Why are people in the northeast so ignorant of Stanford?

<p>It’s not that your message is necessarily wrong; it’s the way that you’re relaying that message. You clearly aren’t here to inform people, but just to criticize Stanford. This “supportive and educative” presentation is a cover for your real motive. For example, you only link to articles that are agreeing with the New Yorker article. Did you perhaps see these?</p>

<p>[In</a> Defense of Stanford University - Businessweek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)
[Stanford</a>, Silicon Valley, and John Hennessy’s Real Legacy | PandoDaily](<a href=“http://pandodaily.com/2012/04/30/stanford-silicon-valley-and-john-hennessys-real-legacy/]Stanford”>http://pandodaily.com/2012/04/30/stanford-silicon-valley-and-john-hennessys-real-legacy/)
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1330599-get-rich-u.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1330599-get-rich-u.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The New Yorker hasn’t been able to establish how the relationship with Silicon Valley is “unhealthy.” Less than half of Stanford’s graduating class is in a STEM field. What is your response to this?</p>

<p>I’m guessing you haven’t been watching Silicon Valley for very long. Negative articles about it have been around since it began. There are always detractors.</p>

<p>The products of SV’s mature companies are running afoul of ethical and societal privacy issues. Google maps engineers taking private data from routers, privacy issues surrounding Facebook, Apple’s relationship to its near and far neighbors in California with regard to tax evasion to mention just a few in recent headlines. It does not seem Stanford is impacting its industrial partners as one would expect with such a strong symbiotic relationship. It is likely difficult to temper the entrepreneurial spirit of for profit corporations to avoid the conflicts emerging. </p>

<p>In the Finance world, witness JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and MFGlobal. JPM and GS enjoyed top status until recently. If there was a UNNWR ranking for banks they’d be number 1 and 2 in the US. it would appear their entrepreneurial spirit, untempered by ethical and societal concerns, involving the T and M aspects of STEM contributed to a very rapid fall from grace through proprietary trading with grandma’s money.</p>

<p>I am not suggesting Stanford is responsible for what Apple or Google does, but close partnerships and inviting a corporate culture onto a university requires very careful efforts to balance it and avoid recognized pitfalls. Mid 40% of STEM declared majors is high compared to Harvard and Yale. Whether the humanity areas are strong enough, not to win a high ranking on USNWR, but to balance the drive for monetary success in a university setting that has embraced entrepreneurialism with corporate partners is the focus of concern in the articles cited.</p>

<p>Though Stanford’s humanities programs are extremely highly-ranked in every source I’ve seen, I have no need to rely on rankings because I have plenty of personal experience. The humanities courses I’ve taken here have been uniformly excellent, whether in lit, poetry, philosophy, or linguistics. There are centers and institutes focused purely on humanities and others on the intersection of humanities with other disciplines. There are also ongoing colloquia, forums, and visiting renowned novelists, playwrights and screenwriters. Stanford produced five Rhodes Scholars last year alone, only one of whom was an engineering grad.</p>

<p>It’s easy, and very intellectually lazy, to succumb to the idea that one aspect of a complex phenomenon is the defining one. (That’s known as a false synecdoche among logicians.) It’s especially easy to succumb to that notion when there is disproportionate media attention on the splashier, “sexier” component. I’ve found Stanford’s humanities offerings to be just as fine as the STEM ones I’ve taken, and the faculty is entirely devoted to continually developing them. Among their objectives is to ensure that study of the humanities at Stanford shines a light on what the goals and societal benefits of technology should be. : )</p>

<p>Also, interesting to note: Yale is devoting tons of resources and time to increasing its STEM offerings and student population. In Cambridge, STEM-oriented students gravitate to MIT, though Harvard has plenty of top math and physics students.</p>

<p>“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!” (zenkoan)</p>

<p>i appreciate your perspective and it is good to see a rapid on-campus response to the New Yorker article: </p>

<p>Is Silicon Valley Swallowing Stanford University?
<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/05/14/editorial-the-precarious-relationship-between-stanford-and-silicon-valley[/url]”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/05/14/editorial-the-precarious-relationship-between-stanford-and-silicon-valley&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Stanford editorial seems to suggest your level of confidence is not uniformly shared on campus. But what of the universities partnering with corporate groups who are not showing a balance between drive for profit at any cost and good citizenship? There seems to have been little salutary effect of the presumed humanities tempered entrepreneurship in the classroom on corporate partners. </p>

<p>If the New Yorker and Washington Monthly articles are correct, students are teaming with faculty and each other or individually to create marketable products. Which ethic seems to predominate–the corporate or ethics side of the industry/university entrepreneurial partnership?</p>

<p>As I indicated before, given past history, current students are the SV employees of the future. Will there be less “router data thefting” or will the economic “success” of an Apple at the expense of the broader community be emulated? Are you at all concerned that the corporate entrepreneurial culture of profit over citizenship might influence those working side by side in the university setting and have a corrosive effect? Where do you see the safeguards?</p>

<p>I don’t find that the editorials in the Daily often reflect my POV or that of my friends. (Trenchant analysis isn’t their strong suit.) Most of the people I know here do share my sense of optimism, since we’re actually here and immersed in all aspects of the experience, rather than relying on brief glimpses from the outside. </p>

<p>Some students do work collaboratively with faculty to create marketable products. However, it isn’t correct to assume that they are all for profit. Many of these collaborations result in items such as inexpensive solutions to water access in sub-Saharan African areas; low-cost, portable incubators for babies born in remote villages; inexpensive, scalable solar panels for equatorial countries; and many other things. Certainly there are also some groups developing for-profit products and systems, and others creating intellectual property from which they may benefit, as at many universities. (Stanford generally retains rights for IP developed on campus by its affiliates, though.) But the overall picture is much more diverse, and much more focused on social benefit, than some media accounts indicate, since it’s easier to just take a narrow angle and go with it for the sake of a story.</p>

<p>The main balance against excess corporate influence is the always-ongoing dialogue about the subject among the various constituent groups here. As I said, the synergistic power between Stanford and SV is a long-standing phenomenon, even if it only recently became the “story du jour” in some of the popular press. People here have long been aware that such power requires conscientious stewardship as the university grows in its influence. Due to its future orientation and its vast array of academic strengths, Stanford is, IMO, best equipped of any university to meet the countless challenges of the 21st century–including challenges to the historical model of higher education itself. That’s one of the main reasons I’m here.</p>

<p>Stanford is the Harvard of the west .</p>

<p>My mom has that opinion as well, and she has two degrees from Harvard so I guess she has some basis for that. Based on my visits to H I think Stanford’s a little friendlier and more secure in feel, but overall much more similar than different in significant ways.</p>

<p>BengalTiger234 to answer your question about the bitterness is because stanford was not an original ivy. The originals were Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth. </p>

<p><a href=“http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_league[/url]”>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_league&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And since these are all in the Northeast, any other name mentioned as an ivy uneases people from the northeast.</p>

<p>Zenkoan, you are an excellent spokesperson for and a credit to Stanford. Your mom has every reason to be very proud of you as well as her own educational attainments. The humanitarian projects you mention are extremely valuable as learning experiences and to serve the needs of the beneficiaries. The benefits to all are clear, unambiguous and readily accomplished by a university with such a substantial endowment. </p>

<p>What percentage of efforts do you suppose are humanitarian in nature versus for profit and of less substantial societal benefit? </p>

<p>I realize the close relationship between Stanford and SV is a longstanding one and therein lies the crucial point. The emergence of corporatism with its undesirable features has accelerated to a marked degree and level in the past decade or two. The gap between worker and CEO/executive compensation has risen exponentially, wealth has become increasingly concentrated among a smaller and smaller group whose wealth increase far outstrips all economic strata below. Profit at any cost including disregarding societal norms is becoming all too commonplace including tax evasion to the detriment of public education and health care: </p>

<p>“Apple Evades Billions in Corporate Taxes”
[Apple</a> Evades Billions in Corporate Taxes, NY Times… - Silobreaker](<a href=“http://www.silobreaker.com/apple-evades-billions-in-corporate-taxes-ny-times-reports-5_2265657155224862815]Apple”>http://www.silobreaker.com/apple-evades-billions-in-corporate-taxes-ny-times-reports-5_2265657155224862815)</p>

<p>and acts of dishonesty and extreme self-interest:
“CEO’s Gone Wild: What’s Wrong with Corporate America?”
[CEOs</a> Gone Wild: What’s Wrong With Corporate America? - TheStreet](<a href=“http://www.thestreet.com/story/11538703/1/ceos-gone-wild-whats-wrong-with-corporate-america.html]CEOs”>http://www.thestreet.com/story/11538703/1/ceos-gone-wild-whats-wrong-with-corporate-america.html) </p>

<p>The corporate ethic or lack thereof has become increasingly at odds with society and what represents the best of what our society offers, our great universities. I say with all sympathy that I believe Stanford confronted the fray and value clash of its experience base and the ethic of those involved in large scale development in the NYC venture.</p>

<p>If you can accept the premise that corporate America is not seen as serving the common good and functions with different assumptions and values than academic institutions such that even as dominant an institution as Stanford was unable to be successful in completing its vision, several concerns for corporate cooperative ventures in entrepreneurship follow: </p>

<p>It may be difficult to maintain the university’s values and objectives in the face of value clashes with the corporate culture. While it seems comforting to you that ongoing dialogue can keep corporate culture in check, evidence suggests otherwise. The combination of the SEC, Congress and the FBI have had little impact on the banking industry as witnessed by the 2008 debacle, more recently MFGlobal and currently the 2 billion dollars, soon to likely double, of bank depositor funds lost in a heartbeat by JPMorgan. I may be unaware, but I do not think there is any external oversight, certainly non with any power of the cooperative university/corporate entrepreneurial programs. At best, these partnerships, given the current status of tech bell weathers, seems a distraction to providing undergraduate education and at worst a recipe for tainting the university with some of the negative reputation developing for tech companies Stanford is partnering with. </p>

<p>Extremly useful educational objectives can be readily obtained for students with the humanitarian projects you outlined. Stanford doesn’t really need the money for its rich endowment. What then is the point of the university/corporate partnerships at this point in history and who is benefiting?</p>

<p>The concerns you have (widening wealth gap, the removal of executive leadership from workers, and the like) are not specific at all to the tech industry. That’s a growing trend of the entire world. Again, none of it has to do with any one university, and it isn’t fair of you to try to single Stanford out.</p>

<p>“Mid-40% of STEM majors is high compared to Harvard and Yale” is not a valid response to what I mentioned. So what if it’s higher than Harvard and Yale? They are known for having more students in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. This “high percent” still means that the majority of students are not graduating in a STEM field.</p>

<p>For the record, Stanford places high importance on ethics education. The founders were explicit about this. Consequently, Stanford requires two citizenship classes in areas like ethical reasoning in order for students to graduate. Furthermore, the engineering school, which is Stanford’s traditional link to Silicon Valley, requires all students to take a “science, technology, and society” class, which is more or less an ethics class to put students’ knowledge in context.</p>

<p>docfreedaddy, Stanford is no more or less ethical than any other university, including USC. </p>

<p>Why are you holding Stanford responsible for the evils of corporate America?</p>

<p>“The concerns you have (widening wealth gap, the removal of executive leadership from workers, and the like) are not specific at all to the tech industry. That’s a growing trend of the entire world. Again, none of it has to do with any one university, and it isn’t fair of you to try to single Stanford out.”</p>

<p>“Why are you holding Stanford responsible for the evils of corporate America?”</p>

<p>I appreciate your questions. The issues I raised are complex and I want to be perfectly clear. You may well still disagree with me and that is fine, but at least you will understand my concerns.</p>

<p>Yes, the “evils” of corporate America (profit at any cost, disregard for the environment and the public good to name a few) are by no means exclusive to the Tech industry. In fact, two decades ago, as Stanford’s financial and business relationship with the tech industry was accelerating, the tech industry was not thought of at all as in any way “evil” as other industries were, but rather a societally friendly industry that held great promise to address problems of diminishing resources, illness, communication possibilites to name a few. </p>

<p>The introduction of the PC, for example, revolutionized households. There was a time without the internet, as bizarre as that must seem to most of you. These two innovations changed drastically life for many. Most, including me, would consider these extremely positive tech advances.</p>

<p>Twenty years ago, certainly during the time Hewlett and Packard Halls were being named, the tech industry was in a robust, exciting adolescence. Welcoming tech bell weathers onto the Stanford campus seemed to enhance the stature of each and most certainly Stanford’s endowments. But, the tech industry has matured, is displaying the underside of industry culture and has become in that regard more like other industries.</p>

<p>While I expect financial industries or energy industries to evade taxes, it still is a bit shocking to me for Apple to be doing so, maybe not to you, but shocking to me. In part this is because of the creative nature of Apple and the idealism and zeal so many, especially college and high school students have for their products. Apple does not seem a company that would avoid paying their fair share of taxes which will significantly hurt the very public high school and college students due to necessary education budget cuts who so revere Apple and line up at each rollout to buy their new product. </p>

<p>By my calculations from published figures, if Apple had not evaded the 2.3 billion dollars in taxes it owes the State of California for 2011, the California overall cumulative budget shortfall would be about 13% less. If Apple had been paying taxes all along, there likely would be no deficit at all. Does inviting Apple and its current corporate values into the heart of the Stanford culture still make sense for Stanford as it did when Apple was a revered start up Golden Apple?</p>

<p>Google, another close partner with Stanford, is dealing with very significant privacy issues for photographing every street and home throughout much of the world without the knowledge or consent of those whose homes were photographed. I personally have no issue with it, but many do. What is less known at this point is the engineers also developed software to “steal” personal data from home routers as they drove by–not only real time, but stored data. This is another of Stanford’s entrepreneurial partners and presumably a substantial donor. At what point does the close association with companies that are now mainstream corporate no longer serve Stanford or society?</p>

<p>It is clear the goals of most corporations is profit for its shareholders and not the betterment of society or addressing societies’ very considerable problems which my daughter and those of you in college and high school will have to grapple with. Universities, especially great ones like Stanford, potentially have the luxury and resources to explore solutions to problems of alternative energy, global warming, poverty in developing nations and even non-violent conflict resolution among individuals and nations to name a few.</p>

<p>Zenkoan described above a number of exceptional projects from the d.school that are undoubtedly excellent learning experiences of technical skills and of benefit to humanity. </p>

<p>“Some students do work collaboratively with faculty to create marketable products. However, it isn’t correct to assume that they are all for profit. Many of these collaborations result in items such as inexpensive solutions to water access in sub-Saharan African areas; low-cost, portable incubators for babies born in remote villages; inexpensive, scalable solar panels for equatorial countries; and many other things.” </p>

<p>These projects fit well into the belief a university is the last refuge for intellectual and values development before entering the world of “corporate values”. Some, including me, questions the wisdom of enmeshing current Tech bell weaher corporate values with a university culture as illustrated from this quote from the recent Atlantic Monthly article, “Stanford, Inc.”: </p>

<p>"David Kennedy, a Stanford historian, explained to Auletta that he “there are not nearly enough students devoted to the liberal arts and to the idea of pure learning. ‘The entire Bay Area is enamored with these notions of innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, mega-success,’ he says. ‘It’s in the air we breathe out here. It’s an atmosphere that can be toxic to the mission of the university as a place of refuge, contemplation, and investigation for its own sake.”</p>

<p>Some suggest the proportion of entrepreneurship devoted to societal enriching products relative to pure profit at Stanford is small: </p>

<p>"As tech-journalist Hermione Way wrote in 2011, “Everyone [in the Valley] is doing something amazing and trying to change the world, but in reality much of the technology being built here is not changing the world at all, it’s short-sighted and designed for scalability, big exits and big profits.” </p>

<p>Yes, my values are such that I do encourage assisting some the the best and brightest young STEM minds to develop a desire and ability to tackle world problems while at Stanford and other universities simply because no one anywhere else has the resources or opportunity to so readily do it. I view it desirable for faculty to take sabbatical and students time off to commit time and talent to developing for profit enterprises to preserve and optimize the unique and time-limited opportunities in one’s life at a university. </p>

<p>But from a self-preservation perspective, I do see early warning signs that the public perception and educational benefits of the entrepreneurial partnership between Stanford and SV, as well as the insidious creep of corporate “profit values” into the Stanford atmosphere no longer serves Stanford and its students as it once did as the Tech culture has become a corporate one. </p>

<p>Projects such as those from the d.school seem to serve every conceivable educational objective for Stanford and enhance its stature. It appears to me the entrepreneurial corporate culture detracts, so again I will ask, who and what interests is it serving?</p>

<p>I apologize if I seem to be singling out Stanford. Stanford is unique in its location, quality and deep connections with SV companies and I have considerable firsthand experience with Stanford. The experience of a somewhat unusual university atmosphere and the seemingly uncritical emphasis and promotion of corporate entrepreneurship by Stanford’s administration, most notably during the admit weekend keynote address, raised my curiosity. To the extent a similar situation exists at other universities, my concerns apply there as well. Stanford is a great university. My desire is that it continue to be great and serve the needs and challenges its students will face in the world in the decades ahead.</p>