Get Rich U.

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
1

<p>Stanford University is so startlingly paradisial, so fragrant and sunny, it’s as if you could eat from the trees and live happily forever. Students ride their bikes through manicured quads, past blooming flowers and statues by Rodin, to buildings named for benefactors like Gates, Hewlett, and Packard. Everyone seems happy, though there is a well-known phenomenon called the “Stanford duck syndrome”: students seem cheerful, but all the while they are furiously paddling their legs to stay afloat. What they are generally paddling toward are careers of the sort that could get their names on those buildings. The campus has its jocks, stoners, and poets, but what it is famous for are budding entrepreneurs, engineers, and computer aces hoping to make their fortune in one crevasse or another of Silicon Valley.</p>

<p>Read more Is</a> Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley? : The New Yorker</p>

2

<p>It’s funny, a lot of Stanford students on my social network were very gung-ho about this article (“omg what a great place”). I was surprised; this piece was full of criticism (some of it veiled, some not) and it is a mixed appraisal at best.</p>

3

<p>It sounds like the criticism was all for the President and humanities faculty worried that they are losing clout. How dare he propose an all tech campus with no humanities in NewYork seems to be the tone.</p>

<p>Is there any doubt that this started out as a puff piece praising Stanford until they pulled out? In the end, it is New York City’s loss.</p>

4

<p>I’ve read it and some of my friends have too. We found it rather incoherent and filled with weird non sequiturs. (Maybe texaspg has identified why.) I don’t expect it will be very influential. The author of the article, who has written several pop books about the tech industry, often tries to create a superficial appearance of balance in his writing, but tends not to achieve substantive balance, IMO. He raises some interesting points, but then gets lazy and mainly reinforces some overstated stereotypes. Meh.</p>

5

<p>I get the main point of the article, but it does seem to ramble a bit and go off on tangents. Most of it was relatively accurate, and I learned a few things (Andreeson and Arrillaga are in-laws?!). </p>

<p>Parts of it seem to be trying to make a story out of something that isn’t controversial. For example, it cites criticism of Hennessy for being on Google’s board without ever giving a concrete reason about what problems that may cause. Nor does it really explain how his investment in companies that the SMC also invests in poses a problem. It even admits that there’s no real conflict of interest. </p>

<p>It quotes Casper’s worries, but doesn’t give any real evidence that the university is too focused on the “results.” The reality is that most researchers (and to a lesser extent, students) at Stanford and other universities are still fundamentally interested in research and knowledge on their own. That’s the nature of a university: why would someone spend years working 80-hour weeks, working themselves to the bone, with a paltry salary compared to what they could get in industry, in order to make it to professor status in their 40s? It’s largely for the prestige that comes with creating new knowledge. Academia has its own sphere of prestige. If the faculty weren’t concerned about producing fundamental research, they would not be highly regarded by others and they would not garner the renown that they are all chasing. No amount of business ventures will change that fact. Stanford also has a ton of regulations on how industry affects university research (e.g. one professor was put on probation for violating Stanford’s rules on this). </p>

<p>It talks about the high % of engineering majors, quoting David Kennedy’s worry that the school doesn’t focus enough on non-STEM fields. But it doesn’t bother to mention the % students who are in HASS fields - about 50% (not counting interdisciplinary majors). Despite this high percent, there’s still an overcommitment of faculty in HASS fields, i.e. there are more faculty than would be necessary given student demand. Again, trying to fabricate a story by selecting only details that support the author’s point.</p>

<p>Overall, it was a good article, but seemed to have difficulty actually pulling away from its adoration in order to construct a not-so-sunny picture of Stanford, and relied mostly on the quotations of a few people. Casper isn’t nearly as highly regarded a university president as Hennessy, who’s widely considered one of the best presidents in higher education. While HYP, Columbia, etc. all tend to have a very rocky relationship with their presidents (and I mean rocky), Stanford doesn’t. Hennessy is just a baller. </p>

<p>The most that people can criticize him for was his pushing the NYC campus despite opposition from a large portion of the community. And even that isn’t much, given that a large portion was for it, he did solicit opinions widely, he proceeded with extreme caution, and he ultimately was true to Stanford when the negotiations took a turn for the worse. As the article points out, other universities didn’t object to the new demands of the city. Hennessy refused to put Stanford in a position that could possibly be a liability in the future, which meant exercising greater caution than the other universities (of course, he had a bit more leg room, as Stanford didn’t need the opportunity as much as others did). He’s a rare and valuable leader that few in Stanford’s history can match, like Terman.</p>

<p>I also like that they had a description of a student who actually used to post on this site. Many posters here had disdain for him and gave him a lot of crap for having a below-average SAT score (“an AA admit,” etc.) - and he’s now one of the most impressive and highly regarded students at Stanford. Just more reason to ignore most of the idiots who post on this site. ;)</p>

6

<p>g0ld3n writes,…"docfreedaddy, since you seem to agree with the New Yorker article that is critical of Stanford, I would love to see you join the discussion on the article thread here:</p>

<p>Get Rich U."</p>

<p>g0ld3n, I researched Stanford and the topic more than sufficiently for an admit decision and no longer have an interest in the topic. But, here is a response to a few comments directed to me on the topic in another thread"</p>

<p>“The concerns you have (widening wealth gap, the removal of executive leadership from workers, and the like) are not specific at all to the tech industry. That’s a growing trend of the entire world. Again, none of it has to do with any one university, and it isn’t fair of you to try to single Stanford out.”</p>

<p>“Why are you holding Stanford responsible for the evils of corporate America?”</p>

<p>I appreciate your questions. The issues I raised are complex and I want to be perfectly clear. You may well still disagree with me and that is fine, but at least you will understand my concerns.</p>

<p>Yes, the “evils” of corporate America (profit at any cost, disregard for the environment and the public good to name a few) are by no means exclusive to the Tech industry. In fact, two decades ago, as Stanford’s financial and business relationship with the tech industry was accelerating, the tech industry was not thought of at all as in any way “evil” as other industries were, but rather a societally friendly industry that held great promise to address problems of diminishing resources, illness, communication possibilites to name a few. </p>

<p>The introduction of the PC, for example, revolutionized households. There was a time without the internet, as bizarre as that must seem to most of you. These two innovations changed drastically life for many. Most, including me, would consider these extremely positive tech advances.</p>

<p>Twenty years ago, certainly during the time Hewlett and Packard Halls were being named, the tech industry was in a robust, exciting adolescence. Welcoming tech bell weathers onto the Stanford campus seemed to enhance the stature of each and most certainly Stanford’s endowments. But, the tech industry has matured, is displaying the underside of industry culture and has become in that regard more like other industries.</p>

<p>While I expect financial industries or energy industries to evade taxes, it still is a bit shocking to me for Apple to be doing so, maybe not to you, but shocking to me. In part this is because of the creative nature of Apple and the idealism and zeal so many, especially college and high school students have for their products. Apple does not seem a company that would avoid paying their fair share of taxes which will significantly hurt the very public high school and college students due to necessary education budget cuts who so revere Apple and line up at each rollout to buy their new product. </p>

<p>By my calculations from published figures, if Apple had not evaded the 2.3 billion dollars in taxes it owes the State of California for 2011, the California overall cumulative budget shortfall would be about 13% less. If Apple had been paying taxes all along, there likely would be no deficit at all. Does inviting Apple and its current corporate values into the heart of the Stanford culture still make sense for Stanford as it did when Apple was a revered start up Golden Apple?</p>

<p>Google, another close partner with Stanford, is dealing with very significant privacy issues for photographing every street and home throughout much of the world without the knowledge or consent of those whose homes were photographed. I personally have no issue with it, but many do. What is less known at this point is the engineers also developed software to “steal” personal data from home routers as they drove by–not only real time, but stored data. This is another of Stanford’s entrepreneurial partners and presumably a substantial donor. At what point does the close association with companies that are now mainstream corporate no longer serve Stanford or society?</p>

<p>It is clear the goals of most corporations is profit for its shareholders and not the betterment of society or addressing societies’ very considerable problems which my daughter and those of you in college and high school will have to grapple with. Universities, especially great ones like Stanford, potentially have the luxury and resources to explore solutions to problems of alternative energy, global warming, poverty in developing nations and even non-violent conflict resolution among individuals and nations to name a few.</p>

<p>Zenkoan described above a number of exceptional projects from the d.school that are undoubtedly excellent learning experiences of technical skills and of benefit to humanity. </p>

<p>“Some students do work collaboratively with faculty to create marketable products. However, it isn’t correct to assume that they are all for profit. Many of these collaborations result in items such as inexpensive solutions to water access in sub-Saharan African areas; low-cost, portable incubators for babies born in remote villages; inexpensive, scalable solar panels for equatorial countries; and many other things.” </p>

<p>These projects fit well into the belief a university is the last refuge for intellectual and values development before entering the world of “corporate values”. Some, including me, questions the wisdom of enmeshing current Tech bell weaher corporate values with a university culture as illustrated from this quote from the recent Atlantic Monthly article, “Stanford, Inc.”: </p>

<p>"David Kennedy, a Stanford historian, explained to Auletta that… “there are not nearly enough students devoted to the liberal arts and to the idea of pure learning. ‘The entire Bay Area is enamored with these notions of innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, mega-success,’ he says. ‘It’s in the air we breathe out here. It’s an atmosphere that can be toxic to the mission of the university as a place of refuge, contemplation, and investigation for its own sake.”</p>

<p>Some suggest the proportion of entrepreneurship devoted to societal enriching products relative to pure profit at Stanford is small: </p>

<p>"As tech-journalist Hermione Way wrote in 2011, “Everyone [in the Valley] is doing something amazing and trying to change the world, but in reality much of the technology being built here is not changing the world at all, it’s short-sighted and designed for scalability, big exits and big profits.” </p>

<p>Yes, my values are such that I do encourage assisting some the the best and brightest young STEM minds to develop a desire and ability to tackle world problems while at Stanford and other universities simply because no one anywhere else has the resources or opportunity to so readily do it. I view it desirable for faculty to take sabbatical and students time off to commit time and talent to developing for profit enterprises to preserve and optimize the unique and time-limited opportunities in one’s life at a university. </p>

<p>But from a self-preservation perspective, I do see early warning signs that the public perception and educational benefits of the entrepreneurial partnership between Stanford and SV, as well as the insidious creep of corporate “profit values” into the Stanford atmosphere no longer serves Stanford and its students as it once did as the Tech culture has become a corporate one. </p>

<p>Projects such as those from the d.school seem to serve every conceivable educational objective for Stanford and enhance its stature. It appears to me the entrepreneurial corporate culture detracts, so again I will ask, “who and what interests is it serving”?</p>

<p>I apologize if I seem to be singling out Stanford. Stanford is unique in its location, quality and deep connections with SV companies and I have considerable firsthand experience with Stanford. The experience of a somewhat unusual university atmosphere and the seemingly uncritical emphasis and promotion of corporate entrepreneurship by Stanford’s administration, most notably during the admit weekend keynote address, raised my curiosity. To the extent a similar situation exists at other universities, my concerns apply there as well. Stanford is a great university. My desire is that it continue to be great and serve the needs and challenges its students will face in the world in the decades ahead.
Last edited by docfreedaddy; 05-18-2012 at 01:07 PM.</p>