<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I agree with Byerly on those 3 points also. I just don't agree with his criticism of Stanford athletics. :)</p>
<p>Byerly's three points or mine?</p>
<p>collegeperson, i agree with you on the first two but i think the policy of no alumni interviews sets stanford apart in a positive way.</p>
<p>Most schools have alumni interviews for soley the sake of their alumni. The top two things Alumni like to do regarding their school is to gloat about it and feel they are improving/impacting it. What could be better then a meeting with a prospective student who automatically admires you and than being able to cast a verdict on them, shaping admission policy? Despite, im sure, enormous pressure from alumni stanford has maintained the no interview policy. The only reason I can see for them doing this is that they recognise that interviews are inherently unfair to prospective students. Two reasons for this:
1)interviews put undue weight on conversational skills, appearence, etc.
2)interviews allow abuse by alumni to favor family, friends, contacts, etc. Chances are they would not let one interview with, say, one's dad but I have no doubt that many do interview with contact that recommand them over those that are more qualitified. Had I applied to Duke I could have interviewed with my aunt and I have no doubt that I would have gotten a positive rec regardless of highschool or whatever else.</p>
<p>I agree with informational alumni interviews. An alumni interview should be a chance for a student to get to know a school from an alumni's personal experience. It should not alter the admission's decision in any form.</p>
<p>There is no minimum cutoff at HYP.</p>
<p>If you think there is, show the reference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The best way to beat Harvard is not by beating them at the advertising game. It's by actually beating them in reality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but advertising IS reality. At least, it is for the purposes of this discussion. Let's face it. A big reason why Harvard is great is because people think that Harvard is great, so the best students and the best profs want to go there, thereby contributing to Harvard's greatness. In other words, a lot of people are simply attracted to the Harvard name and mystique, and this desire serves to reinforce the Harvard name and mystique. Hence, in many ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. </p>
<p>Besides, Stanford certainly doesn't have its hands clean in this affair. Let's face it. A lot of students (not all, but a lot) at Stanford are there just for the name. So Stanford is also benefitting from the prestige and mystique game. It's just that Harvard's self-fulfilling prophecy is stronger because Harvard has a bigger name.</p>
<p>I'd advocate alumni interviews precisely because it's what the alums want, makes the alums feel good about their school etc... Though Stanford has a few big-name donors, overall participation in giving is a lot lower than at peer insitutions. Stanford could do a lot to help the endowment by engergizing the alumni.</p>
<p>According to US News, Stanford's alumni giving rate is 38%, compared to Harvard's 47% and Princeton's 61%. Why is it so low? (These numbers can be manipulated somewhat, but not for such a large difference.)</p>
<p>I don't know that increasing the giving rate translates directly to higher endowment growth. Stanford's endowment growth is not shoddy at all; it is higher than Yale's, even though Stanford has a lower alumni giving rate. It has to do with the number of very generous donors, not the raw number of donors.</p>
<p>But even without the benefit of endowment growth, I think increasing alumni giving rate is a good thing, and not having a higher rate is troubling.</p>
<p>Endowment growth is also a function of how well it is managed. I don't think the money just sit at some bank.</p>
<p>Stanford's endowment growth is reaching a rate near Harvard's. What's interesting is that even though Stanford alumni don't contribute a huge amount, Stanford is almost always in the top two among overall fundraisers--FY 2004, it raised more than $500 million, not far below Harvard and well above everyone else. A few years ago, the Hewlett-Packard family alone donated $500 million over five years.</p>
<p>So yes, Stanford has big donors, good investment returns (especially with Google), and high endowment growth, etc. etc., all of which is excellent.</p>
<p>What nobody has addressed is: why does Stanford have such a low alumni participation rate?</p>
<p>Come now. I am all for contructive criticism and helping Stanford improve. But nitpicking about alumni giving rate? If Stanford's endowment is growing faster than every other college out there, then why would the alumni giving rate even matter?</p>
<p>This is how you dismiss Stanford's 38% giving rate???</p>
<p>Princeton: 61%
Dartmouth: 49%
Harvard: 47%
Yale: 46%</p>
<p>Washington St. Louis: 39%
Brown: 38%
Cornell: 35%</p>
<p>In most cases, a high giving rate implies a thankful alumni body, and one that has the ability to give. Stanford surely doesn't have a problem with either.</p>
<p>The question then is: what is missing at Stanford? Any constructive insight that contributes to this understanding will be appreciated.</p>
<p>on the subject of athletics: does anyone know if having an athletic record (national schools bronze) in cross country and bronze in an asian triathlon will help in admissions? my perception was that stanford likes football and stuff more?</p>
<p>Stanford's relatively low alumni giving rate is probably attributed to what has been discussed before: alumni interviews. Because Stanford doesn't offer such interviews, alumni feel like they are less involved with the school, and so feel less compelled to donate. In reality though, this doesn't really matter because there are a few enormously wealthy donors, which is why Stanford's fundraising campaigns and endowment growth are quite impressive.</p>
<p>Stanford annually wins the NCAA Director's Cup for the performance of all of its athletes, not just football. If there's one private school in the country that emphasizes the overall success of its varsity athletes, it's Stanford (followed closely by Duke).</p>
<p>These athletes are, however, at the top of their sport. If you're not going to make the varsity (where admissions is much more flexible), your athletic stuff will count as an additional extracurricular--youd still need a hook.</p>
<p>You should continue to think of Stanford, but you might actually look around at other excellent schools where you are more likely to make the varsity teams.</p>
<p>"This is how you dismiss Stanford's 38% giving rate???</p>
<p>Princeton: 61%
Dartmouth: 49%
Harvard: 47%
Yale: 46%</p>
<p>Washington St. Louis: 39%
Brown: 38%
Cornell: 35%</p>
<p>In most cases, a high giving rate implies a thankful alumni body, and one that has the ability to give. Stanford surely doesn't have a problem with either.</p>
<p>The question then is: what is missing at Stanford? Any constructive insight that contributes to this understanding will be appreciated."</p>
<p>I think we have had enough of the Stanford bashing. This is going far beyond contructive criticism. There is nothing "missing" at Stanford. It's one of the greatest schools in the world. It has a extraordinarily good reputation that nobody in their right mind can dispute. Nitpicking on certain miniscule factors like alumni giving rate is just absurd. Princeton's giving rate is a whole lot higher than Harvard's. Does that make Princeton vastly superior to Harvard? I think we can all agree that that is a load of bull. </p>
<p>If any school deserves some flak out of HYPSMC it's Princeton for practicing strategic admissions policies. Yet it has the highest alumni giving rate.</p>
<p>Is there no better response to the question of Stanford's low alumni giving rate than "stop bashing Stanford?"</p>
<p>I would attribute the giving rate primarly to the large engineering % at stanford. It tends to be the case, for whatever reason perhaps that school is just more difficult, that engineering, hard science schools have lower rates. MIT: 37, Caltech: 34, Cornell: 34. None of those schools ranking above stanford have nearly the engineering pop as stanford. </p>
<p>Secondly, the school has changed much in the last 40 years with its rise to elite havened happened much rapidier than any other school. I would not be surprized to find that there had been some growing pains assocated with that but due to large endowment increases and such programs as fresh/soph seminars now funded through the campain for undergraduate education (which ended this year) I think the stanford has now in all respects the same or better education as anywhere else. Thus as time progresses I would expect that rate to increase.</p>
<p>Some other issues are stanford has a larger minority population than some other schools and minorities tend to give less (Not my conculsion but I read this from a credible source (wish i could remember where) and it seems to be well accepted). An artifical sense of belonging increases one's feeling that they have an obligation to donate which might explain why the ivy well known for its clicish eating club scene is the highest (princeton) and ivy that had a large greek scene is abnormally high (dartmouth).</p>
<p>Lastly, this issue was first put forth as if stanford had a problem which is really not a fair way of framing the issue. The difference in percentage between princeton and havard is the same as between harvard and stanford yet there was no issue made of that. stanford still has one of the highest giving rates in the country, in the top ten. If stanford has the problem it is also a problem with mit, caltech, brown, etc.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I know this thing is riddled with typos, its late</p>
<p>Thanks cleareyedguy! you cleared things up for me. :) oh yea would u be able to enlighten me on what exactly constitutes getting on a varsity team? representing your country, sortof national level stuff?</p>