They tried to open one in NYC (Roosevelt Island, Development, between Manhattan and LIC), but there was major pushback by both faculty and some students/alumi
They felt opening Stanford to more students will dilute its brand/exclusivity feel, and character, yada yada....
Basically, some folks that wanted to keep it an exclusive club, nixed it.
New York held a competition for establishing a campus on Roosevelt Island, and Stanford competed strongly, and was considered the shoo-in candidate, but they were sent home with their tail between their legs when the Cornell / Technion team won the bid. Nobody on the Stanford side nixed it; they lost and everyone in Silicon Valley was astonished.
I remember when Cornell Tech was just a fraction of a floor in the Google Chelsea office. If there sheer growth in presence in the city is anything to go by, it looks they have invested a lot in it. I mean, a lot.
Satellite campuses never work. They would have to build an entire Stanford University System which would then need to ensure that every individual location was keeping up with their "brand".
There's a reason why "I'm a UC graduate" doesn't mean much, but Berkeley most certainly does.
I don't think it is that definitive. It's hard, but not impossible. Also, it doesn't have to begin with a whole university system. A few departments could be fine. I wouldn't say begin with a small elite campus on a focused area is a task deemed to fail.
@dang, it seems your software is overreacting. redis_mlc 's comment under this thread is totally fine, not sure why it was killed. Is it bc it mentioned "China"?
I have seen a few overkills recently, so just asking.
Given that the majority of their recent comments are [dead], 'redis_mlc is likely banned. If you see a dead-yet-worthwhile comment, you can vouch for it.
(Also, @dang doesn't do anything special: if you want to contact the moderators, email them using the Contact link in the footer.)
> Venture capitalists are a primary source of vigor [1] for the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Silicon Valley, and venture capital as an asset class largely punches above its weight.
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this is the first sentence in a post written by an investor about an investor. So, ya know, I'm a bit skeptical.
The cited paper does very little to make me feel any better. For one, it's not a history paper - you know... the closest bit of academia to the "study of what happened." It's an economics paper that uses some sort of system model to argue for what links / nodes are valuable in the "silicon valley network."
Yeah, nah. Systems like these rely on far to many assumptions-from-no-where to make compelling arguments about how the real world works. One can massage these models to output pretty much any result one wants (tweak the constants a bit in favor of the venture capitalists, if you so desire).
I'll also note I stopped reading the post there. The rest of it might be inspired, but I couldn't make it through that first sentence.
At the end of the article, the author seem to have listed every diversity criteria, except the diversity of thought. With Democrat to Republican ratio of professors in the leading US Universities being 11.5 to 1 [1], there is a growing danger that Stanford will go the way other universities have gone: lowering academic standards, admitting students based in their identity affiliations (and of course rich parents who could skirt the system), lowering faculty standards in technical departments, etc... The Stanford startups will move towards social engineering, disguised as impact investing. Move towards normalizing the discrimination against Asian and Indian male students and entrepreneurs.
Of course not. I am not actually sure how to solve this problem. I think a good start would be to move back towards encouraging freedom of speech on campus and dialog between people with different opinions.
If one of those sides specializes in ignoring verifiable facts, and is of the "opinion" that entire groups of people shouldn't exist, I'm not sure there's much to be gained by any sort of "dialog".
Are you suggesting that this is fair characterisation of Republicans in a general sense? I'm not sure that all Republicans would agree with this. And I definitely consider myself on the liberal side of the political spectrum.
I can empathise that it's difficult to have a dialog with some individuals who are only interested in convincing you of the correctness of their world view and not understanding others, but inflamatory rhetoric like this doesn't help.
61% of republicans believe the election was stolen and 53% believe Trump is the true president. That is an untenable detachment from facts and reality from a major political party.
The only real obstacle to “freedom of speech on campus” is the college Republicans agitating to get an AP writer fired based on her involvement with SJP as an undergrad.
I don't see why anyone should get special treatment, but the OP is suggesting that they do whatever they do for other groups to create reserved spaces for Republicans. There's this whole explanation about how it's not technically lowering-of-standards but I don't remember the details. I think it has something to do with only using their demographic to change your decision if they are equally as promising as someone else with a different demographic.
The Republican Party has abandoned data and evidence driven policy decisions in favor of ideology. The last Republican Party convention had no official policy platform outside of “whatever Trump wants today.” Why would you expect Professors to be excited to join a party that is a cult of personality that incessantly demonizes the very institutions they lead?
The abandoning of evidence and data happened long before Trump. Denying evolution, denying climate change, promoting abstinence only education, etc. Look to Liberty University if you want to see what a Republican institute of “higher learning” looks like.
White supremacists like to claim that twin studies prove that black people are less intelligent due to genetics. Apparently Sam seems to think that Democrats refusing to accept the shoddy science behind twin studies (the conclusions of which are often used in service of racist meta-studies) somehow implies that they are also "anti-science". Probably best to just ignore the comment.
Yup. "Scientific" racism has a long history. Some of the various Confederate declarations of secession claim natural inferiority as a cause for slaveholding.
Twin studies are mostly used to show that traits are heritable at an individual level.
Edit: It strikes me that the strawman argument you've constructed is a perfect example of left-wing science denial. The endemic use of the technique in fields like psychology, criminology, biology, is something you prefer to ignore.
I wouldn't agree with that either, but most people would, so might as well stick it in there.
Let's say it's part of the causal chain, but also your cells don't even have the same genome, it mutates over time, women integrate cells from their children, so it gets messy.
It's not clear to me why this is getting downvoted. This strikes me as a pretty clear description. At this point major Republican figures are getting censured and demoted for saying that lies aren't true. Look at surveys of belief around the election. (Or previously, Republican beliefs on whether Obama is an American citizen.)
If universities are about anything at all, it's about pursuit of truth. At different points in time and space, different political sides have been the one more eager to ban inconvenient truths. Lysenkoism comes to mind, for example, or the Great Leap Forward. But here and now, it's Republicans who have as a group more or less abandoned factual inquiry altogether. And you don't have to believe me on this. You can read prominent dynastic Republican Liz Cheney: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/liz-cheney-vows-to-keep-figh...
Why is diversity of thought limited to Democrats and Republicans, two perspectives that are actually quite close when it comes to economics - do you want a mixed-market economy that tilts slightly more in the direction of free market capitalism or not?
There's just not much daylight between Democrat and Republican economic professors compared to say a Marxian Economist vs Chicago School for example. I think the handwringing over D/R splits really boils down to narcissism of small differences.
Stanford's culture may be liberal. But they do support conservative leaders. The Hoover Institute is at Stanford, there isn't really a liberal equivalent at that university. It's members have worked in both Bush administrations, and the Trump administration. It's currently directed by Condoleezza Rice.
The liberal equivalent of the Hoover Institute is the rest of Stanford. Any organization that is not explicitly right wing becomes left wing over time.
Unfortunately, the cult of "meritocracy" is a bipartisan issue (though somewhat slanted towards the Democrats now because of cultural realignment over the last decade).
In my opinion, "meritocracy", where "meritocracy" is defined by a narrow scope of skills the dream-hoarder class possesses and the rest don't know about, is the problem.
Don't fool yourself into believing that conservatives at Stanford value diversity of thought. The college republicans have made plenty of efforts to get people they don't like fired. They've also harassed a number of my friends.
You identified the problem, but not the solution. The Hoover institution, of course, is basically a safe-space for right-wing ideologues in America now.
The problem is Stanford and similarly exclusive institutions. You get more diversity of thought out of greater diversities of backgrounds, like at SJSU, CSULA, Ohio State, NC A&T, and Virginia Commonwealth University (to name a handful of non-elite schools).
This is highly misleading on a key proof: Microsoft was never venture backed in the common meaning. They did accept VC investment from David F. Marquardt to get him as an advisor while they restructured to go public. His firm owned 6% and was never a major investor. Microsoft was profitable pretty much from the start and didn’t need the money.
Stanford is now an investment and real estate firm that runs a school on the side as a tax break. Some years back, in the 1990s (?) the university created the Stanford Management Company to manage the endowment. That was originally located out on Sand Hill Road, near the VCs. SMC started investing in startups. Like Google, Cisco, etc. This was a new thing at the time. Classically, universities only invested in passive investments.
Over time, the Stanford Management Company produced very good returns, and acquired more influence over the university. It's become far more than an investment office.
61 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadThey felt opening Stanford to more students will dilute its brand/exclusivity feel, and character, yada yada....
Basically, some folks that wanted to keep it an exclusive club, nixed it.
Right now Cornell has a tech campus there.
I vaguely remember reading about some Western universities opening branches in China, which will probably grow larger than the original locations.
Not sure what happens when you flunk a princeling though, if that's even possible.
There's a reason why "I'm a UC graduate" doesn't mean much, but Berkeley most certainly does.
I have seen a few overkills recently, so just asking.
(Also, @dang doesn't do anything special: if you want to contact the moderators, email them using the Contact link in the footer.)
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this is the first sentence in a post written by an investor about an investor. So, ya know, I'm a bit skeptical.
The cited paper does very little to make me feel any better. For one, it's not a history paper - you know... the closest bit of academia to the "study of what happened." It's an economics paper that uses some sort of system model to argue for what links / nodes are valuable in the "silicon valley network."
Yeah, nah. Systems like these rely on far to many assumptions-from-no-where to make compelling arguments about how the real world works. One can massage these models to output pretty much any result one wants (tweak the constants a bit in favor of the venture capitalists, if you so desire).
I'll also note I stopped reading the post there. The rest of it might be inspired, but I couldn't make it through that first sentence.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0308514090278682...
[1] https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-i...
I can empathise that it's difficult to have a dialog with some individuals who are only interested in convincing you of the correctness of their world view and not understanding others, but inflamatory rhetoric like this doesn't help.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/news/pol...
to you... ...you're a little prejudicial and ignorant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intell...
Edit: It strikes me that the strawman argument you've constructed is a perfect example of left-wing science denial. The endemic use of the technique in fields like psychology, criminology, biology, is something you prefer to ignore.
Let's say it's part of the causal chain, but also your cells don't even have the same genome, it mutates over time, women integrate cells from their children, so it gets messy.
If universities are about anything at all, it's about pursuit of truth. At different points in time and space, different political sides have been the one more eager to ban inconvenient truths. Lysenkoism comes to mind, for example, or the Great Leap Forward. But here and now, it's Republicans who have as a group more or less abandoned factual inquiry altogether. And you don't have to believe me on this. You can read prominent dynastic Republican Liz Cheney: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/liz-cheney-vows-to-keep-figh...
There's just not much daylight between Democrat and Republican economic professors compared to say a Marxian Economist vs Chicago School for example. I think the handwringing over D/R splits really boils down to narcissism of small differences.
And if the mention of Seuss dredges up culture war nonsense, that's only fitting.
In my opinion, "meritocracy", where "meritocracy" is defined by a narrow scope of skills the dream-hoarder class possesses and the rest don't know about, is the problem.
The problem is Stanford and similarly exclusive institutions. You get more diversity of thought out of greater diversities of backgrounds, like at SJSU, CSULA, Ohio State, NC A&T, and Virginia Commonwealth University (to name a handful of non-elite schools).
Over time, the Stanford Management Company produced very good returns, and acquired more influence over the university. It's become far more than an investment office.
Leland Sr. would have loved how it came out.