Stanford and Silicon Valley

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all

"...so many [Stf students] will take the exhortation to occupy Wall Street quite literally after graduation. So before making any decision, we ask one, very simple question: What will I get out of it?”- Stf senior in the Daily

Despite the title, this article is more of a guided tour of Stf rather than criticism of Stf's ties to business (apart from the obvious C.O.I. implications and threat to the "pure learning and personal growth" objective of a college education, but these are not unique to Stf). I do think that there is legit concern that Stf is becoming too monolithic and engineering-heavy, but that's where the $ and headline-grabbing innovation is happening.

--------

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201206051000

The guest did mention that for East Coast schools, people would cry foul if a president/chancellor had such overt ties to companies as Hennessey does (if only he had ties to Hennessey Cognac and LVMH group!). Not sure what he bases that on, but at Stf I guess it's no biggie. Every big shot there who isn't a Spanish prof has some connections to some company.

The guest also compared how Cal's endowment is miniscule compared to Stf's, and Stf on paper is actually more racially diverse than Cal. But that doesn't take economic class into account. I am sure that you fellow alum would agree that while Stf had many people of color and foreigners, they (we) often came from upper-middle-class to rich backgrounds. So they (we) probably have more in common culturally with wealthy whites than with rural and/or poor minorities (who may have trouble adjusting to the Stf scene?). A good % of students at Cal are the first in their families to enroll in a top school, or even college in general. UC is more of a way to move up in society, whereas Stf is for the kids of people who have already made it (stereotype I know). 

---------

When the host (Dave Iverson, also a Stanford graduate) stated that Stanford is more diverse than Cal my thought was the same (that the measure of diversity being relied upon to make the claim is not multi-dimensional); nevertheless, it's not the type of claim I would expect to hear on NPR!

I think your email brings up an interesting point... but that point might be transient.  At present Stanford might actually be more affordable for low-income families; given the ties to industry and the alumni network it might also be more likely to afford a given individual a "leg-up" in the world.  Of course, if the "Middle Class Scholarship Act" is passed the reality would be closer to the historical truth.

--------

Reflecting on the classmates I met at Stf, my family was probably in the bottom quartile of wealth there, and you know that I had a fairly comfortable childhood. But privileged upbringings don't necessarily lead to social and self awareness. College is a good time to develop that as part of the maturation process, so spending 4 years in the "Stf-Paly bubble" may actually be a handicap for the rest of the student's life. But since Stf alum usually have financial means, they often can afford to engage in supplemental self-discovery activities like traveling the world, volunteering, and/or attending grad-professional schools - while public school students may need to rush into the rat race (if they're lucky enough to land a job) to support their families and pay back loans.

If business and political forces didn't perpetrate a massive transfer of assets from public service institutions to private elites (exacerbated by the recession), then maybe schools like the UCs would have more $ to maintain a quality educational experience and financial accessibility to the average student. But instead, many public schools are privatizing to some degree in order to cope with financial realities, thereby losing some essence of what made them special and egalitarian. As you said, it's true that Stf financial aid will literally work things out with any student's family so they pay only what they can no matter their situation. It's very generous, but that's not the problem - the bigger challenge is getting accepted at Stf first (admission rates are one of the lowest in the US, much worse now than when we were students - I think it fell from 15% to 8%). And in order for that to happen, you need legacy, connections, and/or demonstrated student excellence. All those come easier with wealth. Stf has a new fin aid program for families with household incomes below $100K (Ivy League has similar). So that is basically the plan for the 99% (well 80% actually). I wonder what the median family income is at Stf. vs. Cal. It could be 2X, and it's not like Cal families are poor.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/april1/stanford-admission-rate-2013-040109.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/?mod=wsj_share_twitter

Stf enjoys more donations partly because of their business partnerships (firms give because they want access to student and professor talent) and the quality of their people generate more IP royalties and alum charity. But also Stf's prestigious and large endowment gets access to prime investment opportunities that smaller institutions and maybe even the UCs can't tap. So the rich get richer. Iverson and the guest seemed to suggest that this is partially due to Cal's liberal, populist "bias" and Stf's conservative, pro-business appeal - the giants of Wall St. and Si Valley are turned off by Cal. Both schools are good at most things, but Berkeley has a rep for excellence in physical sciences, humanities, etc., while Stf may be better known for engineering and professional education, which are more relevant to businesses today. So I don't blame the VCs for preferring to tap the Stf pool over Cal, but it's just too bad that equally good if not better students and faculty at the UCs get less access to partnerships, jobs, and other opportunities.

Those with privilege shouldn't work to amass more privilege, especially at the expense of others who are deserving - I think Leland Stanford would agree with that (the later-in-life philanthropist Mr. Stanford, not the robber-baron Mr. Stanford). Those who make it to the top should send the elevator back down for others. Buildings at Cal are literally crumbling, classes cancelled, and staff are getting furloughed, while Apple gave Stf $50M last year (investment, not charity LOL) and Phil Knight donated untold millions to his alma mater to build the nicest b-school in the world (http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/about/knightcenter/). Why give charity to the rich? It's part of the bigger national issue. So of course Stf has the luxury to look all generous and righteous, allowing students whose families make under $X to attend for free (but what % of students is that exactly?). They are only able to be so "generous" because they exploited huge advantages in the zero-sum game vs. other schools (esp. public schools who are burdened by much more bureaucracy and uncertain budgets).