It's so difficult: people are people, not just tennis players. And that means that inherently, there's going to be no single 'best' answer.

As you say, CD, recommending university to someone who's not particularly academic and wants a life of playing and coaching probably doesn't make sense. But for many players, it makes great sense. And then in terms of programmes, again, there is no one size fits all. You can, for academic reasons, go to the LSE, which is definitely not set up to encourage tennis success ...and attain a better ranking than many of the people who go to a US university with a good tennis team (I checked Mark Whitehouse against a few recent California teams and he did better than the vast majority) You might go to one of the giant tennis powerhouses, be miserable and never really try to play much again. Or you might go and love it and, like Dom Inglot, have a fine career. If I were a fine tennis player, somewhat academic, and heading off to a US university, based on the combination of academic reputation and the tennis players they've produced, I'd be sorely tempted not only by California institutions but by the University of Virginia. Or the University of North Carolina. Or the University of Wisconsin. Or Columbia. Or, indeed, given the start of this discussion, Princeton - whose highest-ranked recent alumnus, our old friend Matija Pecotic of Brit-bashing futures fame, had a CH of 206 despite being highly injury prone. It's a question of knowing where you personally will be happy, do well, and get the support you need.

Actually, as a rank outsider who's just going by what I see online (ie, yes, I know I really don't have a clue - but I will have an opinion!), the programmes I'm most impressed by in tennis terms are those that have supported some of our very good players to become very good to top professional players. I don't know who was coaching at LSU a few years ago - but a programme which nurtured the Skupskis, Michael Venus and James Cluskey was doing something right. Equally the University of Memphis seems to do very well indeed by its players. And while it's a small sample, it's interesting to remember the way Mr O'Hare and Mr Salisbury, at the start of their careers, played much better on one or two occasions when their coach was with them.

My primary regret is that there appears (again from the outside, so I may be incorrect) so little support for tennis-playing university students here, the notable exceptions being some institutions with specialist programmes: Loughborough, Stirling, Bath etc. There simply doesn't seem to be a lot of support for someone who wants to combine, for example, an engineering course and high-level tennis, as Georgia Craven did a few years ago. One wonders what it would cost to provide more support to people who want high-performance training while reading a wider range of subjects at a wider range of universities.