[Leftcoast]

I\'ll take a stab at Yvonne\'s question.  

The biggest difference between Stanford and Yvonne\'s examples of Princeton, Texas A&M and Rutgers is the unique and transitory demographics of Silicon Valley.   I also believe "antipathy" is far too strong of a word to describe the valley\'s mixed feelings about Stanford.

The tech industry that dominates Bay Area culture is created from a worldwide community of academic emigres, many fiercely proud of their own schools and backgrounds.   They adopt Stanford slowly - if ever.   Tech has also created  a culture aspirationally based upon principles of meritocracy and egalitarianism.  (Reality often differs of course but nonetheless these are the core Silicon Valley values.)

There\'s respect for Stanford and its very real tech accomplishments - respect but NOT allegiance.   Respect for Hewlett, Packard, Terman and Noyce who are the Tech world\'s Adam, Prometheus and Jupiter all rolled up - but no deeper ties to the university among the area\'s academic emigres.  There might even be a competitive impulse to prove over and over that more than Stanford guys belong on the top tier of the Pantheon.  Why should someone who came from UT five years ago feel any deep connection to Stanford?  Even less allegiance exists for the immigrant with a degree from the sub-continent\'s IIT.

There\'s also a tech value system that resists anything that smells of elitism (the egalitarian thing) and a joy in anything that strikes out at the faintest whiff of privilege (the meritocracy thing).   So people smile when a story comes out that hints that we\'re "not all that" but the animosity is surface deep.   It\'s the back and forth between respected equals not hated rivals.

There\'s also a creation story that exists side by side with that of HP -  an elevation of the "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" ethos that celebrates the guys who made it with a great idea - and without the blue chip pedigree.  Think how often you hear that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, partners with Hewlett and Packard in the pantheon, were drop-outs.

But who really cares?  I don\'t really mind that each generation of Stanford alums needs to prove again that our university is still great and relevant to the next valley wave of technologists and I wouldn\'t necessarily WANT the next generation of alums to think they were entitled to an unearned deference.   (I would however at least like the UT emigres to adopt our football team on Saturday\'s but that\'s a different story.)

We\'re NOT Princeton, Texas A&M or even Rutgers and should embrace the challenge of proving ourselves - and disproving the stereotypes.  

[Leftcoast]

I\'ll take a stab at Yvonne\'s question.  

The biggest difference between Stanford and Yvonne\'s examples of Princeton, Texas A&M and Rutgers is the unique and transitory demographics of Silicon Valley.   I also believe "antipathy" is far too strong of a word to describe the valley\'s mixed feelings about Stanford.

The tech industry that dominates Bay Area culture is created from a worldwide community of academic emigres, many fiercely proud of their own schools and backgrounds.   They adopt Stanford slowly - if ever.   Tech has also created  a culture aspirationally based upon principles of meritocracy and egalitarianism.  (Reality often differs of course but nonetheless these are the core Silicon Valley values.)

There\'s respect for Stanford and its very real tech accomplishments - respect but NOT allegiance.   Respect for Hewlett, Packard, Terman and Noyce who are the Tech world\'s Adam, Prometheus and Jupiter all rolled up - but no deeper ties to the university among the area\'s academic emigres.  There might even be a competitive impulse to prove over and over that more than Stanford guys belong on the top tier of the Pantheon.  Why should someone who came from UT five years ago feel any deep connection to Stanford?  Even less allegiance exists for the immigrant with a degree from the sub-continent\'s IIT.

There\'s also a tech value system that resists anything that smells of elitism (the egalitarian thing) and a joy in anything that strikes out at the faintest whiff of privilege (the meritocracy thing).   So people smile when a story comes out that hints that we\'re "not all that" but the animosity is surface deep.   It\'s the back and forth between respected equals not hated rivals.

There\'s also a creation story that exists side by side with that of HP -  an elevation of the "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" ethos that celebrates the guys who made it with a great idea - and without the blue chip pedigree.  Think how often you hear that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, partners with Hewlett and Packard in the pantheon, were drop-outs.

But who really cares?  I don\'t really mind that each generation of Stanford alums needs to prove again that our university is still great and relevant to the next valley wave of technologists and I wouldn\'t necessarily WANT the next generation of alums to think they were entitled to an unearned deference.   (I would however at least like the UT emigres to adopt our football team on Saturday\'s but that\'s a different story.)

We\'re NOT Princeton, Texas A&M or even Rutgers and should embrace the challenge of proving ourselves - and disproving the stereotypes.