<p>Thank you phantasmagoric. The compilation is impressive and one I would not be able to readily compile. It is clear from these awards that Stanford is highly regarded in science and engineering. I notice that even the American Philosophical Society “promotes useful knowledge in the sciences and technology”. This seems in keeping with the data I am aware of that 44% of students are science or engineering majors. My daughter’s interests are in non-science areas–literature, writing and journalism.</p>
<p>Is it possible to parse out the awards for each school for non-science faculty?</p>
<p>Secondly, it is important for my purpose to know how many of the awardees have regular teaching responsibilities for undergraduate rather than graduate students.</p>
<p>The lessons I recently learned from the college rankings may apply to the faculty awards as well. I was unaware of the history of the rankings, their lack of face validity, reliability, concurrent validity and predictive validity. Put simply, they were ill-conceived, offer little information about the quality of teaching and have been found deficient by educational researchers and administrators including from Stanford. A relevant criticism is criteria are selected which favor a handful of Universities including Stanford. Yet, they are relied upon by a naive public which in part help create a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p>
<p>The basis for the above awards, then comes into question. For instance the American Philosophical Society only accepts members nominated by resident members of the NPS, much like a fraternity. It may well be that the criticism of the college ratings applies here as well with awards made not necessarily upon merit but disproportionally through affiliation with APS members favoring preselect groups.</p>
<p>What is apparent is that elite group status, no matter how achieved, in our culture has significant advantages and in this regard I wholeheartedly agree Stanford likely offers a decided advantage over being a named scholar, honors college attendee and trustee awardee vs. one of many very bright students, I think!</p>
<p>The key question is what substantial reliable and valid data do I or any prospective parent/student have regarding the likely quality, intellectual and overal personal reward, not to mention personal fit, of one potential undergraduate experience over another? I have yet to identify such a measure.</p>
<p>One of the articles critical of college rankings posited the best predictor is how the student feels visiting and investigating the campus. The campus that excites and give the “this is it” reaction is the one. While non-intellective on the surface, this could well be the ultimate, reliable and valid summary measure, a melding of instinctual mammalian brain and neocortex. I am hoping my daughter has such a response when she visits Stanford once again.</p>
<p>Has this thread strayed from the original question of whether Stanford is worth six to ten times more than what USC costs (from the OP’s perspective, anyway)?</p>
<p>Let’s try to help the original poster, and not get into minutia.</p>
<p>I figured you would make this argument. By this logic, we can’t trust any awards because they could be based on some form of cronyism. But know that all these awards have an objective basis as well - such as required number publications and citations. Those who win major awards have usually won major awards before, so it’s a sustained level of achievement, based on their impact and contributions to a field. It’s not like USC faculty are on the same level as those at Stanford, but Stanford faculty get the awards because of cronyism. No, the research quality of most faculty at Stanford is objectively superior. They publish less, they’re cited less, they’re less influential on the whole.</p>
<p>Many of those awards are to professors of humanities/social sciences (AAAS, Pulitzer, Wolf, etc.). If you want to see the achievements of such professors individually, go to the department websites, click on each professor’s webpage, and you’ll see that they are all very accomplished.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is completely dependent on one’s personal preference. If you reject all the measures that you come across, then that’s something you have to contend with. For me, that measure was research. Research quality in a given department is highly correlated with the many factors I mentioned before. And I was right in terms of those benefits for me. That may not be the case for everyone, and you need to figure out what is important to you. Or rather, to your child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One can’t say - it’s completely dependent on each Nobel. For the record, two of USC’s Nobels are 82 and 84, and one started at USC last year.</p>
<p>There is no objective measure by which USC can be rated higher than, or even come close to, Stanford. Stanford generates a lot of envy, which may explain all the misguided attempts to compare USC to Stanford. USC is a great university in its own right, and is serious about making their way to better rankings - good for them. Stanford is in its own league. Just like Berkeley. There are many Ivies and all on the East Coast, but MIT, Caltech, Stanford and Berkeley are unique.</p>
<p>^ USC’s administration is envious of Stanford (not a bad thing - Stanford has a lot to be thankful for), which is why their plans for the 21st century have frequently referenced/compared USC to Stanford. Both schools were founded about the same time, but they took two very different routes. (USC even took the Cardinal color 15 years after its founding, 3 years after Stanford did.)</p>
<p>Docfree, regarding the exclusivity thing and the 4% rate for the scholarship, I find pure statistics holds no value when comparing colleges. For example, I was admitted to the 8-year medical school MSP program at Rice university (a 0.8% admission rate, <15 students admitted) along with full tuition but I choose to come to Stanford instead. Your D has already been admitted to these schools, so it’s time to let go regarding what the admission statistics means for the “reputation” of the schools.</p>
<p>As far “social intelligence” and similar skills, there’s plenty of room for learning here too. While perhaps some of the students are pretty absorbed in their academics and nothing else, there are plenty of opportunities here to develop one’s emotional intelligence. I’m going to throw in a shameless plug for the greek system here; joining a fraternity last year was one of the best decisions I’ve made.You end up knowing many of the people in your class, learning to deal with new social situations, and also building important friendships and networks. Finally, keep in mind that Stanford has significantly fewer students while also having a larger campus. You probably miss a lot of the vibrancy taking a tour around campus during the day, since many people hang out within their residences and out during the evening.</p>
<p>SIValley, There seem to be few objective measures for comparison for undergraduate education period. Your comment that Stanford generates a lot of envy is significant. It reflects an odd perception that you apparently believe. USC appears to be secure in who it is and where it is going, from their point of view, which is rapidly rising in prominence. I sense more an uneasiness from those posting for Stanford that they do hear footsteps. One thing I know from being a triathlete, you don’t turn around to see where your rival is. I sense a turning around. </p>
<p>The schools seem very different and likely serve a temperamentally and behaviorally different student, but from recent SAT scores, barely distinguishable. It may well be or may be becoming simply a matter of “best fit” for an undergraduate student for either school.</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric…an even more pointed example of self-perception. USC had Stanford in its crosshairs. The reference appears not to be jealousy, but a well operationalized goal for their ascendency. USC is committed to continuing its rise which even Stanfordphiles would have to admit, has quite an impressive trajectory.</p>
<p>My friend was also very brilliant and faced a similar decision. Her parents didn’t make very much money and she wasn’t given too much financial aid at Stanford, but she chose to go there anyways and hasn’t regretted a minute of it.</p>
<p>she majored in engineering, I think, so it made a lot of sense! she’s now re-thinking her major, but is completely enamored with Stanford and the multiple opportunities there. good question though- I forgot to mention that and I’m sure that played a big role! However, her parents had just bought a house and didn’t have savings. Different factors, for sure.</p>
<p>Thank you, Bluenote2, that is very kind of you. In her particular situation, each school offers a tremendous amount. The decision is hers to make. She will be making multiple visits to each school this month and determine where she fits best based on academic programs offered and overall atmosphere. I am and always have been very proud of her and confident she will make the best decision for her. i wish you the best in your education quest as well.</p>
<p>I’ve watched the collegiate landscape for a few years now and know quite a bit about how academia works. Since you have also gone through academia, you should know as well.</p>
<p>Countless measures of institutional quality prove why USC is nowhere near Stanford right now (note: that is different from undergraduate education quality). USC has managed to game the rankings in the past few years in order to get a higher spot in US News, but as the Casper article I linked to you before noted, universities change very slowly, unlike rankings. A university’s quality works like this: their financial resources allow them to build world-class facilities, which allows them to recruit high-quality faculty (who are ultimately what a university is judged by), which allows them to get more research funding, which allows them recruit the best students, all of which increases their prestige and all of which indirectly has an influence on their financial resources, and so on.</p>
<p>Back in the early 1900s, the endowment landscape had not yet formed, and so the ascendancy of any college was fair game. At the time, Stanford, Chicago, Caltech, etc. (even MIT, Cornell, Berkeley) were still in their infancy. Today, however, things are very different. The endowment landscape has solidified, and a distinct upper echelon of universities has formed almost exclusively because of their financial resources. While you and other USC fans may hate this, it is the reality: money is what allows the university to grow and surpass other universities. In short, money talks. </p>
<p>Part of the stated goal of USC’s new fundraising campaign is to augment their endowment by $3 billion. But the-10 schools are not going to sit on their laurels while USC does this; they too are going to raise vast sums of money to augment their endowments. USC’s $3.3 billion will grow, but so will top-10 schools’ endowments. In 5 years, USC’s endowment will be about $8 billion. But the schools it wants to overcome will have upwards of $20 billion in assets. Stanford will have upwards of $50 billion in assets. USC - among many other schools - has little to no hope of ever catching up to the top 10. Every step that USC takes, the top competitors will also take, and they already have an advantage in being able to take that step. USC would need to exceed their pace, which is extremely hard, since their pace is already far ahead of USC’s. Even with USC’s campaign (which many have considered to be overly optimistic - they have raised only 1/6 of the campaign during the quiet phase, when large campaigns usually raise nearly half during the quiet phase, so USC’s campaign may well run out of gas too soon), it still won’t come close to breaking the top 10. The best USC can hope for is a serious economic depression greater than the last one, which would level everyone’s assets and put them on even footing with USC. Do you think that’s likely?</p>
<p>And USC has explicitly stated goals of becoming one of the top few (a la HYPSM) influential universities. You gotta have dreams, right? Even USC’s president acknowledges it’s a long, long way before it can even reach the top 10, much less become level with Stanford. IMO, it’d be lucky to break the top 15 (top 15 *not *according to US News, but to the financial resources), but I do think it’ll definitely make it to the top 20, alongside Emory, Vanderbilt, Rice, etc.</p>
<p>Thank you Ph… As always, I enjoy your comments. Please note my primary interest is a dad’s due diligence for two “Finalist” choices of my daughter’s college acceptances. She is a most able individual who will be making her own choice based on a sense of “fit” with Stanford and USC after further visits. I am confident she will make the best choice for her given her investigative abilities to ascertain the intellective and student body qualities of each and her own sense of herself. For my part, I judge both Stanford and USC to be excellent choices for her, each with its own character and advantages.</p>
<p>As you note, many of the points you raise relate to graduate education and the perception and rankings of university programs, as opposed to undergraduate. While this is less relavent to my immediate concern, it is quite instructive and engaging in its own right. I am primarily struck by the broad and seemingly valid criticism of rankings and the extent rankings correlate with endowment. I certainly agree that sufficient funds are needed to attract world class faculty and sustain a university, yet the degree of correlation seems to beg other bases. As an analogy, money is often though to bring happiness or quality of life. It does, but only up to the point basic needs are met without struggle. A university’s largesse may feed upon itself, but in itself will not sustain excellence. Vision and execution will. Another analogy may well illustrate other operative factor in the rankings. Our culture is drawn to wealth and most perceive the wealthy as enviable, enough to buy many lotto tickets. Further, the wealthy tend to associate with each other and limit entrance to their class. What is operative in rankings based on voting by those from the top 5 ranked schools (with top endowment), the 1% if you will and the rest (the 99%). How many guidance counselors really know each school well vs. voting the money? How many of the top 5 really just vote for each other both for rankings and individual award candidates? I suspect factors such as these account for a significant degree of variance.</p>
<p>You note that USC has raised just 1/6th of its 6 billion total during the quiet phase which was just one year. What you do not note is most universities extend the quiet phase for two or three years, hence have a larger base % before announcing. A recent post on college confidential that seems accurate indicates USC had 1.7 billion raised as of March 2012 and there is speculation an announcement will be made im May (2 billion). USC clearly expresses much confidence in defying convention with a 1 year quiet phase and has produced dour expressions from some including you. But, what if they do reach their goal or reach it ahead of schedule? How will that affect the attitudes and perceptions of the critics? </p>
<p>You make the valid point that while USC is raising funds Stanford and even more well endowed universities will be doing the same, hence USC will never catch up. USC had about 3 billion in endowment funds at the end of 2011. They have announced plan to raise 6 billion by 2018. That is a 200% increase. I believe Stanford had 13 billion in endowment. Are you aware of any plan or announcement for Stanford to raise 26 bilion over the next 6 years? Or how about Harvard at about 27 billion? Any announcement or plan for Harvard to raise 54 billion in the next 6 years?</p>
<p>One can argue they don’t need to and obviously neither Stanford or Harvard will keep pace with the percentage endowment growth anticipated for USC. What does this mean? My only point is something quite dynamic and exciting is happening at USC. Perhaps it is a function of their growth phase as an institution, perhaps a function of vision and leadership. I see it in their programs and the vitality felt on campus and it appears it will be reflected in the endowment/university ranking measure.</p>
<p>This is not to take away from Harvard or Stanford. They are mature, remarkable institutions who do have much challenge to maintain their place as mature universities. As a parallel with the technology corporate world, well known to Stanford, Microsoft enjoyed unparalleled growth and generated much excitement for a while when Facebook did not yet exist. Organizations change, grow, evolve, maintain or decline. I think for a college student, the growth phase may be the most enriching and exciting. Perhaps I’ll start a ranking for endowment percentage growth and see what unintended valid or invalid attributes are attributed to those ranked. Are you in?</p>
<p>I think you’re less concerned about it than you perhaps should be. At top private schools, graduate education and undergraduate education are not as distinctly separated as they are at most other schools. At Stanford, the two are intimately connected; they are inseparable. It makes little sense to ignore graduate strength when it has such a profound effect on undergrads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s missing the point, which is that a university only leaves the quiet phase once it has exhausted the core of its major donor base. That doesn’t mean that they won’t get large donations later on in the campaign - but USC is keenly aware of which of its alumni are rich enough to donate huge sums and has already courted them. Thus, it exits the quiet phase and opens the campaign up to the public. Doing this with only 1/6 of the total raised does not bode well for the campaign, but of course USC has a better idea of its alumni base. I’m just pointing out that it’s odd when you compare it to every other multi-billion dollar campaign, which gets 1/3 to 1/2 of its total during the quiet phase.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford has a $16.5 billion endowment as of the end of FY2011, but that number is $19.5 billion including the assets that act like an endowment but are not legally ‘endowment.’</p>
<p>Stanford does ‘need’ to raise $26 billion as you suggest. The growth I indicated before is simple investment returns. Since the economy is buoying, the endowments have shown strong growth. Assuming a 20% return (this past year it was 22% and in recent years has gone even higher), Stanford would have $49 billion in 6 years, or $58 billion starting from $19 billion. Even assuming a 15% return would yield $38-45 billion within 6 years. Of course, a university is able to achieve higher endowment growth by augmenting it with donations, so that it grows at a rate higher than normal (re)investment would allow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They most certainly will keep up with it, and likely exceed it. This is partly because they have some of the most elite investors managing their endowments. Furthermore, Stanford has proven that its fundraising prowess far exceeds USC’s and even Harvard’s. Stanford’s 5-year campaign had a goal of $4.3 billion and reached that goal in 3; it finished with $6.23 billion. </p>
<p>If you’ve kept up with the news on this, Harvard is about to announce its own fundraising campaign, which will probably be record-setting, considering that it’s been a decade since Harvard had a campaign (in elite higher education, that’s a very long time between campaigns), which is mainly because of delays from their president being fired and the recession. Those involved in planning the campaign have said it will be at least $6 billion, and rumor has it that it could be upwards of $10 billion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you quite understand how run-of-the-mill this “exciting something” is at elite universities. Yes, it’s new for USC, which is trying to put itself among these universities. But multi-billion dollar campaigns, new endowed professorships, large sets of new buildings, etc. are very routine at the top privates. Columbia and Cornell, for example, are both currently in the midst of $5 billion campaigns, and will likely raise $6+ billion within an 8-year time frame (in other words, they are matching and/or exceeding USC’s rate of fundraising for its current campaign).</p>
<p>I know I probably sound like a negative nancy, but I’m being realistic. This is the reality of elite higher education, and it’s important not to get caught up in the feel-good promotion that USC is espousing and to put its efforts in context. It is ambitious for USC to set its sights on placing itself among the most elite universities in the world, and it’s made many recent gains that are in stark contrast to its previous growth, for which it deserves praise. But make no mistake: this growth is merely approaching the growth of tippy-top privates, at which point it will not be “on par” with them. Rather, in order for it to catch up in absolute terms, its growth needs to exceed their growth. Furthermore, it needs to sustain this superior growth for an extended period of time in order for it to catch up to them. Then, it needs to sustain that superior growth for an even longer period of time in order to surpass them. Then, as long as its growth rate does not dip below the others’, it will remain solidly ahead of them.</p>
<p>But remember that the growth of these elite universities is far above average, so even matching the growth is a challenge, much less exceeding it and sustaining it. Now imagine that USC manages to bump past some top privates - how do you think they will react? They will redouble their efforts to maintain their position. They will not go down without a fight, and there’s no reason to believe that they wouldn’t be successful in maintaining their position. And USC has to fight through all of them before reaching the behemoths that are Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc. which are a completely different, above-and-beyond force to reckon with. Do you see now why the road ahead for USC is not just bumpy, but dark and likely unnavigable? </p>
<p>Consider, also, the capital ceiling that each of these schools faces (and as I said before, the physical capital is where a university’s strength begins). USC’s core campus is very constrained by the surrounding city, and so its expansion is severely limited; it’s currently trying to redevelop buildings it owns that are integrated with the city (similar to NYU). Harvard has exhausted its core Cambridge campus and is expanding across the river to a largely undeveloped 350+ acre area, which will double the current size of its core campus. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Stanford has thousands of undeveloped acres contiguous with its core campus. Within time, it will use this land to begin expanding its academic facilities (esp. west campus), as well as creating housing for all grad students and all faculty/researchers, something that USC, and even Harvard, will likely never be able to do. Stanford is poised to become the first fully residential, fully integrated university in the world. The extent of the advantage that this will confer upon Stanford is unknown, but it’s likely immense. It’s part of the reason that Harvard has been desperate to develop its Allston campus, in order to keep pace with Stanford’s capital growth, something that no university today has been able to match. If even Harvard hasn’t been able to do that, do you think USC will?</p>