<p>“Fact: Stanford didn’t come to prominence “recently” - it was considered to be one of the best universities for over a century, which is why in 1900 it was one of the 12 founding members of the Association of American Universities (along with most Ivies, Chicago, etc.);”</p>
<p>I don’t know, phantasmagoric. I was listening to someone who got their Stanford degree in the 40s, and he mentioned that back then, Stanford and Santa Clara University were considered peers. It wasn’t until after WW II that Stanford started developing a reputation.</p>
<p>I grew up in the Midwest, and had no idea that Stanford or Berkeley were considered prestigious. I’d never even heard of Caltech. The only west coast schools we knew were USC for football and UCLA for basketball.</p>
<p>^ As I said, search the Google news archives for rankings from the 1940s and 50s. Stanford was in the top 6-8 by multiple rankings. It makes sense, given that its first student went on to become president. And in the early 1900s, Stanford was better-endowed than Harvard by a factor of 5. Stanford was extremely well-known back then, which is why it was one of the founding members of the AAU. In the 1950s, its acceptance rate was around 20%, it boasted high numbers of National Merit students, etc. I found all this info from the news archives, though I don’t have the time or the will to find them again. If you restrict it by date and search the relevant terms, the top hits should be the ones you’re looking for.</p>
<p>In short, yes, Stanford’s prestige exploded after 1960 (and the founding of Silicon Valley), but it was already very prestigious before that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m also from the Midwest, and I knew they were prestigious. I didn’t know about Caltech, though.</p>
<p>this is kind of awkward because i live in the northeast and stanford is a really respected school and many people dont think they could ever get in</p>
<p>Many will agree that Stanford’s prestige grew with Silicon Valley. There are likely close parallels between the growth of dynamic SV companies such as Apple, more recently Facebook and Google and Stanford’s endowment growth and cooperative entrepreneurial ventures. Both Stanford and SV seem to have reached maturity together. Maturity of prominent SV companies has brought out a dark side of conflict and even disregard for what is good for society beyond company profit. Hopefully, this will serve as a warning to Stanford and a possible adjustment of their relationship with SV. </p>
<p>A few examples: Apple has been chided for work conditions abroad and most recently setting up a 5 person office in Reno for tax evasion in California to the tune of a couple of billion dollars. Yes, that is billion with a “B”. The President of DeAnza College, neighbors of Apple, wrote a piece deploring Apple’s treatment of its near neighbor. Apple’s kids often attend DeAnza, there is much community overlap. Deanza and all California public school institutions (UCLA, Berkeley, public elementary, middle and high schools) are in dire economic straights and could well use Apple paying its fair share of taxes. A council woman from Cupertino gently queried Jobs who responded to the effect, "if you don’t like it, we will move Apple somewhere else.</p>
<p>Here is the issue for Stanford. While Apple continues to evade taxes intended for the public good, Apple provided a $50,000,000 donation to Stanford. Stanford accepted. Was that a wise choice?</p>
<p>Google is in hot water for Maps, Facebook for privacy issues–the bloom is off the rose for pure tech advances as ethical and moral issues are seemingly not considered by these very successful SV companies or individuals in them. This is a wonderful opportunity, really a necessity, for Stanford to assume a leadership role in educating its undergraduate and graduate STEM majors and the SV/Tech community in basics of ethics and humanities issues that have current impact. The relationship between Stanford and SV/Tech seems so intertwined that negative sentiment toward STech may impact sentiment toward Stanford. It would have been a wise and laudable act had Stanford refused the $50,000,000 from Apple or accepted it and directed it back to those public educational institutions who not only don’t have a war chest of endowments, but cannot meet their bare bones budget requirements.</p>
<p>Every company, small or large, will exploit tax law for their own gain. That’s simply the nature of tax law. Every person filling out taxes will taxes will try to find deductions in their favor, and it’s no different for large companies.</p>
<p>Why are you passing judgment on Stanford for what SV companies are doing? Would ANY university turn down a $50 million donation? Any?</p>
<p>LOL, docfreedaddy–this is basically the same thing you posted in the USC forum, where your statements about how Stanford is "worried about USC " were met with amazed laughter even from lots of USC students, who pointed out that you sound delusional. I didn’t comment in that forum–I almost never post in other schools’ forums, since Stanford is the only school I feel qualified to comment about–but since you’re back here in our forum, I’ll say I think you’re behaving in a trollish fashion now and only embarrassing yourself. If you’re comfortable with your decision to have your child attend USC on the merit scholarship, then there’s no need for you to keep devoting yourself to thinking up ways to disparage other schools. And, I can assure you that no one in the Stanford community, or anyone considering joining it, depends on your “public service announcements” about Stanford’s relationship with Silicon Valley. Of course that relationship can be a double-edged sword, and that relationship is constantly discussed, re-evaluated, and evolving. There has long been lots of healthy debate among various Stanford constitutents about the symbiosis with the Valley, and it will no doubt continue.</p>
<p>I won’t be responding to any further posts from you, but wish you and your family all the best with USC. Cheers.</p>
<p>Lol you have it easy. Try telling people you got into Penn. The first thing they say is “congratulations on Penn State!”
<em>sigh</em>
Sent from my ADR6300 using CC</p>
<p>I am surprised at the lack of openness and how easily unsettled some student factions are at Stanford, as well as the hostile responding, name calling and territorial mentality (our school’s forum).</p>
<p>I view college as a time to be exposed to ideas that don’t always fit your preconceptions or beliefs. I have written nothing with the intent of disparaging Stanford, quite the contrary, and view your response as quite odd and not what I would expect from a Stanford student.</p>
<p>docfreedaddy, I may have “missed the point” because you didn’t really seem to have a point. </p>
<p>I see that you post a lot in the Stanford forum, but only to criticize it. Do you have a bone to pick with the school? If your child does not attend Stanford, why do you devote so much time on this forum? You shouldn’t be surprised that people here defend their school when you frequently criticize it, especially when those criticisms are unfair or don’t make sense. My guess is that you have some kind of internal conflict about Stanford; I would recommend that you resolve this without putting down other people or the school.</p>
<p>You seemed to go much further than that, arguing that Apple and Stanford have some kind of immoral connection. I hope you see why this doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>Google and Apple would seems to be ideal employers for Stanford engineering graduates. These and other great companies would be fortunate to have Stanford graduate. The Google engineers who elected to snatch personal from routers while doing Google mapping were likely excellent technical engineers educated at top universities. They were insensitive to the ethical issues and adverse societal impact of their actions, yet excellent, innovative engineers. I mention this in a supportive way as those reading cc for the most part are the generation to sort these issues out and great universities such as Stanford are in a position to provide leadership.</p>
<p>Many in California are about to feel the sting of public school budget cuts producing layoffs, crowded classrooms and insufficient supplies. At the college and university level, tuition will likely be raised again, courses cut, well-liked non-tenured professors let go to the ire of students and parents. Stanford and Apple, for instance do have a relationship related to the recent $50,000,000 endowment and most likely numerous other ways. I think it is difficult to appreciate the impact of public perception while on the Farm. As you can read in ongoing news stories, there is growing discontent with several tech bell weathers. It is by no means a groundswell, but it is growing. </p>
<p>The Apple tax evasion and its impact on public education funding has been commented upon negatively in the press. This is but another non-STEM issue which Stanford can address in the classroom and with the world outside of Stanford. Assuming zenkoan is in a position to know, Stanford is addressing these issues in a manner to increase its stature. Reputation is enhanced or marred by non-academic events. The NY campus event placed Stanford on the map back East and in the fore of public consciousness to the extent someone raised the issues to the acting Provost as a question during the keynote admit weekend address.</p>
<p>Try to be less defensive. Friends can provide useful input, even if they are not at the Farm. I greatly value education and think Stanford is a treasured resource. I also think being able to engage in dialogue with those who have a slightly different perspective is essential to not perpetuate mistakes such as the Google engineers made and some would say Apple is making by evading taxes paid to California at a time when public education and health services are severely threatened.</p>
<p>doc–as I said, I have no interest whatsoever in engaging with you further, and have not called you names, etc. I have simply reported here the responses you received in the USC forum, because even over there people have told you your statements were ridiculous. Most of your posts are, unfortunately, helpful to precisely no one. But if you choose to persist here anyway, that’s your call. You’ll just be ignored. There’s no territoriality involved, just a desire for a forum free of bs.</p>
<p>I agree that Apple should be paying more in taxes, but trying to link Stanford to the corporate misdeeds of a company that gave it money is a big stretch. Since you’re affiliated with USC: did you know that the $200 million donation that USC received from Dornsife was money made from Herrick Corporation, the largest West Coast steel producer, which has had its own fair share of corporate misdeeds? The Mork family made their money from the Energy Corporation of America, which has been criticized for environmental destruction; they donated $110 million. Should USC have declined those gifts? </p>
<p>For that matter, plenty of schools have roots in dirty money, including Stanford, University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon University, and Duke University. All of them were founded by or have strong ties to robber barons (railroad, steel, tobacco, etc.). For shame!</p>
<p>Are you really trying to help students? It seems more like you’re just trying to criticize Stanford in any way you can.</p>
<p>Stanford is a top tier school and likely holds itself to the highest standards. Your point is well taken that there is a lot of dirty money in the USA. If some of that money is going to higher education, at least it is being put to good use. The unique situation for Stanford is its overall parallel in growth along with SC/Tech and its close association of faculty, research, SV/tech industry focus and endowments from SV/Tech. This strong relationship is not that clear in the industries and universities you cite above.</p>
<p>The energy industry has long had a negative reputation among those environmentally sensitive. Tech has been the favored child of American industry, but that is changing in adulthood. Further, the types of issues for Tech companies that are causing problems are the ethical and societal implementation of engineering advances, the latter the heart and soul of Stanford, MIT, CalPoly, etc. </p>
<p>This thread topic involved Stanford’s reputation on the East Coast. Perhaps having a connection both to graduate education and the world at large (for quite a number of years) provides a different perspective. I agree there is double edged sword with Stanford’s very close association with SV as SV companies and their STEM feats are carried now in news stories that are quite negative to specific SV/Tech companies on a near daily basis.</p>
<p>I would have thought these issues would be foremost in Stanford’s students minds and classes as they will seemingly become a significant focus for the coming decades of applied STEM. The world at large is much more concerned with violations of their privacy by tech products and tax evasion threatening sufficient support for public education than it is with USNWR rankings. There are considerations which never crossed the minds of Google map engineers, or SMART meter developers, for example, which are quite consequential to the public. You are soon to be the next generation of STEM innovators. The ethical and societal acceptance issues of STEM innovations seems an important education focus, as is the reputation impact of insensitivity to these issues. I am surprised raising these issues to Stanford students is viewed as a criticism. The issues are real, present, and particularly relevant to STEM majors and their fine university which is deeply involved in STEM developments and the STEM industry.</p>
<p>Given how great Stanford is and how fiercely loyal to the school its CC posters are, the level of insecurity manifested on this forum is astounding. I guess some people really do attend simply because of an obsession with prestige. Most folks at Harvard don’t seem to be wasting alot of time trashing other colleges.</p>
<p>“docfreedaddy, I may have “missed the point” because you didn’t really seem to have a point,” nmf1102</p>
<p>“doc–as I said, I have no interest whatsoever in engaging with you further, and have not called you names, etc. I have simply reported here the responses you received in the USC forum, because even over there people have told you your statements were ridiculous”.
zenkoan</p>
<p>The comments I made referred to potential concerns with the relationship between Stanford and Silicon Valley evident from time spent on campus observing students and listening to faculty. I think it is surprising that you choose to “kill then messenger” because you don’t like the message. I noted today others have the same concerns and similar message including the venerable New Yorker magazine:</p>
<p>While I do not want to generalize from a few posters to all students, the combination of the markedly defensive and aggressive posts and the above articles, especially the Stanford Daily editorial, reinforces my various concerns I raised, as well as in the articles about the degree of true breadth and direction of an “entrepreneurial education”. I presented my concerns in a supportive and educative fashion, yet oddly they were perceived as isolated and “delusional”. The article cited clearly suggest otherwise. I will repeat my thesis: Entrepreneurial STEM advances need to be balanced by a strong breadth of sensitivity to ethical and societal needs as evidenced by the conflicts Google and Apple, companies that share a close, multifaceted relationship with Stanford, have become embroiled in. Stanford is in an excellent position to and needs to provide leadership in the non-technical, as well as the technical aspect of education and innovation implementation.</p>
<p>Nope. “Delusional” was among the unflattering terms applied to docfree in the USC forum when he made numerous statements there that inspired the term. But “don’t shoot the messenger”. ; )</p>
<p>What’s most amusing to me here is the supposed premise that we at Stanford need to be informed about our very powerful symbiotic relationship with our own community, and about our responsibilities with respect to that relationship. This has been the subject of thoughtful, ongoing dialogue among all of Stanford’s constituent groups for years, very long before the recent spate of press attention devoted to it, and it will continue as that relationship evolves. Many others, including the mayor of NYC, are very eager to emulate the synergies that Stanford enjoys with its surrounding community. We’re well aware that responsibilities come with this kind of power, and there are lots of smart, conscientious folks in every corner of our university deeply involved in guiding us in the exercise of it. But, thanks for the heads-up! ; )</p>
I didn’t know about Caltech, though.</p>