<p>“Mayor Bloomberg is set to make the announcement Monday at the Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan. ‘Cornell had an outstanding proposal from the beginning,’ said a source familiar with the negotiations. ‘In almost every category, they made the biggest or the best offer.’ Cornell, along with Stanford University, was considered an early front-runner.”</p>
<p>This is the main point: Stanford didn’t want this thing nearly as much as Cornell obviously does, and just doesn’t need a deal like this. Stanford would have been interested in an arrangement on the terms it specified, and would have shared its unique culture and talents with NYC if the ultimate deal were appropriate. But for Cornell, much more is at stake and they were practically desperate for this, and Bloomberg and everyone else knows that. He can dictate whatever terms he wants (and this deal is apparently a very big thing to him, since he needs to rebuild his own reputation before he leaves office) and Cornell will just ask where they should sign. Stanford is in a very different position, and will wait for opportunities that are in its best interests as well as those of any prospective partners. So, best of luck to Cornell and NYC with this.</p>
<p>Bloomberg did mention several times that it would be reasonable to award two winners, in which case having both Stanford and Cornell win, each on their own terms, would seem like a double win for the city.</p>
<p>I must say it baffles me a little why Stanford didn’t team up with Columbia. Columbia is in the city already. Maybe Lee Bollinger doesn’t play well with others?</p>
<p>There was some talk about two partners, but it wouldn’t have made sense for those two to have been S and Cornell, whose plans both involved the same real estate and similar project scales. I think that might have referred to combining the more modest proposals submitted by several other bidders.</p>
<p>Stanford didn’t team up with Columbia, or anyone else, because unlike Cornell, it didn’t need a teammate. If Stanford had wanted this so much, it would have made it happen, and has plenty of resources to devote to such things. But as I pointed out in my first post on this topic, the whole idea was never all that popular among many of Stanford’s constituents for a variety of reasons. The whole Cornell community, on the other hand, has been hyperventilating with excitement about it the entire time. Hope it works out for them and for NYC.</p>
<p>I meant why didn’t Stanford partner with Columbia rather than CCNY (which it did).</p>
<p>lol, Zenkoan, drinking quite a bit of Stanford kool-aid, eh?</p>
<p>“Stanford…just doesn’t need a deal like this.”</p>
<p>“For Cornell, much more is at stake, they were desperate.”</p>
<p>“Stanford, unlike Cornell, doesn’t need a teammate.”</p>
<ol>
<li>If Stanford didn’t need/want it, they wouldn’t have tried.</li>
<li>What exactly is at stake for Cornell? Is the school going to vanish if it doesn’t open a NYC satellite engineering campus?</li>
<li>Obviously Stanford did need a teammate, because they picked up one, and still didn’t get the nod.</li>
</ol>
<p>I understand you have some obvious Cornell-hate issues here, but you really need to calm down. There’s no need to disparage another school to make yourself feel good. It’s pointless - Stanford is Stanford and Cornell is Cornell. Your snarky comments just make you seem insecure.</p>
<p>No snark from me DarkIce, just the facts. I have no hate for anywhere and haven’t made any disparaging remarks; that’s not my style. (And if that were my objective, I’d head over to the Cornell thread on this topic to comment there, but I have no desire to pee in Cornell’s soup.) The thing is, there’s a huge amount of difference between want/nice to have on appropriate terms, and needing a deal, and this difference had great bearing on this outcome. Cornell wouldn’t vanish without this deal, but it is in a very different position than Stanford is. I can understand how frustrating it is that Cornell doesn’t seem to get the respect it deserves in general, and that can make people affiliated with it touchy, but best not to project your insecurities onto others. You came over to the Stanford forum with an apparent agenda, not vice versa. Bye now.</p>
<p>Wow, zenkoan. You have made perhaps the most prickish, condescending comments I’ve seen yet on here - and that’s saying something. What sad representation for Stanford. Perhaps when you graduate and enter the adult world you will look back and realize how ignorant your statements are.</p>
<p>Stanford submitted a 600 page proposal, hired the biggest lobbying guns they could, and spent a lot of money on this bid.</p>
<p>They got owned by a superior proposal that had far greater capacity to succeed and dropped out moments before officially losing. </p>
<p>If calling a superior effort to capitalize on a singular opportunity “desperate” or pretending Stanford didn’t want it after all (Bloomberg described Stanford as “desperate” for it) keeps the kool aid from regurgitating, have at it. You’re still wrong based on actual evidence and facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems to me someone is mad. Please don’t make me laugh. You’re making it sound like Stanford did Cornell a favor cause it owed them one. Various news sites have reported that insiders stated that Stanford knew it had lost and so pulled out to save face. I understand your pride might be hurt because your school lost to what you think is an “inferior” school, but please refrain from making excuses. Stanford’s admin, despite what the alums and students wanted, were really trying to win this thing. They just pulled out before they lost.</p>
<p>Believe what you want. Whatever helps you sleep at night ;)</p>
<p>Sorry, folks, that you just can’t hear me through your own defensiveness. The fact is that when Bloomberg made that statement about Stanford, Stanford’s administration realized that they and the city of NY were looking at this arrangement very differently, and that was the point from which Stanford’s official enthusiasm began to waiver. (There was a lack of enthusiasm among many constituents well before that.) </p>
<p>I always try to be kind in this forum, and unlike some other posters in this thread, I don’t haunt other schools’ forums to engage in spin efforts, but I can’t help but wonder at those who are compelled to come over here, engage in ad hominems, and then claim it’s others who are insecure. That is pretty absurd, but I have no interest in fanning any flames.</p>
<p>Our own defensiveness? Defending the truth based on statements made by people close to the negotiations rather than your outrageous spin to make it seem like Stanford controlled their destiny is not defensive.</p>
<p>You must believe Cornell doesn’t belong in the same breath as Stanford, much less coming out on top.</p>
<p>Sad myopia.</p>
<p>I guess reading the news and pointing out your flawed arguments count as ad hominems to you. I came here to see what Stanford affiliates had to say about this unexpected turn of events, and I see exactly what I thought I would - butthurt people (just two I guess) who have to make snide remarks and excuses instead of just congratulating another university for once. I’m pretty sure if Stanford had won, your reaction would be much, much different.</p>
<p>Like I mentioned before, believe what you want, but you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone not affiliated with Stanford.</p>
<p>P.S. I won’t be responding to you anymore cause it seems you’re adamant on your beliefs. Later.</p>
<p>Sounds like you may be the one who doesn’t believe that, applejack, since you’re the one who has come over this forum. I have no such ideas, and no agenda that compels me to post in Cornell’s or any school’s forum other than this one. I’m a well-informed member of my own school’s community, however. Stanford lost interest in this deal despite much investment of time and effort, because they saw that there was no meeting of the minds between them and Bloomberg on some aspects crucial to a successful long-term partnership. That doesn’t take anything away from Cornell; that’s just the way it played out. I wish them good luck.</p>
<p>I came here and to other applicant school pages because I was curious about how they reacted to all the events since Friday. Only in Stanford’s forum did I see a few posters rewriting history to save face and ignoring the fact that another school was emerging as the clear winner long before negotiation breakdowns.</p>
<p>You’re now trying to play yourself as the voice of reason, respectful presenter of facts but go read your first few posts today.</p>
<p>You said horribly negative things about Cornell in the most patronizing manner possible (despite what you might believe, we’re not morons) and flat out lies. Yet you now seem surprised when people who haven’t drunk your same kool aid come by and explain why you are wrong. Your eagerness to shoo us away is telling.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m out. As you get into the real world, I encourage you to be more respectful of others and less presumptuous about the inherent superiority of wherever you are. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.</p>
<p>Whatever you say, applejack. I enjoy a reputation in both the “real world” and in this forum for informed, civil discourse, and it’s too bad your mental filters somehow convert my statements into “horribly negative” ones. I’m not “eager to shoo” anyone away, either, just pointing out another fact–if I were interested in condescension, spin, rewriting history, yadda yadda, I’d be on your forum doing it. But it’s the Cornell folks who came over here. I suggest you follow your own advice re: respect and presumptuousness, ok? And I invite you to post below me, so you can have the last word here if you like. I have nothing more to add, other than again, good luck!</p>
<p>Zenkoan, you are absolutely absurd. It takes no stretch of the imagination to perceive your earlier comments toward Cornell as negative - you put your university on a pillar and made it seem as if the ONLY way Cornell could ever beat Stanford is because Stanford just didn’t want it. Stanford is an amazing school, and losing to Cornell does not reduce Stanford’s standing in the world, but your comments just make you seem like a sore loser. Believe it or not, Stanford is not the only academic behemoth in the world, and Cornell has the resources, connections, and prowess to compete and win in the big leagues, despite what you may think.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you have offered no evidence that Stanford pulled out because they simply “changed their mind” and decided they didn’t like the terms. Despite countless sources stating that Stanford pulled out to avoid losing, you act as if you are privy to the internal negotiations between the university and Bloomberg, and that you simply “know” the real reason they pulled out was due to the unacceptable terms. You know no more than anyone else with access to media stories - being a Stanford student does not make you automatically in-tune with the administration’s decisions or thought processes.</p>
<p>Lastly, I came over here because I was interested to see what Stanford students thought of the tech campus. Most students, as expected, have discussed the topic with respect and maturity. I have always liked Stanford’s student body (I’ve visited many times as I have two friends and a cousin that attends) as they tend to be the least snobbish upper tier students I have ever met, taken as a whole. Most top 20 schools have an inherent “I’m better than you” attitude, some of it stemming from obvious insecurity. I think Stanford students are just more secure in general, and thus have no problem congratulating other schools with they succeed. Zenkoan, you would do well to learn from your peers.</p>
<p>LOL. You all look pretty cute stomping your feet petulantly in the ice and snow up there. And for the <em>third</em> and final time, good luck to Cornell and NYC! Congratulations!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Somewhat true at the undergrad level. But I presume we’re talking about graduate engineering here since this remote campus is for just that. When it comes to grad school in engineering, there is a <em>sharp</em> drop after the MIT/Stanford/Berkeley trinity in terms of quality. You may ask your own faculty if you doubt this. The more candid ones will admit it. For a lazier approach, just look at what a disproportionate number got their PhDs from one of the three.</p>
<p>For grad students, it’s actually completely routine to take unfunded offers from Stanford (paying 40k/year) rather than funded offers from Cornell or similarly ranked schools (getting paid 30k/year). Not that it’s sensible, but it shows the huge difference in perception. When I was applying for EE PhD programs, I was advised by faculty and grad students to apply to Cornell as just a backup (I did get a free trip to NY out of it, though).</p>
<p>Anyway, while none of us know what happened behind the scenes, it seems Stanford was simply outshone by Cornell. But talk of a new tech hub in the Northeast is silly. If it was as simple as building a remote campus, one would think Cambridge would have surpassed SV a long time ago.</p>
<p>
Everything you write is so laden with condescension and unfounded pretension. Why would we be stomping our feet for anything but calling out untruths? Cornell is now able to fulfill a long-standing goal of the trustees and president to establish a major campus in New York City in order to overcome its isolation and compete at the highest levels. Time will tell how it turns out, but if you’re wondering why Cornell went after it with such passion it’s because it fit their long-established master plan. They just never thought they’d get free land in the middle of NYC to do it.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, this is what we refer to as a teachable moment. Since you are the self-proclaimed conveyor of truth that all of us simpletons simply can’t handle, I’m going to post some of your statements and all you have to do is provide the evidence of their validity, something you have failed to do thus far:</p>
<p>
<br>
Stanford teamed up with City College of New York (though they submitted the application alone) because a major shortcoming of their application was havin no connection to the city. Obviously Cornell’s major shortcoming was business incubation in relation to Stanford, which they shored up with Technion. Please provide your evidence that Stanford would have won without findin a local partner (I agree that teaming up with Columbia would have been smarter for them).</p>
<p>
In light of multiple statements made by people on the inside who said Cornell became the front-runner long ago and Stanford couldn’t keep up, please provide your evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Bloomberg himself stated just today: “Of all the applications we received, Cornell and Technion’s was the boldest and most ambitious. In a word, this project will be transformative.”</p>
<p>
Please provide evidence of any individuals hyperventilating. If you have none, I’m sure you can see how this statement makes Cornellians look pathetic and less couth.</p>
<p>
Please provide evidence that Cornell accepted all terms, did no negotiating, and signed whatever was presented to them. </p>
<p>If you have the evidence requested, I will concede and even apoloize. If not, we have no choice but to agree that you lied and made baseless and disparaging comments about another university, which was very uncouth behavior. </p>
<p>Best to you.</p>
<p>
True. I was thinking of undergrad. My mistake. Though, outside of academia that obsesses over every decimal point, if you’re in the business world and staring at an application from a Carnegie Mellon engineer and a Stanford engineer, all else being equal, you might as well throw a dart.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand why they didn’t push Stanford and Cornell to find a way to make a megacampus work, but perhaps this opportunity will at least elevate Cornell’s place in the grad school hierarchy.</p>