Stanford changes its mind about NYC

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, if I wasn’t clear before, part of this public statement is simply a “we’re the most happy we could be with our choice.” The details that Cornell and Stanford released regarding their proposals showed they were virtually identical: 2 million sq ft, aggressive timelines (both in the 25-30 year range, with classes starting in 2012), the most money for startups (here I’m pretty certain Stanford is far ahead, but they probably had more detailed analyses of startup funding), and $2-2.5 billion in construction.</p>

<p>In the end, let’s face it. Stanford has many times the engineering prowess, it has the best business school, it has the largest endowment, it brings in the most $ in fundraising, and it’s the most experienced in combining business and engineering for spin-out technology. One of those sources mentioned that had all the competitors submitted the same proposal, they would have chosen Stanford. And I would bet my life on this: if Stanford caved on the restrictions the EDC was placing, Stanford would have been chosen. Further, if Cornell hadn’t partnered with the Technion, the conclusion of this contest would have been rather obvious for months.</p>

<p>Hard truth? Deal with it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t dispute this. Rather, I wanted to know what the real consequences of such bad PR would be. They are most likely negligible for Stanford.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course. Stanford’s endowment is 3/4 restricted. That other 1/4 allows it freedom in expansion in whatever direction. (Not to mention, increases in endowed funds lessens the burden of the unrestricted funds for other projects.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Truly, to what extent is this assertion true? Perhaps it’s my own shortcomings, but I’ve only found one source that corroborates your point.</p>

<p>phantasmagoric, the news stories talk about the EDC adding further conditions after proposals were submitted but give no specifics; do you have any particular information on what those conditions or restrictions were? You seem pretty well-informed on this matter.</p>

<p>Also, what’s your view on what the Technion brings to the deal?</p>

<p>

Wow, you undergrads are feisty. When I visited Cornell as a prospective PhD, I got to hang out with the current grad students. They weren’t nearly as optimistic about their school’s standing. When they asked about my choices, they couldn’t seriously recommend taking Cornell over them. It’s just sort of implicitly understood (even by the faculty). I guess that’s because we’re constantly reading about the research that comes out of different schools and so we’re aware of the very real differences in capabilities between them.</p>

<p>In graduate engineering, Cornell’s “peer institutions” are CMU, Texas, & Purdue, all good schools. Cornell is actually one of the favorite safety schools for those within range to get into the top PhD programs. :slight_smile: (That’s a compliment!)</p>

<p>I’m excited to see where this will go. No school has ever had an impressive remote campus in engineering. There’s garbage like Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, but these are just cash cow Master’s programs and they don’t even try to hide it. If NYC/Cornell is going for startups, I presume this will be a serious attempt at building research centers, not classrooms.</p>

<p>Phantasmagoric: The evidence and statements made by the people who made the decisions have been presented. Each time you have tried to discredit them by writing your own interpretation of their underlying motivations or pretending they don’t count. Those are your fanciful ideas to try and tell the story you want out of this, but they are not grounded in fact. Your arguments would not withstand academic scrutiny at the graduate or even undergraduate level.</p>

<p>The president of NYEDC didn’t say Cornell was the best of what was left. You said that and put quotations around it to make it seem real. He said Cornell had the most effective proposal that came in. Period. The Mayor said the same. </p>

<p>If the world existed outside time and space where culture, geography, urban experience, motivation, alumni support, and innovation didn’t matter, then no doubt Stanford would have won by its name alone. In our reality, Cornell was simply able to bring a lot more to the table for this particular project, as evidenced by the statements made by officials. </p>

<p>As you would so disparagingly say, “Hard truth? Deal with it.”</p>

<p>Ditto, applejack. This is what it comes down to. I’ve laid out all of the evidence (I even included a numbered list in one post) to support my claim. I don’t understand the intense push back against the evidence without providing any convincing evidence to rebut. I’ve said my piece. Readers can decide for themselves who has made the more convincing argument on this matter.</p>

<p>Quote:
shows an attempt to reassure by trashing, or at least trying to downplay, Cornell’s win.</p>

<p>Phantasmagoric: Please point out where.</p>

<p>Phantasmagoric (2 posts earlier): Cornell is obviously not better than Stanford.</p>

<p>Obvious to who? US News? Grow up, honestly.</p>

<p>To all the folks who appear self-important because your school is a few points higher in the rankings than another, read Malcolm Gladwell’s article in the February 2011 New Yorker re the USNWR rankings and how a few small adjustments completely change the rankings. Bottom line from Gladwell–the rankings at their core simply measure the wealth of an institution, which perhaps might explain all the shots being taken at Cornell here as the NYC project may vastly increase that school’s resources. </p>

<p>[What</a> College Rankings Really Tell Us : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell]What”>The Trouble with College Rankings | The New Yorker)</p>

<p>Actually, I’m finished reading this thread. It’s ridiculous. I received my undergraduate degree in biology from Cornell and every person I meet is highly impressed with it. My friends, from top 100 schools to top 5 schools, are all impressed and consider my degree top tier. In the real world, Cornell University is a highly respected, rigorous, academic powerhouse. Only on College Confidential, where nerds spend their days memorizing US News rankings and arguing with all who oppose them, does Cornell ever have to be defended. If ANY other school had won this competition, it would be a non-news story on every other college thread…but because Cornell won, the CC community goes into overdrive to try to disparage that win - obviously Stanford just didn’t want it anymore, and that’s the only way Cornell could have ever won. It’s pathetic. </p>

<p>Bottom line is this: This project is an amazing opportunity, and Cornell will lead the charge in bringing a new sector to New York City. What a few obviously bitter Stanford students have to say will not change that fact.</p>

<p>This is going in circles, so now’s the best time to end the discussion. There’s evidence on both sides, and because much of it is open to interpretation, it mostly comes down to opinion re: what really happened (for example, when Bloomberg said Cornell had the most to offer, was he also referring to the additional conditions/restrictions from negotiations, none of which we know about?). When it comes to highly political things like this, you can never just take words at face value; they may or may not be true (this goes for what both sides have said). That’s why my thought process paid attention to the probability that, say, Stanford fell far behind Cornell, or that Stanford didn’t like the additional conditions (Stanford is aggressive with negotiations, as evidenced by the battles with Palo Alto on the hospital). My knowledge and judgment is that the latter is far more likely, although anyone is free to disagree.</p>

<p>DarkIce, </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you positing that it IS better? Notice that I was not saying “Stanford is obviously better than Cornell” (a fact that I don’t think is obvious or even makes sense). No, I said “Cornell is obviously not better than Stanford.” Yet you interpreted it as the former and became defensive. Your and others’ defensiveness became perfectly clear in your last post: you go on at length about how people are impressed with your degree (???), you assume that we’re just picking on Cornell and that if another school won, it wouldn’t need to be defended (which I don’t think is true; with Stanford in the competition, people would probably react the same to any winner other than Stanford), you assume that those on the Stanford side care about rankings, you assume that we think that the only way Cornell could win is if Stanford dropped out (I don’t think that; in fact, I had my bets on both being chosen). </p>

<p>This is all coming completely out of left field and screams of an inferiority complex. Trust me, you don’t need to feel that way. Most of what you assume here isn’t true, definitely not for me and most likely not for most of the other Stanford students posting on this thread. For the record, I’ve always had a ton of respect for Cornell (elite-but-not-elitist), and other than UPenn and Columbia, it was the only Ivy I’d consider attending. I actually applied to Cornell for grad school, but chose not to go (mostly because of its location, ironically - had this project been started several years ago, with the placement of some of the CS department in NYC, I would possibly be a student at Cornell right now). In short, don’t assume that everyone on CC is the same and are just out to bash Cornell. It reflects poorly on you, on Cornell students and alumni, and on Cornell itself.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The “CC is out to get Cornell” conspiracy attitude is curious! Cornell is a run-of-the-mill wealthy private school – it is, if anything, <em>favored</em> by the prevailing attitudes of CC. That Gladwell article someone posted earlier ironically suggests Cornell is overrated alongside Stanford (which I agree with).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Really? Hierarchies certainly exist. You know as well as I do that in your field, CS, Stanford+Berkeley+CMU+MIT basically sweep up all of the most desirable faculty hires and grad students. And there’s nothing coincidental about it, as those 4 are widely acknowledged as the best CS departments by decisive margins. And with those tremendous resources (i.e. people), they produce better research than their competitors. There’s no shame in admitting it.</p>

<p>Of course, that’s field-specific, but nothing forbids a school from being better at everything it tries to do. In fact, Stanford seems to pull that off reasonably well. And so, it <em>is</em> sensible (situation specific) to declare some school X “obviously better” than some other school Y even when aggregating multiple disciplines. As far as I can tell, X=Stanford, Y=Cornell holds pretty well for engineering (and most other things). Again, no shame in admitting it.</p>

<p>^
I don’t think anyone would seriously argue against the claim that Stanford is a stronger engineering and computer science school than Cornell. To suggest it’s “many times” better or that Cornell couldn’t possibly win on its own merits without Stanford dictating the outcome is where the debate comes in. All along, Cornell and Stanford were labeled the front-runners in the media. </p>

<p>Is the 5th ranked CS school really a massive drop off from the 4th or 3rd? I don’t know. Is a school slightly lower down the food chain that exceeded every expectation in the proposal and has a massive alumni base in NYC eager to make this school succeed, as well as experience with NYC politics and running a large satellite campus in Manhattan really at a disadvantage? I don’t know.</p>

<p>So, I don’t agree that defending Cornell’s win means we have an inferiority complex. I had an extraordinary experience there, as did most everyone else I know, and after experiencing a more prestigious place I truly appreciated how much better my education was at Cornell (for me personally). There’s no school that can match the breadth of fields and depth of quality in each one, even if they’re not all in the top 3. </p>

<p>Anyway - the hope for this new campus is that it will resolve the isolation that has prevented Cornell from competing in the upper echelons of business incubation and research output. Stanford was successful because of a location and culture that attracted like-minded people. It’s no secret that, for as beautiful as Ithaca is, it’s hard to attract and retain top talent to a small, snowy city in a era of double income families and big city lifestyles. Columbia students are already nervous that Cornell’s going to take their best talent when this school opens. So, it’s possible Cornell could someday see a rise similar to what UPenn and Duke have seen in the past decade.</p>

<p>intcir,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with that, but I don’t think that it makes sense to say that a university as a whole is better than another when it comes to these top schools. A university is a complex entity with many units, so it’s difficult to say that Stanford as a whole is “better” than Cornell.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think most would. In fact, I *know *most would. But I don’t think “many times better.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean they’re equal in engineering/CS prowess. It means that, for whatever reasons, they were the top two. (Cornell could have been declared one of the frontrunners for reasons like location, money, etc. in addition to its strength in engineering/CS).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This line of reasoning makes sense in rankings of universities overall (like US News); there simply can’t be a massive drop off with such a small difference in ranking. But when you look at rankings in fields, yes, there can be a massive drop off, because there’s often a behemoth of a school (or a small group of them) that simply dominates in the field. There’s a reason, for example, that Stanford is affiliated with about 10x the Turing Award winners as Cornell, most as faculty (funnily enough, of the two Cornell faculty who have received the Turing Award, one got his PhD at Stanford and is going emeritus, the other now works at GE).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not why I suggested an inferiority complex. It’s because of the ridiculous level of defensiveness that Cornell-affiliated posters are showing, and because of DarkIce’s last post (e.g. nobody indicated anything relating to the prestige of a degree from Cornell).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think there are; Stanford is one of them, even if it doesn’t have schools for “hotel management” and such (there are many universities that have random programs that Cornell or Stanford doesn’t have, so in terms of breadth and depth, you have to consider limitations of comparison).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, when Stanford was founded - and for much of its existence - it was also pretty isolated. The area grew in population because of Stanford and the creation of Silicon Valley.</p>

<p>^
I’m getting the idea you like to argue for the sake of arguing. :slight_smile: You’re arguing against points I never made and contradicting your own. </p>

<p>You: "I think most would. In fact, I know most would. But I don’t think “many times better.”</p>

<p>You: “In the end, let’s face it. Stanford has many times the engineering prowess”</p>

<p>We’ve only been talking about CS / Eng, not the entire schools. You and your comrade seem to make derogatory and unsubstantiated statements, then when others provide evidence to the contrary, you pretend you never made them and that we’re stomping around like children for no reason. Just look at one of your comrade’s comments that sparked this whole debate:</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”</p>

<p>Anyone can understand why that’s rude and insulting, especially without any facts yet presented to back it up. I won’t even get into his claim that Cornell was a lapdog for the city eager to sign whatever was put in front of them with hyperventilating students and alumni. </p>

<p>Please don’t respond. I know your position by now. It just seems that you have washed yourselves of guilt in your own minds and I wanted to make it clear what behavior started and perpetuated this debate.</p>

<p>1) NRC ph.d programs ranking based on survey quality and research productivity</p>

<p>1-2 Stanford University Computer Science 1-2 1-2
1-3 University of California-Berkeley Computer Science 1-2 1-2
3-12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science 3-9 3-11
3-11 Princeton University Computer Science 3-9 3-10
3-18 University of California-Santa Barbara Computer Science 3-16 3-18
3-23 Harvard University DEAS-Computer Sciences 4-28 3-20
3-28 Carnegie Mellon University Computer Sciences 3-11 7-45
4-28 University of Pennsylvania Computer and Information Science-SEAS 4-18 6-40
5-32 Cornell University Computer Science 5-27 5-36
5-30 Duke University Computer Science </p>

<p>[Ranking</a> of Computer Sciences Graduate Schools — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/computer-science/rank/__MM____________________________________________________________U]Ranking”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/computer-science/rank/__MM____________________________________________________________U)</p>

<p>2) The world’s best CS programs by Shang Hai Jiao Tong University
Academic Ranking of World Universities in Computer Science - 2011
World Rank/ Institution/Total Score/ Score on Alumni /Award/ HiCi/ PUB/ TOP<br>
1 Stanford University 100.0 100.0 86.6 100.0 75.0 97.2<br>
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 92.8 50.0 100.0 89.2 78.8 90.0<br>
3 University of California, Berkeley 83.9 100.0 96.8 49.5 71.3 86.8<br>
4 Princeton University 77.2 50.0 71.8 60.6 57.5 100.0<br>
5 Harvard University 76.1 100.0 68.5 42.9 59.8 93.5<br>
6 Carnegie Mellon University 71.3 0.0 79.1 55.3 79.2 77.7<br>
7 Cornell University 67.6 50.0 57.3 55.3 49.6 86.8<br>
8 The University of Texas at Austin 65.2 50.0 39.5 55.3 64.1 74.3<br>
9 University of Southern California 63.2 0.0<br>
[Academic</a> Ranking of World Universities in Computer Science - 2011 | 2011 Top 100 Universities in Computer Science | ARWU-SUBJECT 2011](<a href=“http://www.shanghairanking.com/SubjectCS2011.html]Academic”>http://www.shanghairanking.com/SubjectCS2011.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I misread the comment of yours I was responding to and thought you were making the opposite point, so you can ignore that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t understand why it’s rude and insulting. It’s a simple statement of fact. You’re just offended by the suggestion that Cornell needed a partner while Stanford didn’t. This is not because Cornell is inferior, but rather because Stanford was the most natural choice given its role in creating Silicon Valley (which Bloomberg has explicitly said he wants to replicate in NY).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmm, what started and perpetuated this debate? Could it be a simple statement of fact, by a poster who has a reputation on the board for being helpful and nice? Or could it be a bunch of rabid Cornell students/alumni who trotted on over to the Stanford board to basically say “neener neener”?</p>

<p>Telling someone not to respond so that you can try to get in the last word is pathetic. How many times have you ‘stepped out’ of this debate by now?</p>

<p>[Safety</a> School? As Stanford Says ‘See Ya!’ Bloomberg Hops in Bed with Big Red | Betabeat — News, gossip and intel from Silicon Alley 2.0.](<a href=“Business News & Current Events | Observer”>Business News & Current Events | Observer)</p>

<p>How New York City got a better deal by going with the less prestigious choice.
By Nitasha Tiku 12/20 9:54pm</p>

<p>Gleaming the cubes.</p>

<p>On Monday, the lobby of the Weill Cornell Medical College, which resides on a particularly gray stretch of the Upper East Side, was crawling with men and women in wooly blazers dotted with “carnelian” buttons—the technical name for the maroon hue that invariably moves Cornell students to chant some version of “Go Big Red!”</p>

<p>Inside the auditorium, as an assembly of press, pols, and local technorati waited for Mayor Bloomberg to appear, a giant projector flashed a mosaic of the Cornell University logo.</p>

<p>The news had been leaked to every major news outlet by midnight on Sunday; there was no point in being coy.</p>

<p>“Today will be remembered as a defining moment,” Mayor Bloomberg told the crowd, officially announcing that a 50-50 joint proposal between Cornell and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology had won the $100 million grant to build a new engineering mecca and applied sciences campus. The project is designed to help New York surpass Silicon Valley as a global innovation capital, creating 30,000 jobs and as much as $1.4 billion in tax revenue.</p>

<p>For the next hour, a stream of political operatives, from New York City Economic Development Council president Seth Pinsky to councilmember Jessica Lappin, who represents Roosevelt Island, where the 2 million sq. ft. build-out will stand, took to the podium to express their breathless excitement at the scope of the $2 billion initiative.</p>

<p>Cornell president David Skorton debuted a video of an aerial rendering of the gleaming net-zero energy building. Set to a dramatic score, it looked like a CGI version of a utopian future—you know, the part in the sci-fi flick before the apocalypse sets in. “There are visions of sugarplums dancing in my head right now,” said New York City Public Schools Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott in response to the bit about Cornell and Technion instructing 200 of his teachers in science education every year.</p>

<p>“Of all the applications we received, Cornell and the Technion’s was far and away the boldest and most ambitious,” Mr. Bloomberg said of the sweeping offer, which included a $150 million venture capital fund, startup accelerator, and ambitious plans to construct 300,000 sq. ft. by just 2017—as close to the end of his third term as the mayor was likely to get.</p>

<p>But what should have been an effortless victory lap for the city’s yearlong plan to remake its economy for the coming century was clouded by a note of confusion. Stanford, after all, was pegged the front-runner at least as far back as March, when Mayor Bloomberg gave a speech in Palo Alto, noting, “We’re particularly pleased that Stanford—which has a top-flight engineering school—is considering the idea.” Stanford batted its eyelashes back by launching a Tumblr—New York native!—featuring a video of Larry Page and Sergey Brin talking up the Mayor’s initiative.</p>

<p>Indeed, as late as Friday morning, the school’s negotiating team was still locked in meetings with EDC officials; a few hours later, news hit the wire that Stanford had withdrawn its bid. And not long after that, Cornell issued a hastily-written press release revealing that it had received a $350 million anonymous donation. The largest gift in the school’s history was announced late on a Friday afternoon.</p>

<p>At the time, it was hard to say what was chicken and what was egg. Was Stanford trying to save face with a preemptive break-up, or did Cornell win by default? Surprisingly bitter recriminations followed from the various players as everyone tried to spin the narrative in their favor.</p>

<p>Part of the difficulty of understanding where negotiations broke down is a silence clause stipulated in the request for proposal (RFP). But numerous sources, who spoke under condition of anonymity, painted a picture of tense discussions and onerous demands that left several schools wary, including Stanford.</p>

<p>Cornell, eager to increase its presence in New York City, was more compliant at the negotiating table and better versed in what it took to get city approval, including fundraising before commitments were made. Sources said the $350 million gift, for example, had been secured for months. “We need to expand beyond Ithaca,” President Skorton said plainly from the podium.</p>

<p>“Cornell needed it more. But NYC Tech needs Stanford more,” tweeted New York City–based venture capitalist David Pakman, alluding to the latter’s prestige within tech circles and facility with spinning out successful startups. (There’s a reason China and Russia are trying to build their own Silicon Valley.)</p>

<p>In the end, it seems the city got a better deal for taxpayers by going with the one that wanted it more, rather than the one it was supposed to want.</p>

<p>A university source familiar with the negotiations said Stanford’s decision to drop out wasn’t based on any one issue, but rather due to “a whole host of things that held them liable for factors outside of [their] control,” such as big-ticket penalties for missed construction deadlines and the city’s desire “to indemnify themselves for any toxicity” at the Roosevelt Island site. Although a Phase II study was commissioned this year, a full scale analysis of the medical dump under the hospital cannot be done until the building is razed. Should serious hazards be uncovered, the school will be on the hook not only for the clean-up but also potentially for resultant delays.”You had a lot of institutions that wouldn’t even apply because of the terms, and they got even more severe in the negotiation process,” said the source.</p>

<p>City officials counter that such stipulations are par for the course. “If we didn’t include these types of commitments, there would be a chorus of people saying: How could the city write a blank check to a university that in five years could just decide it wasn’t into it?!” one official said. “It’s standard in any kind of long-term land lease or land sale that the city would ask the recipient to agree to certain benchmarks.” (Cornell and Technion are leasing the land for the next 99 years, at which point they can pony up $1 to buy.)</p>

<p>However, legal representation for schools besides Stanford also balked at the contract. “The legal document that we got was essentially, if you signed it, it would require you to build even if you didn’t hit the [fundraising] target,” another university source said. “If you state that by this date, you’re going to have this much faculty and this much building completed, and you don’t get it completed, you’re left open to a legal challenge. It was enough for our general counsel to raise a red flag to say they are not comfortable with signing this.”</p>

<p>Even institutions that have negotiated to build in New York City before hadn’t encountered this level of vulnerability to legal action. “There wasn’t any contract we signed that if our endowment goes to Madoff and then goes to nothing, we’re required to build,” said another source familiar with land use issues in New York.</p>

<p>The city’s aggressive negotiating stance also created friction. As has been reported, Stanford did not take a shine to Mayor Bloomberg’s assertion during a talk at MIT in late November that “Stanford is desperate to do it,” even if he said the same of Cornell. The bigger stumbling block, according to our sources, seems to have been another remark uttered during that same speech: According to Mr. Bloomberg, the desperation meant that, “We can go back and try to renegotiate with each one.” A university source said Stanford “had no idea that everything was back on the table.” The school “responded in good faith, and everything was changing,” said the source, wryly adding, “But apparently Cornell said yes to everything.”</p>

<p>“Seth [Pinsky] famously negotiates every last penny off the table, and that spooked Stanford,” acknowledged a New York City real estate executive. “They thought they had a partner and were shocked with his hard line. They were told not to worry about the particulars and that it would be fixed in the end, but despite assurances, they ultimately felt uncomfortable partnering with the city.”</p>

<p>A city official pointed out that it was that same aggressive stance that helped Mr. Pinsky close “complicated and thorny” deals on Hudson Yards and Willets Points, which the city had been trying to navigate for years.</p>

<p>In fact, a source with knowledge of the negotiation process said familiarity with the way the city does business helped Cornell, which already employs more than 5,000 New York City residents. “There are things the city is going to ask you to do that [Cornell] was very comfortable with, it’s not clear that the other side was that comfortable,” said the source before dropping a bit of local trivia, “They know what a ULURP is.”</p>

<p>ULURP, or Uniform Land Review Procedure is the city’s notoriously arduous standardized review process. In October, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger told the school’s newspaper, “I’ve been through a ULURP process. Nobody in their right mind should go through a ULURP process more than once in their life.” Of course, Mr. Bollinger was talking about how the ordeal might hold back his competitors for the tech campus RFP, noting that it took Columbia three-and-a-half years from submitting rezoning plans to getting mayoral approval to develop in Manhattanville. It’s something candidates no doubt had in mind considering the penalties for delays.</p>

<p>“It’s binding,” Mr. Bloomberg shot back to a question from the press corps about the contract. “Keep in mind, if we’re gonna invest, commit this land, turn down other people who wanted it, and invest $100 million, you don’t do that unless you have a binding commitment… One of the attractive things about Cornell is that they know how to do business in the city. Just look around,” he added, referring to Weill Cornell Medical College.</p>

<p>But both city officials and Cornell say it was the school’s superior offering that clinched the deal. “The catalyst was that Cornell was beating them in every single category,” said source close to Cornell, citing the speed of construction, the size of the campus, and the amount of students and faculty it will serve.</p>

<p>“Cornell was hungrier, Cornell was more humble in the process—I think it helped them win the proposal,” said Charlie Kim, CEO of Next Jump, a loyalty rewards company, who sits on the advisory committee that helped select winners. Mr. Kim said the committee met a thirty to forty-five days ago and then again last week to go into more detail. “I think probably after reviewing everything, and this is kind of my opinion, I felt Cornell-Technion was the number one recommendation.”</p>

<p>City officials claim the rush to sign the papers was merely a reflection of the way discussions were being structured. The city was simultaneously negotiating with everyone that applied, trying to move each deal as far along as possible. When Stanford dropped out, the deal with Cornell was already near completion.</p>

<p>And what of the mysterious $350 million donation? Though some speculated that the money had come from Mayor Bloomberg himself, The New York Times revealed Monday evening it had been a gift from Cornell alum Charles Feeney, the Duty Shop Group entrepreneur and subject of the book The Billionaire Who Wasn’t: How Chuck Feeney Made and Gave Away a Fortune Without Anyone Knowing.</p>

<p>Which isn’t to say Mr. Bloomberg won’t be opening up his wallet to see that his legacy-defining project remains on track. Although Cornell and Technion have been granted the full $100 million, the city left open the possibility of approving a second smaller-scale project, like plans from NYU and the Polytechnic Institute to transform the derelict former MTA headquarters into a Center for Urban Science and Progress, or Carnegie Mellon’s proposed partnership with Steiner Studios to build a digital media campus at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, both of which will now likely have to rely on philanthropic donations.</p>

<p>“You assume that when they make phone calls, I’d be on the list,” Mr. Bloomberg said at the press conference, while trying not to crack a smile. “But I also have some commitments to some other educational institutions, as you know.”</p>

<p>[By</a> Giving Up On NYC Campus, Stanford Loses The Innovation Race | Co.Design](<a href=“Business Design News & Trends | Fast Company”>Business Design News & Trends | Fast Company)</p>

<p>By Giving Up On NYC Campus, Stanford Loses The Innovation Race<br>
Cornell wins the bid to create an NYC engineering school, and Stanford withdraws from the competition. Too bad, writes Bruce Nussbaum: Stanford needs the benefits of a big city. Stanford University’s announcement that it was withdrawing from the competition to establish a new top-tier engineering school in New York City is a stunner. Mayor Michael Bloomberg clearly wanted Stanford to “win” his contest, but now he’ll have to accept a partnership between Cornell University and Israel’s Technion Institute of Technology. The biggest loser may turn out to be Stanford, not New York.
The conventional wisdom holds that New York needs better-trained engineers to bolster innovation and scale its budding startup culture. Stanford, after all, beats all other universities in the number of startups generated each year by students, professors, and alumni. And didn’t the renaissance in New York entrepreneurialism start when Google opened its mammoth office on the West Side?</p>

<p>The locus of innovation has been shifting away from engineers to “culturistas."Or was that coincidence, not causation, and Google lucked out, not New York? Truth is, the locus of innovation has been shifting away from the technological to the social, and from engineers to “culturistas” for some time now. It’s no accident that Kickstarter began through indie music (trying to find a new way to fund concerts) and is headquartered on Rivington Street (and soon to move to Brooklyn). It’s no accident that a large and growing number of successful startup folks have music, design, or art in their background, in addition to, or in place of, engineering. These include the people who brought you Apple (yes, it is still important to remember Steve Jobs wasn’t an engineer, loved Bob Dylan and music, was entranced with the aesthetic simplicities of Japanese and German Bauhaus design, and framed himself as an artist), YouTube, Flickr, Tumblr, Etsy, Airbnb, Behance, Instagram, Vimeo, Hunch, Gowalla, Path, Blurb, Square, About.me, YCombinator, the Designer Fund, and many more.
Designers, musicians, and artists understand the user experience in a way that engineers don’t. TechCrunch highlighted the shift away from engineering as a driver of innovation with an article on the death of specs. It said that product reviewers now focus on the user experience, not speed or memory or power–all the techie stuff engineers obsess about and forced all of us to pretend we cared about for so many years. That “user experience” is more and more social, local, and urban. Music, fashion, food, movies, advertising, art, personal manufacturing–the “indie” stuff of “indie” capitalism, are increasingly the driving forces of and the models for innovation today. And they tend to take place in cities. You need to be in Chicago (or perhaps Cincinnati) to create Groupon; Seattle (where they read a lot) for Amazon; Yelp in foodie San Francisco; Portland for Weiden + Kennedy’s “Imported from Detroit” ads; New York for Kickstarter. Digital fabrication is perhaps the best example of an open-source confluence of a fashion, art, technology, maker culture that is happening in cities. Shapeways, the Dutch 3D-printing company, moved its headquarters from Amsterdam to New York, not Palo Alto or the campus of MIT.
Stanford’s engineering school will now miss much of this. Los Angeles and San Francisco will cast their halos of food and movie culture over Palo Alto. And of course, the university itself will remain a center of innovation if only because it attracts the best students and faculty from around the world to its campus. Yet, as the soul of innovation moves away from engineering to the social and cultural, Stanford will surely begin to fade. In that sense, Stanford is losing more in not setting up in New York than New York is losing by not having Stanford.</p>

<p>It’s “indie” stuff driving today’s innovation models.The big loss for New York is not getting Stanford’s d.school. When Stanford appeared to be winning Bloomberg’s contest, there was evidence that the d.school would be heading east as well. Established by IDEO cofounder David Kelley, the school brings together engineering, design, and business students in classes where they learn about the user experience, community, and culture. Kelley, IDEO people, and Stanford professors team-teach design thinking and creativity. With another cofounder of IDEO, Bill Moggridge (who is already in New York as the new president of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum), and an IDEO office on Grand Street, it would have been terrific to have Kelley and the d.school come in and shake up the New York scene.</p>

<p>New York needs a design-school type of academic institution more than it needs a new engineering school. With Cooper Union, Parsons, SVA, NYU, Pratt, Columbia, FIT, the Cooper Hewitt, MAD, MoMA, the New Museum–plus the gallery, food, and music scenes–there needs to be an integrator to make a new creative whole that is greater than the parts. </p>

<p>The d.school has the creative DNA to do it. Alas, this is New York’s big Stanford loss. Can’t we get the design program without the engineering school?</p>

<p>So the lawyers killed it!</p>

<p>Thanks, datalook, for the very informative posts that address my original questions.</p>

<p>If the EDC shares this “culturista” perspective, then the second award will go the CMU + Steiner Studios partnership.</p>

<p>@4thfloor: I don’t see how this article really answers your earlier question (if you were trying to get as objective an answer as possible) as it is basically a hidden opinion piece that provides slightly contradictory statements from several officials involved (i.e. Stanford and NYC officials). I do find it curious that this article fails to make mention of some of the statements provided by people involved in the decision making process (i.e. non-university officials) that offer a particularly damning picture as to why SU left the competition; they also paint a narrative that SU was considered the clear front-runner before withdrawing, while most news accounts painted both Cornell and SU as the two front-runners pre-selection. That doesn’t count for anything? But, then again, after you continued to ignore the evidence I supplied in the statements presented by city officials involved in the decision-making process, it was clear that you were looking for a certain type of answer to begin with.</p>

<p>On a general note, the legal documents defense is clear BS and those attorneys providing statements for this article should be ashamed of themselves for stating what they did. Any contracts lawyer worth a grain of salt (or anyone who attended one year of law school) knows that a contract does not have to be performed under certain circumstances, including for reasons of frustration and impracticability (among many other reasons). So the argument about a university being bound by the agreement even if its endowment was wiped out is dishonest at the very least. (And I really wouldn’t be surprised if the contract had an official clause that laid out certain conditions under which the contract would not have to be performed). But, really, I find it hard to believe that any of the submitting universities actually believed that they would not be contractually bound if they were selected. That is the basis of these types of contracts. </p>

<p>As my debating partner phantasmagoric mentioned, there is certainly evidence to support both sides of the argument. I just happen to think that there is far stronger evidence to support that Cornell would have won the competition regardless of whether SU withdrew or not.</p>