<p>I’m an American too, and think this entire discussion is silly.</p>
<p>college972, in this day and age people of ALL ages go to college or university. It is no longer just for young people. There is no reason to say you are too old to get more education. I have heard of people much much older than you go to school.</p>
<p>You say you would “prefer schooling in the UK”, but at the same time you are chiding UK schools for not managing their property the way Stanford does. If Stanford better represents what you are looking for, then go to Stanford.</p>
<p>I think we can expect that Oxford and Cambridge ARE managing their property in what they consider the best interests of their respective universities. Cambridge has been in existence for over 800 years, and Oxford for over 900 years (lengths of time that most Americans find difficult to even conceive of), and in that time they have had plenty of time to discuss what the best interests of their universities are. They may not define those interests the way you would define them, or the way Stanford defines them.</p>
<p>Different cultures, and different nations, really DO have different values and different ways of behaving. But most people don’t really understand that until they have actually lived in another country. Which is one of the greatest values in studying abroad.</p>
<p>I agree that this discussion is silly, but that is because the original post was silly, and any attempt made to respond to it just lead to more silliness. What would have happened if we had all just responded by saying “Your post is silly!” instead of trying to help the OP figure out for himself that it was silly?</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<p>I am a woman. I have a family to take care of, and i am not strong enough financial to go to college, nor am i smart for college. I will agree this topic has become rather silly, but that was not my intention. I just used Stanford as a reference. I know Oxbridge has been around for awhile, i love Oxford, and i do not want it to change. Nothing is wrong strengthening one’s endowment, that is why they should not sell any of their property. This is my opinion, so i would prefer not to be called silly. I speak out of passion for the school.</p>
<p>The former vice chancellor, John Hood wanted to make Oxford resourceful like Harvard, so Oxford would not lose potential students/professors to U.S. schools due to students being able to have a free ride, and professors are being paid more. He wanted Oxford to be even more competitive, and even asked why can’t Oxford have the money or resources like Harvard. This is what lead to my original post because i understand where he is coming from, hope this clears some things up to why my post came across as silly/chiding.</p>
<p>The land is part of the endowment. Selling it would weaken, not strengthen, the endowment. Endowments are not restricted to cash, stocks or bonds. The term refers to anything that generates income for the university. (That income will likely go to the university’s operating budget, but could in theory also go back into the endowment if there is a surplus.)</p>
<p>Endowment size is misleading. Budget size is a better indicator. US colleges with large operating budgets derive large proportions of said budget from endowment income, but what difference would it make if the money came from somewhere else - like government grants? Which would be “bigger” or “richer” - a college with ten billion dollars of endowment and a one billion dollar annual budget or a college with five billion in the endowment and a two billion dollar budget?</p>
<p>OP, stop worrying about Oxford. Their model differs a great deal from Harvard’s but they are going to be just fine.</p>