[yvonne]

Yesterday, I woke up to the sounds of the San Jose news station announcer guffawing about classes on the List. I read the news stories, as most of you did, as well as Garvin\'s buddy\'s blog. What was interesting about the blog is one of the reactions was a dismissive regurgitation of the old cal saw about Stanford being easy once a student is admitted.

This got me thinking about town gown relations. I\'ve had the opportunity to observe town/gown relations at Rutgers, Princeton, Texas A&M and Stanford. I admit that\'s a small sample, but in none of those cases are town gown relations worse than at Stanford. At Rutgers, the local area was indifferent. That may have changed since football became decent. At Princeton, the school was respected and revered. A college friend used to describe herself as coming from "the Princeton area," as though it were a metropolis. When I lived there, local kids wore Princeton shirts, and generally spoke well of the school. People would try to work there to get access to the facilities, including the gorgeous chapel. At A&M, the university is the town, so the locals are downright sycophantic. But at Stanford, the relationship seems to be adversarial.

Granted, people at my last job seemed to think I was some sort of superstar because I went to Stanford, but that\'s not the general reaction I\'ve seen elsewhere. For example, the issue with John Arrillaga\'s building a restroom in the football office would probably go unnoticed at another school. At Rutgers, the current student body would probably demand that Schiano get a special shower if he wanted one. When the football team started to get good, exposés were written about the stadium being less than full, even though the same didn\'t happen at cal before the momentum built for winning football. If the List happened at any other school, the reaction would be "yeah, so?"

But at Stanford, it\'s major news. It\'s as though it validates some people\'s belief that Stanford isn\'t really a good school, and yet I have a hard time believing that those same people, in their heart of hearts believe that Stanford is just a University of Phoenix with admissions standards, sports and a pretty campus.

Why do you think the relationship between Stanford and the local populace is so adversarial?

[yvonne]

Yesterday, I woke up to the sounds of the San Jose news station announcer guffawing about classes on the List. I read the news stories, as most of you did, as well as Garvin\'s buddy\'s blog. What was interesting about the blog is one of the reactions was a dismissive regurgitation of the old cal saw about Stanford being easy once a student is admitted.

This got me thinking about town gown relations. I\'ve had the opportunity to observe town/gown relations at Rutgers, Princeton, Texas A&M and Stanford. I admit that\'s a small sample, but in none of those cases are town gown relations worse than at Stanford. At Rutgers, the local area was indifferent. That may have changed since football became decent. At Princeton, the school was respected and revered. A college friend used to describe herself as coming from "the Princeton area," as though it were a metropolis. When I lived there, local kids wore Princeton shirts, and generally spoke well of the school. People would try to work there to get access to the facilities, including the gorgeous chapel. At A&M, the university is the town, so the locals are downright sycophantic. But at Stanford, the relationship seems to be adversarial.

Granted, people at my last job seemed to think I was some sort of superstar because I went to Stanford, but that\'s not the general reaction I\'ve seen elsewhere. For example, the issue with John Arrillaga\'s building a restroom in the football office would probably go unnoticed at another school. At Rutgers, the current student body would probably demand that Schiano get a special shower if he wanted one. When the football team started to get good, exposés were written about the stadium being less than full, even though the same didn\'t happen at cal before the momentum built for winning football. If the List happened at any other school, the reaction would be "yeah, so?"

But at Stanford, it\'s major news. It\'s as though it validates some people\'s belief that Stanford isn\'t really a good school, and yet I have a hard time believing that those same people, in their heart of hearts believe that Stanford is just a University of Phoenix with admissions standards, sports and a pretty campus.

Why do you think the relationship between Stanford and the local populace is so adversarial?

[Redrum]

I think you have to dissect and stratify "the Town"  part of Town and Gown.

There\'s the media:  They have no inherent interest in promoting Stanford and  every motivation to come up with something new and different.  The most reflexive technique to do new and different is to focus on the breaks in the Stanford image.  From Stanford\'s point of view it\'s Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.   The academic side and research/business side Stanford gets quite a lot of support from the business side of the media.   Meanwhile,  down in the Merc. sports dept.,  our favorite blogger\'s got nuthin\' until a bathroom is built or a slogan is put on a billboard.   Our favorite blogger  or  KNBR\'s Ralph Barbieri wouldn\'t last long in Ames, Iowa  or Salt Lake City,  where they have a less tolerant attitude about parasites trying to make their careers while weakening the local team.

Oh, and having crappy-to-mediocre teams for a good part of the time since the Ralston years did its damage.  Caused a break in fan continuity (all those kids with local college jerseys) that might never be repaird.  I keep sports front and center because it is the most accessible part of Stanford for Bay Area residents.

The populace in general:   Elite is as elite does.  Small size is as small size does.   There is a very real bar facing local kids trying to attend Stanford.  As a consequence, Stanford isn\'t the school where a significant number of local kids go.  Most residents of the Bay Area and the South Penninsula do not have a kid who graduated from Stanford or is attending.  Neither do their neighbors.   For most purposes,  Stanford is a brobdingnagian, pretty campus that could have been planted by aliens.   Penninsula residents may go on campus,  use some facilities,  shop at the shopping center or work there,  but for most it\'s not some place they feel emotionally tied to.  We are admired but not loved.   I think your comparison to Princeton is worthwhile pondering.  Right off hand I can only think that Princeton is distant from other significantly large schools,  is  THE focus for the town and the area generally has upper tier demographics.    

It\'s funny, though.  San Jose St. struggles to win hearts of the South Bay.   It is viewed more like some public utility,  useful, but not loved.  Maybe you stumbled on something unique in Princeton.

[Redrum]

I think you have to dissect and stratify "the Town"  part of Town and Gown.

There\'s the media:  They have no inherent interest in promoting Stanford and  every motivation to come up with something new and different.  The most reflexive technique to do new and different is to focus on the breaks in the Stanford image.  From Stanford\'s point of view it\'s Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.   The academic side and research/business side Stanford gets quite a lot of support from the business side of the media.   Meanwhile,  down in the Merc. sports dept.,  our favorite blogger\'s got nuthin\' until a bathroom is built or a slogan is put on a billboard.   Our favorite blogger  or  KNBR\'s Ralph Barbieri wouldn\'t last long in Ames, Iowa  or Salt Lake City,  where they have a less tolerant attitude about parasites trying to make their careers while weakening the local team.

Oh, and having crappy-to-mediocre teams for a good part of the time since the Ralston years did its damage.  Caused a break in fan continuity (all those kids with local college jerseys) that might never be repaird.  I keep sports front and center because it is the most accessible part of Stanford for Bay Area residents.

The populace in general:   Elite is as elite does.  Small size is as small size does.   There is a very real bar facing local kids trying to attend Stanford.  As a consequence, Stanford isn\'t the school where a significant number of local kids go.  Most residents of the Bay Area and the South Penninsula do not have a kid who graduated from Stanford or is attending.  Neither do their neighbors.   For most purposes,  Stanford is a brobdingnagian, pretty campus that could have been planted by aliens.   Penninsula residents may go on campus,  use some facilities,  shop at the shopping center or work there,  but for most it\'s not some place they feel emotionally tied to.  We are admired but not loved.   I think your comparison to Princeton is worthwhile pondering.  Right off hand I can only think that Princeton is distant from other significantly large schools,  is  THE focus for the town and the area generally has upper tier demographics.    

It\'s funny, though.  San Jose St. struggles to win hearts of the South Bay.   It is viewed more like some public utility,  useful, but not loved.  Maybe you stumbled on something unique in Princeton.

[yvonne]

I wasn\'t trying to say the media caused the antipathy. In fact, I think it reflects it. (Wilner\'s repeating the cal party line is an example of reflection, not cause.) I\'m just wondering where the general antipathy comes from.

[yvonne]

I wasn\'t trying to say the media caused the antipathy. In fact, I think it reflects it. (Wilner\'s repeating the cal party line is an example of reflection, not cause.) I\'m just wondering where the general antipathy comes from.

[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.  

[M T]

I have a slightly different perspective than most of you.  I didn\'t go to Stanford (it would have been no higher than 3rd on my list) 40+ years ago.  I work nearby as a tech professional who moved here 30 years ago to a nearby affluent community.  My grad school was one of the big sports-heavy schools.

I would be quite bothered if Stanford were coddling its athletes.  That would tarnish its image for me.  I expect Stanford to accept the highest quality students and give them a high quality education.  I believe that intelligent, high achievers can be among the best athletes. Also, I believe that athletics is a good outlet and great life training for people that have always been outstanding academically.

Schools publish the graduation rates of their athletes and general student population. Those numbers can be misleading if athletes are coddled.  For schools like Stanford, I\'d suggest publishing the rates of entry into a graduate/medical/law/etc. school.  To me, that would help show whether the athletes are representative of the student body in an elite school.  (I understand that continuing in school is not the goal of a Stanford education, but this would be one measure where the judgment is made by an external entity.)

I do agree that the fact that relatively few local children go to Stanford does affect the affinity of the community to the school.  I also would point out that the distance from the major local media impacts the media coverage and support.  Newspapers from SF and SJ do not treat Stanford as one of their own.  The TV stations seem even more remote.

What could Stanford do to improve the affinity of the regional community?  They\'ve already got the respect, but they need more of the community having personal contact with the University.  How can that be done?  Stanford already has lots of opportunities for the community to seek out the University (talks, concerts, etc.)  But for personal contact, I\'d actually suggest more "easy" courses based on community involvement. (These may already be there.)  For athletes, coaching or running neighborhood clinics would benefit the student, the community, and the school.  For those going into medicine, helping at nursing homes and such.  For those interested in education or child psychology, helping at K-12 schools or other youth services. For the techies, helping with things like science clubs, robot competitions, etc.

When my kids grew up, I don\'t think they ever had personal contact with Stanford students.  I\'m not sure I\'ve had much contact other than in my profession.

[M T]

I have a slightly different perspective than most of you.  I didn\'t go to Stanford (it would have been no higher than 3rd on my list) 40+ years ago.  I work nearby as a tech professional who moved here 30 years ago to a nearby affluent community.  My grad school was one of the big sports-heavy schools.

I would be quite bothered if Stanford were coddling its athletes.  That would tarnish its image for me.  I expect Stanford to accept the highest quality students and give them a high quality education.  I believe that intelligent, high achievers can be among the best athletes. Also, I believe that athletics is a good outlet and great life training for people that have always been outstanding academically.

Schools publish the graduation rates of their athletes and general student population. Those numbers can be misleading if athletes are coddled.  For schools like Stanford, I\'d suggest publishing the rates of entry into a graduate/medical/law/etc. school.  To me, that would help show whether the athletes are representative of the student body in an elite school.  (I understand that continuing in school is not the goal of a Stanford education, but this would be one measure where the judgment is made by an external entity.)

I do agree that the fact that relatively few local children go to Stanford does affect the affinity of the community to the school.  I also would point out that the distance from the major local media impacts the media coverage and support.  Newspapers from SF and SJ do not treat Stanford as one of their own.  The TV stations seem even more remote.

What could Stanford do to improve the affinity of the regional community?  They\'ve already got the respect, but they need more of the community having personal contact with the University.  How can that be done?  Stanford already has lots of opportunities for the community to seek out the University (talks, concerts, etc.)  But for personal contact, I\'d actually suggest more "easy" courses based on community involvement. (These may already be there.)  For athletes, coaching or running neighborhood clinics would benefit the student, the community, and the school.  For those going into medicine, helping at nursing homes and such.  For those interested in education or child psychology, helping at K-12 schools or other youth services. For the techies, helping with things like science clubs, robot competitions, etc.

When my kids grew up, I don\'t think they ever had personal contact with Stanford students.  I\'m not sure I\'ve had much contact other than in my profession.

[yvonne]

WBBfanMT,

I wasn\'t asking specifically about athletes. The List was sort of the news hook to ask about something I\'ve observed overall.

Many people mention Stanford\'s elite status, but in many ways Princeton, as an Ivy and one of the oldest colleges in the U.S., has even more prestige, and is roughly as difficult to gain admission, so that does not appear to be the reason that locals dislike Stanford. People in Princeton and nearby towns seem to think that the ZIP Code and proximity imbues on them with some cachet.

Proximity to media seems not to be an issue. TAMU is the furthest from a major media market, but has the best relationship with locals, but I attribute the good relationship it has with Bryan/College Station to the fact that almost the entire economy is in some way tied to the university. Newspapers in faraway "South Jersey," an hour or so from New Brunswick basically ignore Rutgers because they believe is outside their coverage area in "Central Jersey," or "South Jersey," depending on whom you ask.

Stanford is definitely involved in the community. Talks are definitely open to the community. Perhaps, they need to be published more. Many athletes are involved with literacy projects in East Palo Alto. I was recently the beneficiary of student volunteerism when I was able to secure medications through a clinic offered on weekends. You make a good point when referring to your own children. Perhaps the school needs to do more to interact with middle class people.

So far, Lefty\'s explanation seems the most satisfying, but it certainly does not explain why the younger generation, which didn\'t come from afar would resent Stanford.

[yvonne]

WBBfanMT,

I wasn\'t asking specifically about athletes. The List was sort of the news hook to ask about something I\'ve observed overall.

Many people mention Stanford\'s elite status, but in many ways Princeton, as an Ivy and one of the oldest colleges in the U.S., has even more prestige, and is roughly as difficult to gain admission, so that does not appear to be the reason that locals dislike Stanford. People in Princeton and nearby towns seem to think that the ZIP Code and proximity imbues on them with some cachet.

Proximity to media seems not to be an issue. TAMU is the furthest from a major media market, but has the best relationship with locals, but I attribute the good relationship it has with Bryan/College Station to the fact that almost the entire economy is in some way tied to the university. Newspapers in faraway "South Jersey," an hour or so from New Brunswick basically ignore Rutgers because they believe is outside their coverage area in "Central Jersey," or "South Jersey," depending on whom you ask.

Stanford is definitely involved in the community. Talks are definitely open to the community. Perhaps, they need to be published more. Many athletes are involved with literacy projects in East Palo Alto. I was recently the beneficiary of student volunteerism when I was able to secure medications through a clinic offered on weekends. You make a good point when referring to your own children. Perhaps the school needs to do more to interact with middle class people.

So far, Lefty\'s explanation seems the most satisfying, but it certainly does not explain why the younger generation, which didn\'t come from afar would resent Stanford.

[fullmetal]

WBBfantMT, I was a varsity athlete back in the day, and I can tell you that I, at least, was not coddled.  I didn\'t even know about this list...not that it would have helped me anyway: my major requirements were so numerous that I didn\'t have much space for electives.

[fullmetal]

WBBfantMT, I was a varsity athlete back in the day, and I can tell you that I, at least, was not coddled.  I didn\'t even know about this list...not that it would have helped me anyway: my major requirements were so numerous that I didn\'t have much space for electives.