Stanford vs USC full tuition

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
81

<p>Stanford had publicized ambitious plans to build a NYC campus, then quietly withdrew them. Perhaps they recognized the limits of life on the farm vs. a dynamic city environment or the project exceeded their projected endowment forecasts. In any case, announcing such an exciting development, then quietly tiptoeing out of it seems to indicate a bit of faltering.</p>

<p>Your projections for endowment yield are of interest. As you are aware, past performance is no indication of future performance. With regard to past performance, Harvard and Stanford had endowment losses in the 20% range a few years ago. A 25% return is necessary to just recover equity from a 20% loss. Few macroeconomists are confident in conditions for sustained economic growth and performance of equities going forward.</p>

<p>Typically, and reasonably conservatively, universities go beyond their silent period when donations abate. USC seems to be confident in taking an atypical path. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the indications that they do have 1.7 billion at present. Will you be willing to adjust your dour perspective if they announce 2 billion raised by May 1, 2012?</p>

<p>The objectives of graduate faculty and graduate students is of necessity on publication and securing grants as well as ascending the department structure (securing tenure, promotion). Teaching undergraduates then becomes a distraction or at least not the highest or sole priority in major research institutions. I do not agree that there is necessarily a positive association between undergraduate and graduate education. </p>

<p>The excitement I refer to has nothing to do with fund raising and endowment totals, but the vibrancy of student and faculty evident on campus and in the classroom. I am hoping my daughter finds the “exciting something” in the student body on her upcoming extended visits to Stanford. Unlike USC, it is not an immediate or widespread impression. Perhaps with more time and diligence an extended search will uncover it.</p>

82

<p>

</p>

<p>No. It withdrew from the competition because the EDC of NYC was doing a bait-and-switch.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/01/30/stanford-officials-reflect-on-nyc-negotiations/[/url]”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/01/30/stanford-officials-reflect-on-nyc-negotiations/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course, as did USC. Recessions, which occur about every decade, continually knock down investment performance, which yields a more modest 10- or 20-year annualized return. Over the past 20-30 years, Stanford has been able to get upwards of 12-13% annualized returns; getting into the double digits for that year range is excellent and requires a highly diversified portfolio. Stanford’s endowment has continually outperformed all general market benchmarks because of its diversified portfolio. In fact, all the mega-endowments have seen unprecedented growth because of this diversification. Even when you account for the recession, they have still been growing at rates far greater than before, and that’s a reflection of a changing philosophy in investment.</p>

<p>Either way, you can bet that whatever Stanford’s return rate is, USC will at best match it, at worst fall far behind.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have acknowledged it. I am not impressed by it as you are, because I have a bit more knowledge about this. And my attitude is such not because it’s USC; if this were Stanford, I would be skeptical as well. My perception may be “dour,” but it is realistic.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are making a fundamentally flawed assumption about every research university. When the undergraduates are as accomplished, intelligent, and capable of advanced learning and research, as Stanford’s undergraduate student body is, the integration with the graduate division is easier and more natural. So it is not just “publication and securing grants” that matters here. As I said before, undergrads have access to the small classes offered as graduate courses; grad students take undergrad courses and vice versa. Both kinds of students learn together. Undergrads have access to the same facilities that are built to facilitate the research carried out by the faculty, researchers, postdocs, and grad students. They have access to all the same resources. It is integrated; this is not the case at the vast majority of universities, including USC and top public schools.</p>

<p>The combination of research, facilities, resources, etc. all play into an undergraduate’s education. That is the nature of a research university. Teaching is still great at Stanford. But I’ll add that most students are more than capable of learning on their own; even if the teaching were bad, their learning would not be harmed. As has been oft-discussed on CC before, if you need someone to get in front of you and teach in order for you to learn, you have much bigger problems to worry about than the quality of the professor’s teaching. That’s a discussion for another day, but the point is that most of the real teaching that a professor does is in his/her engagement with students. That occurs through small classes (overwhelmingly more numerous at Stanford than at USC) and through research. In short, the research-focused nature of the graduate division complements, not detracts from, undergraduate education.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It actually is - you’re just basing your perception on a short visit during the summer, when the campus is relatively sleepy.</p>

83

<p>I am troubled by your seeming uncritical acclaim for Stanford. Are you employed by Stanford to manage its reputation on these boards?</p>

<p>Your quotes regarding the abrupt departure by Stanford are incomplete and misleading:</p>

<p>"Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that “the University, with no experience building in New York, recoiled at meeting terms laid down by the city after its proposal was submitted, while Cornell, with extensive experience in the city–its medical school is in Manhattan–expected such negotiations.” The New York Times quoted a city official as saying, “Stanford could not or would not keep up.” "</p>

<p>Perhaps Stanford dropped out to save face:</p>

<p>[Stunning</a> Aerial Video of How Cornell-Technion Campus Will Change the Landscape of New York | Betabeat — News, gossip and intel from Silicon Alley 2.0.](<a href=“Business News & Current Events | Observer”>Business News & Current Events | Observer)</p>

<p>Diversification has not worked as macroeconomic factors have made markets highly correlated. Trying to defend diversification to defend Stanford is an odd stretch. The ten year average for Stanford was 9.3% with a 27% loss in 2008. </p>

<p>[Stanford</a> Endowment Loss Prompts President to Suspend Smoothing - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>

<p>Presenting Stanford as infallible and with a seeming bias detracts from its many accomplishments.</p>

<p>I will not detract from Stanford or its students. The perception that Stanford students and the campus environment is relatively less vibrant than USC has been observed by many from the business and academic community. I do not mean this as a jab at all nor am I condoning it, but what must be the impression of many involved in NYC? Quoting again from the article you cited:</p>

<p>"Cornell, Stanford’s main competitor and the ultimate competition winner, announced a $350 million gift hours after Stanford’s withdrawal, prompting speculations that Stanford had pulled out after hearing about Cornell’s donation in advance, an allegation that Stanford administrators have denied.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that “the University, with no experience building in New York, recoiled at meeting terms laid down by the city after its proposal was submitted, while Cornell, with extensive experience in the city–its medical school is in Manhattan–expected such negotiations.” The New York Times quoted a city official as saying, “Stanford could not or would not keep up.”"</p>

<p>Finally, each school seems to attract different types of students with different proportions of science vs. humanities majors and likely other meaningful yet-to-be specified personal differences as a basis. Perhaps others have input in this regard.</p>

<p>I do think an open discussion of these two private California universities is of benefit to me and perhaps to others. An unrealistic or selective presentation of Stanford is not of benefit to anyone and seems more an ivory tower debate than a true quest for understanding.</p>

84

<p>I’m tired of all you people posting long posts haha</p>

85

<p>docfree, way to give a left-handed compliment to phantasmagoric. No, Stanford doesn’t employ people to participate in these forums–as if a school universally regarded as one of the very finest on the planet would have to do that! LOL</p>

<p>phantasmagoric does have an astonishing degree of familiarity and information about Stanford, however, and he’s frequently donating his efforts here so others, you included, can make realistic comparisons based on the current state of factual affairs–rather than on wishful thinking or rationalizations. Everyone who gets a big merit discount at a good school would like to try to minimize the differences between that school and an insanely great one; that’s human nature. But that desire has no bearing on the facts. And, obviously, every person must determine for himself the extent to which he is willing to pay, or take on debt, to avail himself of the more costly choice. Nor is this the zero-sum game some people make this out to be–the fact that Stanford is in a whole other league than USC at this time doesn’t make USC any less strong than it is. Each is what it is, and costs what it costs. Attempts to equalize manifestly unequal things in your mind, whether to rationalize major cost differentials or otherwise, probably won’t help clarify the decision in a meaningful way. Again, I hope that whatever decision your family reaches, that you will all be satisfied with it.</p>

86

<p>The decision is my daughter’s who is uninvolved and not privy to my postings. Yes, there is some cognitive dissonance. If you read my post, my concern was with P’s. If you believe I was providing a left-handed compliment and not gently commenting on an absurd degree of selective information, bias and prejudice, I am even more concerned about objectivity in self-perception in the bubble on the Farm. Neither NYC, Cornell or many others share such an insular perspective. There is a broad world which responds to a range of positive values beyond endowment totals and awards/accolades from crony institutions.</p>

<p>Stanford is a great institution which I admire, but it seems self-awareness and a belief you know more than others may be an area for further growth. I have no vested interest where my daughter attends and money is not a consideration. The best undergraduate experience for her is and if she chooses Standford I think she is sophisticated enough not to fall prey to the apparent insularity issues that can develop for some.</p>

87

<p>uh, no docfree, I wasn’t suggesting that I thought you were praising phantasmagoric by asking whether he was a hired spokesperson, but you inadvertently did so, since the depth of his knowledge aroused your suspicions, which are inaccurate. And fyi, phantasmagoric regularly describes aspects of the Stanford experience that he thinks could be further improved; he’s not “absurdly” biased/prejudiced, just calling things as he sees them from his informed vantage point, and always supplying relevant data to substantiate his statements. So, there’s no call for smug or condescending remarks to students who are sharing their views in an effort to help others in their decisions. Good luck to you.</p>

88

<p>I am sorry you see my remark as smug or condescending. I was attempting to restore balance to an open forum and perhaps encourage a redirection to my original question. Yes, P obviously devotes a great deal of time to this forum, but if you read my specific comments above, I am concerned with the extent he appears to speak with authority and may mislead others when in fact he is presenting partial information that only supports a most favorable view of Stanford. Not everyone has the time to fact check. Omitting contrary information which you have available is not an “informed vantage point” but bias–perhaps unintentional and borne of “school spirit”, but not helpful to anyone seeking a valid perspective.</p>

<p>While a tired cliche, in the Stanford NYC proposal there clearly are two sides to the story. P presents but one, quite indisputably, if your read the entire article (some sections P. omitted I quote above). The comment about being employed by Stanford was purely tongue in cheek, again referring to bias. By no means am I suggesting that Standford admin really employs such people, I was just exaggerating for effect the point of bias present.</p>

<p>I suppose the more significant comment is that an undergraduate or graduate education, especially in a highly regarded university, would be expected to cultivate openness, rather than bias, especially in a forum such as this where an attempt is made to secure a range of opinions to assist in evaluating two undergraduate programs. This is not a debate or a political party discussion, but an attempt to secure useful and valid information. As such, I think due care needs to be taken to be responsive to the original question and objective with information provided.</p>

89

<p>docfreedaddy, I’m surprised that someone like you would make a personal attack rather than respond maturely. I certainly don’t have ‘uncritical acclaim’ for Stanford - I’ve criticized Stanford for many things (did you see my extremely long post on the ‘why NOT Stanford’ thread? You posted on it right after I did). But for the current topics of discussion, there is little to criticize Stanford for - the integration of graduate and undergraduate education, the growth of its financial assets, the sheer size of its capital growth. All of this is incontrovertible.</p>

<p>I’m simply offering a more realistic explanation for how universities work. You seem to be relatively uninformed about how university capital growth works, and that’s something I’ve spent time learning about. Do you disagree that USC must not only exceed the growth of its competitors, but sustain that growth in order to surpass them, which is USC’s explicitly stated goal? Do you disagree with the points that I’m making? If so, you should state why and offer evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>You can choose to believe that Stanford left the NYC competition “to save face” - based on an article from a self-described gossip site that was speculating a few short days after the competition’s end, rather than on an article published a month later in which Stanford’s highest administrators were interviewed. It’s not “selective information, bias and prejudice” to exclude gossip from a news source with no credibility that was released when there was much confusion about what exactly happened. But it’s surprising that you would prefer that outdated speculation, since you’re ostensibly here to get perspective and learn something. (You can lead a horse to water, etc.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is uncontested fact. If you read about the mega-endowments, you’d know that it’s precisely because of a diversified portfolio that they have grown to absurd heights. It’s called the Yale Model:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[David</a> F. Swensen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Swensen#The_Yale_.28or_Endowment.29_Model]David”>David F. Swensen - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>And no, I’m not some insider who wrote that in the article to boost Yale or whathaveyou. ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There are meaningful differences between Stanford and USC; some of them are in Stanford’s favor, some of them are in USC’s favor. However, for the past several posts, you have brought up nothing for which Stanford could be criticized. Further, through rose-tinted glasses you’re exalting USC and then faulting me for supposedly having bias. Notice that I have thus far refrained from calling you biased (you claim that you aren’t, but it’s quite obvious you are), and my ‘biased’ replies are only in response to your off-color claims favoring USC.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, it is you who first put forth that belief, by outright stating you have knowledge and experience that we do not. You called for others to remain respectful, then you yourself patronized other posters. Finally you’ve shown multiple times that you haven’t informed yourself about certain topics - for example, when you suggested with a comically “gotcha!” tone that Stanford would need to raise $26 billion in the next few years (ignoring the normal investment growth), or when you discussed the quiet phase, or recently when you suggested diversification is an “odd” reason for high growth (in reality, this is the very first fact that one learns about why the largest endowments have abnormally high returns).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Then you should focus your efforts where such balance exists; what you’ve focused on, however, factually is in Stanford’s favor. If you want to talk about having a wider range of professional disciplines, then that’s in USC’s favor. If you want to talk about the arts and film studies, that’s in USC’s favor. If you want to talk about access to city life, that’s in USC’s favor. If you want to talk about the benefits of having a highly international student body, that’s in USC’s favor. But topics such as capital growth are not, by any objective standard, in USC’s favor.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please provide credible evidence that contradicts my points, in particular with regard to diversified endowments, capital growth, the quiet phase of a university campaign, the NYC competition, and any other points that you find to be ‘biased’ or ‘untrue.’</p>

<p>FWIW, I wouldn’t sound biased if you weren’t continually rejecting and/or misrepresenting simple reality.</p>

90

<p>P. Thank you. Yes, you are correct. I have no desire to criticize Stanford in any way. Your input is most interesting from a number of perspectives. I believe you have been helpful to the maximum extent possible in fulfilling my goal to differentiate the day-to-day environment of USC and Stanford.</p>

91

<p>Ok. Everyday when I wake up I’m convinced S2 should go to USC with the Trustee Scholarship; and everyday by bedtime I’m convinced Stanford (with no aid) is too good to pass up. I feel like we’re stuck, -like in the movie “Groundhog day.” Unfortunately (and perhaps intentionally) Stanford’s admitted student weekend isn’t until April 26th. The big question remains: Is the Stanford undergraduate education worth $200k more than the USC undergraduate education?</p>

92

<p>The “bedtime” headache should be easier to deal with than the morning one, and your kid should be happier to get what he wants, by using your $. :)</p>

<p>Stanford does it on purpose to make the admit weekend so close to May 1. They try to give you enough time to think over, and if by the admit weekend you are still undecided, you most likely would come to Stanford after admit weekend.</p>

93

<p>"Is the Stanford undergraduate education worth $200k more than the USC undergraduate education? "</p>

<p>I’ve gone to both schools, though at the graduate level. I’d say the answer is “no.”</p>

94

<p>Can you elaborate?</p>

95

<p>To be clear, simba9, you took at least one class at a Stanford grad program, but were never enrolled in a degree program, correct? Of course you can still make the judgment that a Stanford education isn’t worth $200k over USC (as I implied in my first post, though admittedly I’ve never gone to USC), but since you were never a student in a degree program at Stanford, nor did you pursue an undergraduate curriculum, it’s a little misleading to use your background (“gone to both schools”) as evidence of authority.</p>

96

<p>That is a no-brainer. USC full tuition. Duh! (And I have a child at Stanford!)</p>

97

<p>I wish we could’ve been as sure as you are! But for us it was anything but a no-brainer. Only yesterday, when S2 was notified his Trustee Scholarship was upgraded to the Stamps Leadership Scholy did he decide on USC.</p>

<p>How well has Stanford lived up to its reputation for your daughter/son?</p>

98

<p>9, my son has done well at Stanford, and he has enjoyed the experience. That said, I suppose the same would be had he chosen another institution. I will tell you, if he had been offered a full-ride at USC, I would have advised him to take it. I do not believe it is worth the premium over a school like USC.</p>

99

<p>Obviously, there will be a large subjective element for each person when considering whether a certain premium is worth paying for one school versus another. They’ll take into account the student’s interests and plans, the family’s resources and other financial commitments, et al. One thing I would suggest adding to the mix is the fact that, outside of CA, there isn’t yet much awareness of the strides that USC has made in recent years. It takes quite a while for perceptions to catch up. As of now, most people outside of CA think of USC as having a great film school, but don’t otherwise think of it in distinguished terms. So if having the global reputation for across-the-board excellence is very important to you, you would place some measure of premium on that, in addition to many other factors too numerous to list. Stanford and its peer schools are loaded with students who turned down full rides or full tuition offers at other good schools, but only a student and his/her own family can determine whether doing so is the best overall decision in that particular case.</p>

100

<p>zenk, yes, but they’re asking for opinions here. USC has a strong reputation outside of California thanks to the US News & World Report rankings. I live in Texas and have a younger son graduating from HS this year, whose friend chose USC over other strong schools. The question is whether a free education at USC is worth turning down Stanford, and the answer has to be yes. You’re not talking about a 2nd rate school here.</p>