<p>
</p>
<p>SeattleW, I’ve also read the article, and I didn’t see that suggestion anywhere. I’m not saying you’re trying to criticize Stanford here, just that I’ve never heard the suggestion (not even from Stanford students who criticize its relationship with SV) that professors are somehow using their students for investment opportunities. I can’t find anything in the New Yorker article that makes that charge, either.</p>
<p>It’s definitely true that USC didn’t have the financial backing at its founding. Having a strong fiscal origin always bodes well for the university. Comparing it to the others that did, however, is a little misleading. Vanderbilt has had money, but still isn’t among the ‘super-elite.’ Chicago is elite, of course, but not nearly at the HYPS level (Chicago holds the record for being the best-endowed at founding). Duke secured a larger endowment long after its founding, but still didn’t rise to the top 10 until recent decades. Stanford is unique in its situation because of the 1906 earthquake: the campus was very expensive to build in the first place and then had to be re-built (and as a result, its financial backing was depleted, and it had to start charging tuition).</p>
<p>Still, the development of USC, Chicago, Stanford, etc. has been strong regardless and occurred piecemeal over the decades. All of them seem to be accelerating more recently, so it will be interesting to see where this growth leads them.</p>