[pefloresjr]

I was an undergrad at Stanford and my wife went to San Jose State as an honors admit.  She spent a great deal of time with me at Stanford and lived with me full time for one and a half of my years including being a dining associate and eating all her meals except lunch while I lived at Am Stud.  (Amer. Studies theme house, Robert S. Moore South, the Bob).  She has noted that there were two big differences between the schools.  The most obvious was the informal/residential education that occurs in the dinning room, lounges, and hallways.  We had very engaged, in-depth discussions about a countless number of issues.  (Similar to the type of thing that happens here.)  These discussions with brilliant, interesting students forced me to improve my analytical skills and persuasive abilities.  I use these skills every day as a criminal prosecutor.  The other obvious difference was the depth of the work required at Stanford.  My wife was in the honors humanities program her freshman year and I was in SLE.  (Structured Liberal Education in the early 80s.  Don't know if it still exists.)  At San Jose, the courses were mostly focused on testing whether the students understood the material.  At Stanford, the courses assumed the students understood the material and mostly focused on the ability to analyze and creatively explore the material.  When I arrived on campus, I was not prepared to do Stanford level work.  During the intensive year in SLE, my papers were reviewed by our RAs who also served as writing tutors (all came back to me awash in red ink) then reviewed by our professors (including re-writing some papers a third time).  That painful, challenging experience brought me up to the level I needed to survive and eventually succeed at Stanford and in my future career. 

I don't think Stanford is the only place to get a great education, but the daily exposure to students, teachers, and athletes who are performing at very high levels encourages and demands similar effort and performance from all the other students.  I think I would have succeeded in my career if I had attended another institution, but I am certain that I approach my job and life with a high level of critical thinking that would have taken much longer to develop had I not attended Stanford. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

I was an undergrad at Stanford and my wife went to San Jose State as an honors admit.  She spent a great deal of time with me at Stanford and lived with me full time for one and a half of my years including being a dining associate and eating all her meals except lunch while I lived at Am Stud.  (Amer. Studies theme house, Robert S. Moore South, the Bob).  She has noted that there were two big differences between the schools.  The most obvious was the informal/residential education that occurs in the dinning room, lounges, and hallways.  We had very engaged, in-depth discussions about a countless number of issues.  (Similar to the type of thing that happens here.)  These discussions with brilliant, interesting students forced me to improve my analytical skills and persuasive abilities.  I use these skills every day as a criminal prosecutor.  The other obvious difference was the depth of the work required at Stanford.  My wife was in the honors humanities program her freshman year and I was in SLE.  (Structured Liberal Education in the early 80s.  Don't know if it still exists.)  At San Jose, the courses were mostly focused on testing whether the students understood the material.  At Stanford, the courses assumed the students understood the material and mostly focused on the ability to analyze and creatively explore the material.  When I arrived on campus, I was not prepared to do Stanford level work.  During the intensive year in SLE, my papers were reviewed by our RAs who also served as writing tutors (all came back to me awash in red ink) then reviewed by our professors (including re-writing some papers a third time).  That painful, challenging experience brought me up to the level I needed to survive and eventually succeed at Stanford and in my future career. 

I don't think Stanford is the only place to get a great education, but the daily exposure to students, teachers, and athletes who are performing at very high levels encourages and demands similar effort and performance from all the other students.  I think I would have succeeded in my career if I had attended another institution, but I am certain that I approach my job and life with a high level of critical thinking that would have taken much longer to develop had I not attended Stanford. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[CTcard]

If "the 40-year effect" is supposed to be some kind of economic benefit, then it's wildly exaggerated. ...

For me, the 40-year effect was that Stanford taught me to think -- not just to collect a lot of facts, but to put them together and analyze them, to understand what they mean and what they imply. That's made me better at my job, but more importantly, made my life richer by helping me to understand the world I live in. I believe passionately in this 40-year effect and literally cannot imagine my life if I hadn't gone to Stanford.

First, off Yvonne's question was about "the 40-year commitment" which I took to mean we are committed to receiving calls from the development office for at least 40 years.


Other things are more subtle, because first of all nobody is able to do the experiment of running through the same years at two different schools to examine the difference. Secondly, as you noted, the thing is not clearly defined.

I think that if your goal is to make a lot of money, then Stanford gives you a pretty good leg up - better than most all but the other elite private schools. Of course that is no guarantee and many people, while perfectly happy to bring in what they can, have other goals in mind. [Though according to the big entering undergraduate survey by UCLA(?), there are fewer of those at top schools these days.]

By actual learning, it is much less clear what Stanford gives you in comparison to other good schools. On balance, I would guess you don't get that much more in the class room. You do get a lot out of the class room, both from interaction with peers and access to working with top faculty if you go after it.

There is also the "stamp of approval" effect many have noted. Having a graduate degree from Stanford as well, I can confirm that this aspect is applicable to advanced degrees. I may have received preferential consideration for the things I applied for before grad school, but I was young and less aware of inner workings at the time. Since Ph.D. it is very clear that Stanford (and other elite school) grads have extra resources to do good work in grad school and get an extra look afterwards because of the institution - though that may not hold for all degrees and all fields.

[CTcard]

If "the 40-year effect" is supposed to be some kind of economic benefit, then it's wildly exaggerated. ...

For me, the 40-year effect was that Stanford taught me to think -- not just to collect a lot of facts, but to put them together and analyze them, to understand what they mean and what they imply. That's made me better at my job, but more importantly, made my life richer by helping me to understand the world I live in. I believe passionately in this 40-year effect and literally cannot imagine my life if I hadn't gone to Stanford.

First, off Yvonne's question was about "the 40-year commitment" which I took to mean we are committed to receiving calls from the development office for at least 40 years.


Other things are more subtle, because first of all nobody is able to do the experiment of running through the same years at two different schools to examine the difference. Secondly, as you noted, the thing is not clearly defined.

I think that if your goal is to make a lot of money, then Stanford gives you a pretty good leg up - better than most all but the other elite private schools. Of course that is no guarantee and many people, while perfectly happy to bring in what they can, have other goals in mind. [Though according to the big entering undergraduate survey by UCLA(?), there are fewer of those at top schools these days.]

By actual learning, it is much less clear what Stanford gives you in comparison to other good schools. On balance, I would guess you don't get that much more in the class room. You do get a lot out of the class room, both from interaction with peers and access to working with top faculty if you go after it.

There is also the "stamp of approval" effect many have noted. Having a graduate degree from Stanford as well, I can confirm that this aspect is applicable to advanced degrees. I may have received preferential consideration for the things I applied for before grad school, but I was young and less aware of inner workings at the time. Since Ph.D. it is very clear that Stanford (and other elite school) grads have extra resources to do good work in grad school and get an extra look afterwards because of the institution - though that may not hold for all degrees and all fields.

[Roberton3]

I had always seen the 40-year commitment as some special insider network wherein you are able to connect and make thousands more than people with similar degrees.

Going to Stanford was a great decision for me.  But it's certainly not because of the financial benefit I've gotten from the Stanford "network".

My impression is that this "special insider network" is largely a myth (both about Stanford and about other elite universities, such as the one where I was an undergrad before heading to Stanford for grad school).  That myth seems to be perpetuated primarily by people who went to lower-ranked schools, resent their lack of success, and say things along the lines of "I'm just as good as those Stanford grads, but they get better jobs because they know the right people."  There's a tiny bit of truth to that, but only a tiny bit.

As others in this thread have stated, the things one learns at Stanford are incredibly valuable.  The "what I know" because of Stanford has been more valuable than the "who I know".  Moreover, to the extent that the "who I know" has been valuable, it has come in the form of knowing interesting and fun people, which enriches my life, but has had very little financial benefit for me.

[Roberton3]

I had always seen the 40-year commitment as some special insider network wherein you are able to connect and make thousands more than people with similar degrees.

Going to Stanford was a great decision for me.  But it's certainly not because of the financial benefit I've gotten from the Stanford "network".

My impression is that this "special insider network" is largely a myth (both about Stanford and about other elite universities, such as the one where I was an undergrad before heading to Stanford for grad school).  That myth seems to be perpetuated primarily by people who went to lower-ranked schools, resent their lack of success, and say things along the lines of "I'm just as good as those Stanford grads, but they get better jobs because they know the right people."  There's a tiny bit of truth to that, but only a tiny bit.

As others in this thread have stated, the things one learns at Stanford are incredibly valuable.  The "what I know" because of Stanford has been more valuable than the "who I know".  Moreover, to the extent that the "who I know" has been valuable, it has come in the form of knowing interesting and fun people, which enriches my life, but has had very little financial benefit for me.

[Stymie]

90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

[Stymie]

90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

[Rally]

90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me. 

[Rally]

90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me. 

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12483.msg123940#msg123940 date=1439221348]
90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me.
[/quote]

Keep thinking, Signore Ferarri.  It will not escape you for very long, hopefully.....

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12483.msg123940#msg123940 date=1439221348]
90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me.
[/quote]

Keep thinking, Signore Ferarri.  It will not escape you for very long, hopefully.....

[oldguy]

Love this thread. Going to a great prep school and a great university let me get through adolescence without going off the deep end, and get to an adulthood with it's changing challenges and interests. The high level of education was not necessary to get me to a productive adulthood, but associating with high achievers then and now, makes my life more interesting.

It's a different world for my kids, who got the thin envelope, but are working on the careers they want, at the pace that fits each. Maybe they would be further along with a peer group of high achievers in high school and college, but only God knows how they would respond to that environment.

[oldguy]

Love this thread. Going to a great prep school and a great university let me get through adolescence without going off the deep end, and get to an adulthood with it's changing challenges and interests. The high level of education was not necessary to get me to a productive adulthood, but associating with high achievers then and now, makes my life more interesting.

It's a different world for my kids, who got the thin envelope, but are working on the careers they want, at the pace that fits each. Maybe they would be further along with a peer group of high achievers in high school and college, but only God knows how they would respond to that environment.

[needle]

I never expected Stanford to change my life, and it has not.

[needle]

I never expected Stanford to change my life, and it has not.

[teejers1]

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Perhaps a generational thing, but I view the above as one of the problems of Stanford - both internally and externally.

I'm just grateful to have attended Stanford and met the lifelong friends that I did.  Would I have met great, interesting people who would become lifelong friends at another university?  Yes . . . or at least I'd like to think so.  But the odds are pretty high at Stanford, and that was true even back in the 80s.  BTW, am meeting up with frosh roomie and wife, a couple other folks from Donner - and buddies from the frat (and law school) - in Evanston.  Can't wait for a fun weekend!  And perhaps that, above all else, captures what Stanford has meant to this fan.

[teejers1]

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Perhaps a generational thing, but I view the above as one of the problems of Stanford - both internally and externally.

I'm just grateful to have attended Stanford and met the lifelong friends that I did.  Would I have met great, interesting people who would become lifelong friends at another university?  Yes . . . or at least I'd like to think so.  But the odds are pretty high at Stanford, and that was true even back in the 80s.  BTW, am meeting up with frosh roomie and wife, a couple other folks from Donner - and buddies from the frat (and law school) - in Evanston.  Can't wait for a fun weekend!  And perhaps that, above all else, captures what Stanford has meant to this fan.

[Hulk01]

I think Stanford had a greater impact on me than 95 percent of the students there,  because those students were prepared well for it.

I was not.

I went to a horrifically bad, small public high school on the Oregon Coast.  The faculty was heavily made up of teachers who were getting their last chances; they'd screwed up other places and had no other place to go.  There was the sex offender who taught English, pulled open Iona Tucker's blouse, dropped a piece of paper down it with some innuendo-charged comment, and was gone.  Two years later, he committed suicide while in prison on yet another offense.  He was an outlier, but not by much.

One year, we managed to attract four new teachers who had just graduated from college.  One of them no doubt became an excellent teacher.  The second was an English teacher who could not pronounce many English words, most famously "plaid," which he pronounced as "played."  The new German teacher was not emotionally equipped for any known job or profession.  The fourth may have turned out Ok.  But none had even taught a class, yet they may have represented the top 15% of all teachers at that school.

I read two books in high school: A book on excellence by Gardner, and Anthem by Ayn Rand.  I took Calculus and have no idea what it was about, exactly.  I took Physics and learned there are some things called vectors, which are indicated by arrows and must imply some force.  I read the first few pages of Ivanhoe; it made my head throb.  I had the same reaction, and took the same approach, to Red Badge of Courage, which is about a war. 

My entire approach to high school was to try to get to 3:30 p.m., and practice: football, basketball, track and golf.  Almost everything I learned in high school came in those practices.

So when I arrived at Stanford, I was the equivalent of a high school freshman, but taller and stronger.  I had to learn how to read, how to study, how to take tests, how to listen and take notes.  I had to learn to think, write papers based on evidence--everything involved in being a successful college student.

The Reggies--the kids from prep schools and merely good high schools--were miles ahead of me.  I was an Archie of the lowest possible order.  I'd never been exposed to good teachers, bright students, and medium-to-bigger ideas.  Everything about Stanford was new.

So Stanford was certain to have had a greater impact on me--provided that I worked at it, which I had to--than almost anyone of my generation, and perhaps anyone since.  I assume no student before me or after entered Stanford with a 2.26 high school gpa.  Stanford's teachers were geniuses; my dorm mates were geniuses; the required texts were written by geniuses.  And so my Stanford experience was sheer genius, for which I had experienced no precedent.

So when I insist Stanford is the ultimate 40 year decision, I should stress that it was for me.  It had to made less impact on most of you; it merely added to your understanding and learning.  But for me, Stanford was my understanding and learning. 

And the people there really are special.  I was able to be affected and inspired by friends who won Olympic medals and Rhodes Scholarships, and many who were less obviously gifted but truly good men and women--and I needed that influence and example, too.  But I should add here that many of the friends who have affected me most since came from everywhere and dozens of other schools: Wisconsin, Wisconsin Eau Claire, Tulane, Cornell, Dennison, Iowa, as well as more than one who never finished college.  They've been important to my life and its quality, too.

My muddled point here is that I am speaking only for me when I describe Stanford as life-changing--utterly.  My life had to be changed.  At the same time, I passed through two other schools en route to Stanford, and they had dramatically less impact.  One good lit teacher, a good Civ teachers--that was about it.  The students were just passing through, attending college because it was viewed as a needed step.  There may have been some bright, interesting students from whom I might have learned a lot, but I never came across them.

And yes, to the last point: I know that Stanford's brand, justified or not, helps.

[Hulk01]

I think Stanford had a greater impact on me than 95 percent of the students there,  because those students were prepared well for it.

I was not.

I went to a horrifically bad, small public high school on the Oregon Coast.  The faculty was heavily made up of teachers who were getting their last chances; they'd screwed up other places and had no other place to go.  There was the sex offender who taught English, pulled open Iona Tucker's blouse, dropped a piece of paper down it with some innuendo-charged comment, and was gone.  Two years later, he committed suicide while in prison on yet another offense.  He was an outlier, but not by much.

One year, we managed to attract four new teachers who had just graduated from college.  One of them no doubt became an excellent teacher.  The second was an English teacher who could not pronounce many English words, most famously "plaid," which he pronounced as "played."  The new German teacher was not emotionally equipped for any known job or profession.  The fourth may have turned out Ok.  But none had even taught a class, yet they may have represented the top 15% of all teachers at that school.

I read two books in high school: A book on excellence by Gardner, and Anthem by Ayn Rand.  I took Calculus and have no idea what it was about, exactly.  I took Physics and learned there are some things called vectors, which are indicated by arrows and must imply some force.  I read the first few pages of Ivanhoe; it made my head throb.  I had the same reaction, and took the same approach, to Red Badge of Courage, which is about a war. 

My entire approach to high school was to try to get to 3:30 p.m., and practice: football, basketball, track and golf.  Almost everything I learned in high school came in those practices.

So when I arrived at Stanford, I was the equivalent of a high school freshman, but taller and stronger.  I had to learn how to read, how to study, how to take tests, how to listen and take notes.  I had to learn to think, write papers based on evidence--everything involved in being a successful college student.

The Reggies--the kids from prep schools and merely good high schools--were miles ahead of me.  I was an Archie of the lowest possible order.  I'd never been exposed to good teachers, bright students, and medium-to-bigger ideas.  Everything about Stanford was new.

So Stanford was certain to have had a greater impact on me--provided that I worked at it, which I had to--than almost anyone of my generation, and perhaps anyone since.  I assume no student before me or after entered Stanford with a 2.26 high school gpa.  Stanford's teachers were geniuses; my dorm mates were geniuses; the required texts were written by geniuses.  And so my Stanford experience was sheer genius, for which I had experienced no precedent.

So when I insist Stanford is the ultimate 40 year decision, I should stress that it was for me.  It had to made less impact on most of you; it merely added to your understanding and learning.  But for me, Stanford was my understanding and learning. 

And the people there really are special.  I was able to be affected and inspired by friends who won Olympic medals and Rhodes Scholarships, and many who were less obviously gifted but truly good men and women--and I needed that influence and example, too.  But I should add here that many of the friends who have affected me most since came from everywhere and dozens of other schools: Wisconsin, Wisconsin Eau Claire, Tulane, Cornell, Dennison, Iowa, as well as more than one who never finished college.  They've been important to my life and its quality, too.

My muddled point here is that I am speaking only for me when I describe Stanford as life-changing--utterly.  My life had to be changed.  At the same time, I passed through two other schools en route to Stanford, and they had dramatically less impact.  One good lit teacher, a good Civ teachers--that was about it.  The students were just passing through, attending college because it was viewed as a needed step.  There may have been some bright, interesting students from whom I might have learned a lot, but I never came across them.

And yes, to the last point: I know that Stanford's brand, justified or not, helps.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12483.msg123941#msg123941 date=1439221540]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12483.msg123940#msg123940 date=1439221348]
90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me.
[/quote]

While I think about it I will illustrate my point.  The president of the Stanford Club of Pasadena in 1964 was the owner of a tire dealership named Tom Sawyer.  True.  I wrote a "to whom it might concern" ltd to the club seeking a recommendation.  He called, invited me to lunch at the University Club and arranged for other Board members to stop by while we ate.  I got the rec.  he owned a lowly (I guess in the eyes of elite Stanford types) tire store yet managed to change a "tiny tony part of" the world.  At least for me.

Keep thinking, Signore Ferarri.  It will not escape you for very long, hopefully.....
[/quote]

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12483.msg123941#msg123941 date=1439221540]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12483.msg123940#msg123940 date=1439221348]
90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me.
[/quote]

While I think about it I will illustrate my point.  The president of the Stanford Club of Pasadena in 1964 was the owner of a tire dealership named Tom Sawyer.  True.  I wrote a "to whom it might concern" ltd to the club seeking a recommendation.  He called, invited me to lunch at the University Club and arranged for other Board members to stop by while we ate.  I got the rec.  he owned a lowly (I guess in the eyes of elite Stanford types) tire store yet managed to change a "tiny tony part of" the world.  At least for me.

Keep thinking, Signore Ferarri.  It will not escape you for very long, hopefully.....
[/quote]

[Mick]

I think Stanford had a greater impact on me than 95 percent of the students there,  because those students were prepared well for it.

I was not.

I went to horrifically bad, small public high school on the Oregon Coast. 

I went to that same high school on the California coast in the Monterey Bay.  200 kids, give or take.  Whenever we got a good teacher, s/he was gone in a year.  In the entire history of the school, only one student was admitted to Stanford (ironically, the daughter of an auto dealer).  She had a nervous breakdown there, dropped out, started doing drugs, etc.  Three female teachers had affairs with male students while I was there.  Another female teacher hit on my sister when my sister was 15.  Several of the teachers were well known druggies.  Every English and History teacher I had taught for one year.  Math and Science stuck around, for whatever reason.

Remember the guy who sold all the drugs in your high school?  He lived in the boys' restroom?  That kid, from my high school, paid someone to take his SAT so he could squeak into, let's say a CSU in the far north of California well known for alternative lifestyles.  He now teaches in our district public elementary school in SJ Unified.  So whenever someone asks me why my kid went to parochial schools...

I had a similar experience to Hulk, at least in my classes which required a great deal of writing.  I improved slowly.  My wife went to Lynbrook, she had so such problems and graduated magna cum laude.

[Mick]

I think Stanford had a greater impact on me than 95 percent of the students there,  because those students were prepared well for it.

I was not.

I went to horrifically bad, small public high school on the Oregon Coast. 

I went to that same high school on the California coast in the Monterey Bay.  200 kids, give or take.  Whenever we got a good teacher, s/he was gone in a year.  In the entire history of the school, only one student was admitted to Stanford (ironically, the daughter of an auto dealer).  She had a nervous breakdown there, dropped out, started doing drugs, etc.  Three female teachers had affairs with male students while I was there.  Another female teacher hit on my sister when my sister was 15.  Several of the teachers were well known druggies.  Every English and History teacher I had taught for one year.  Math and Science stuck around, for whatever reason.

Remember the guy who sold all the drugs in your high school?  He lived in the boys' restroom?  That kid, from my high school, paid someone to take his SAT so he could squeak into, let's say a CSU in the far north of California well known for alternative lifestyles.  He now teaches in our district public elementary school in SJ Unified.  So whenever someone asks me why my kid went to parochial schools...

I had a similar experience to Hulk, at least in my classes which required a great deal of writing.  I improved slowly.  My wife went to Lynbrook, she had so such problems and graduated magna cum laude.

[Redrum]

So many of my favorite posters weighed in...and they aren't lightweights.  I love reading stuff by literate, expressive people.

I believe the 40-year decision is true because it has worked for me.

Not the way most ideal Stanford grads might view their destinies (and parts of society view them),  but I'd characterize it as a 40-year tailwind. Not a hurricane, but a very present, if variable, force helping me along.  Stanford finally helped me grow up, wake up out of a youthful daze of sorts [sadly, too late for stellar academic achievement].  It got me my first job, in journalism.  It offered me the opportunity to change my life in my second job that also got me out of California and into the wider world.  Along the way it provided my best friend (still is)  and, eventually, my wife (still is).  It took a fabulous, introverted daughter and nurtured her into an adventurous, even daring, world-traveling, accomplished person I hardly recognize at times.  Stanford has been a 43-year blessing.

I will add that Stanford football is the thread that runs through all the above.  Shallow me, but... well, there it is.  When I'd just transferred in, not knowing anybody or which way was up, sitting in the stands watching Stanford football helped me feel part of the place.  It allowed the just-hired  me to go toe-to-toe with the lead sportswriter at the paper, who had totally sold out to the myth of Rex Kern and OSU invincibility.  A chance, shared ride with another Stanford grad to a Stanford/ U$€ game in SoCal got me my real life-changing job.  Stanford football and a late (CST) night victory dance after the Greatest Upset Ever keeps me more interested in Stanford as a whole than all the undergrads phoning me for donations or the glossy, high production-value solicitations that arrive in the mail.  Hail Stanford, Hail... but beat U$€, Kal and the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends.

[Redrum]

So many of my favorite posters weighed in...and they aren't lightweights.  I love reading stuff by literate, expressive people.

I believe the 40-year decision is true because it has worked for me.

Not the way most ideal Stanford grads might view their destinies (and parts of society view them),  but I'd characterize it as a 40-year tailwind. Not a hurricane, but a very present, if variable, force helping me along.  Stanford finally helped me grow up, wake up out of a youthful daze of sorts [sadly, too late for stellar academic achievement].  It got me my first job, in journalism.  It offered me the opportunity to change my life in my second job that also got me out of California and into the wider world.  Along the way it provided my best friend (still is)  and, eventually, my wife (still is).  It took a fabulous, introverted daughter and nurtured her into an adventurous, even daring, world-traveling, accomplished person I hardly recognize at times.  Stanford has been a 43-year blessing.

I will add that Stanford football is the thread that runs through all the above.  Shallow me, but... well, there it is.  When I'd just transferred in, not knowing anybody or which way was up, sitting in the stands watching Stanford football helped me feel part of the place.  It allowed the just-hired  me to go toe-to-toe with the lead sportswriter at the paper, who had totally sold out to the myth of Rex Kern and OSU invincibility.  A chance, shared ride with another Stanford grad to a Stanford/ U$€ game in SoCal got me my real life-changing job.  Stanford football and a late (CST) night victory dance after the Greatest Upset Ever keeps me more interested in Stanford as a whole than all the undergrads phoning me for donations or the glossy, high production-value solicitations that arrive in the mail.  Hail Stanford, Hail... but beat U$€, Kal and the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends.

[jacketree]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12483.msg123940#msg123940 date=1439221348]
90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me.
[/quote]

Stymie is just beating on Ohio State, Alabama and U$€. and/or UCLA recruits.  That attitude drives me nuts, btw. There are plenty of Stanford grads who do not spend their lives trying to change whatever a "tiny toty" part of the world is; just as there are plenty of Alabama grads (including footballers) who do significant things with their lives.  And to quote Judge Smales: The world needs Lexuses (Lexi sounds stupid to me) too you know.  Ask John Elway.

Reading between Yvonne's lines in the OP, which isn't hard to do, I'm wondering if she isn't questioning the purported 40-year decision (not sure what "commitment" means) based on her own experience.  I read her comparison to what she might have received from SJSU, and truth be told, you don't need to go to Stanford to hear someone like Jimmy Carter speak.  He lectured once a week or so for the single Poli Sci class I took at Tech, and this was during Reagan's first term.  Actually he was quite good.

Stanford has not cornered the market on good professors, students, classes, books, etc, etc. They really don't have top secret knowledge about the key to life.  Although perhaps that information was doled out at one of those 8:00 classes I learned to zombie through.....Dammit.

Frankly, I think you are all selling yourselves short a little bit.  Sure Stanford changed most of you and for the better it seems.  But you all did most of that yourselves. Except Hulk it seems. He was doomed otherwise ;)

Needle with the thread win for honesty.

[jacketree]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12483.msg123940#msg123940 date=1439221348]
90+% of Stanford footballers are never going to even sniff the NFL.  The "40-year" question breaks down to:

"Do you really want to run a Lexus dealership in Akron/Mobile/Pasadena/etc. or do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to help change (even a tiny toty part of) the world?"

Is there something wrong with running a Lexus dealership anywhere?  The problem escapes me.
[/quote]

Stymie is just beating on Ohio State, Alabama and U$€. and/or UCLA recruits.  That attitude drives me nuts, btw. There are plenty of Stanford grads who do not spend their lives trying to change whatever a "tiny toty" part of the world is; just as there are plenty of Alabama grads (including footballers) who do significant things with their lives.  And to quote Judge Smales: The world needs Lexuses (Lexi sounds stupid to me) too you know.  Ask John Elway.

Reading between Yvonne's lines in the OP, which isn't hard to do, I'm wondering if she isn't questioning the purported 40-year decision (not sure what "commitment" means) based on her own experience.  I read her comparison to what she might have received from SJSU, and truth be told, you don't need to go to Stanford to hear someone like Jimmy Carter speak.  He lectured once a week or so for the single Poli Sci class I took at Tech, and this was during Reagan's first term.  Actually he was quite good.

Stanford has not cornered the market on good professors, students, classes, books, etc, etc. They really don't have top secret knowledge about the key to life.  Although perhaps that information was doled out at one of those 8:00 classes I learned to zombie through.....Dammit.

Frankly, I think you are all selling yourselves short a little bit.  Sure Stanford changed most of you and for the better it seems.  But you all did most of that yourselves. Except Hulk it seems. He was doomed otherwise ;)

Needle with the thread win for honesty.

[winflop]

None of the above. My life would have been very different had I not made the long leap from undergrad at a hometown school (Marquette U. in Milwaukee) to Stanford for grad school.

My son is about to start at Marquette (Engineering).  He had a great six weeks in their summer program for incoming freshmen.

[winflop]

None of the above. My life would have been very different had I not made the long leap from undergrad at a hometown school (Marquette U. in Milwaukee) to Stanford for grad school.

My son is about to start at Marquette (Engineering).  He had a great six weeks in their summer program for incoming freshmen.

[Mick]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=12483.msg123848#msg123848 date=1439082987]
None of the above. My life would have been very different had I not made the long leap from undergrad at a hometown school (Marquette U. in Milwaukee) to Stanford for grad school.

My son is about to start at Marquette (Engineering).  He had a great six weeks in their summer program for incoming freshmen.
[/quote]


Speaking as a grad of one Jesuit institution, and the father of two Jesuit high school students (Bellarmine in San Jose), I'm sure they'll get a superb education.

[Mick]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=12483.msg123848#msg123848 date=1439082987]
None of the above. My life would have been very different had I not made the long leap from undergrad at a hometown school (Marquette U. in Milwaukee) to Stanford for grad school.

My son is about to start at Marquette (Engineering).  He had a great six weeks in their summer program for incoming freshmen.
[/quote]


Speaking as a grad of one Jesuit institution, and the father of two Jesuit high school students (Bellarmine in San Jose), I'm sure they'll get a superb education.

[CTcard]

Stanford has not cornered the market on good professors, students, classes, books, etc, etc. They really don't have top secret knowledge about the key to life.  Although perhaps that information was doled out at one of those 8:00 classes I learned to zombie through.....Dammit.

Frankly, I think you are all selling yourselves short a little bit.  Sure Stanford changed most of you and for the better it seems.  But you all did most of that yourselves. 

I suppose it depends upon how you define the question - and how much you're trying to be absolute versus comparative.

Most folks change a lot during college in a way that sets the stage for the next 40+ years. For those who attended Stanford, that almost defines choosing Stanford as a 40 year decision. It also means self-approval leads to folks looking back positively at their college choice. Private schools are particularly adept at turning this basic truism into gratitude for Dear Alma Mater and thus seeding the bed for future donations. Public schools are starting to try as state funding disappears, but most are rank amateurs at the game.

Stanford's excellence at this particular task is clearly shown in this thread.

[CTcard]

Stanford has not cornered the market on good professors, students, classes, books, etc, etc. They really don't have top secret knowledge about the key to life.  Although perhaps that information was doled out at one of those 8:00 classes I learned to zombie through.....Dammit.

Frankly, I think you are all selling yourselves short a little bit.  Sure Stanford changed most of you and for the better it seems.  But you all did most of that yourselves. 

I suppose it depends upon how you define the question - and how much you're trying to be absolute versus comparative.

Most folks change a lot during college in a way that sets the stage for the next 40+ years. For those who attended Stanford, that almost defines choosing Stanford as a 40 year decision. It also means self-approval leads to folks looking back positively at their college choice. Private schools are particularly adept at turning this basic truism into gratitude for Dear Alma Mater and thus seeding the bed for future donations. Public schools are starting to try as state funding disappears, but most are rank amateurs at the game.

Stanford's excellence at this particular task is clearly shown in this thread.

[amartinsu13]

--

[amartinsu13]

--

[Hulk01]

I think there are gifted people who will thrive on their gifts, which hardly need nurturing.  I think of the first girl I kissed: Susan Durette.  She was wise at age 12.  She still is; my best friend marvels at her.  And if Susan finished college, it wasn't one to which we bow.

My best friend at Stanford, John Tillman, was so far ahead of the game that the only impact Stanford may have had on him was to ensure the Rhodes people that he deserved their scholarship.  I might ask him soon, Did Stanford change you, and has it influenced your life since?  I suspect the answer is either no, or damn little.

An added point: my work draws heavily on my education at Stanford.  I often find myself applying something I learned there.  That would not have been the case if I had continued practicing law. 

And an important point for me, is that I would not have met Stephanie but-for Stanford.  We connected only because of that common bond.  And she has had an enormous impact on me, for the much better.

So I think I am the very extreme case, perhaps the outlier.  I should resist speaking for everyone. But at the same time, I've experienced some first hand three very ordinary universities.  There seem to be many schools whose mission is to attract students rather than educate them.  And on a related point, I have never met a graduate of these schools who speak well of their experiences, or speak at all of some lasting impact from attending those schools.  That seems telling.

[Hulk01]

I think there are gifted people who will thrive on their gifts, which hardly need nurturing.  I think of the first girl I kissed: Susan Durette.  She was wise at age 12.  She still is; my best friend marvels at her.  And if Susan finished college, it wasn't one to which we bow.

My best friend at Stanford, John Tillman, was so far ahead of the game that the only impact Stanford may have had on him was to ensure the Rhodes people that he deserved their scholarship.  I might ask him soon, Did Stanford change you, and has it influenced your life since?  I suspect the answer is either no, or damn little.

An added point: my work draws heavily on my education at Stanford.  I often find myself applying something I learned there.  That would not have been the case if I had continued practicing law. 

And an important point for me, is that I would not have met Stephanie but-for Stanford.  We connected only because of that common bond.  And she has had an enormous impact on me, for the much better.

So I think I am the very extreme case, perhaps the outlier.  I should resist speaking for everyone. But at the same time, I've experienced some first hand three very ordinary universities.  There seem to be many schools whose mission is to attract students rather than educate them.  And on a related point, I have never met a graduate of these schools who speak well of their experiences, or speak at all of some lasting impact from attending those schools.  That seems telling.

[Rally]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=12483.msg123969#msg123969 date=1439237238]

Stanford has not cornered the market on good professors, students, classes, books, etc, etc. They really don't have top secret knowledge about the key to life.  Although perhaps that information was doled out at one of those 8:00 classes I learned to zombie through.....Dammit.

Frankly, I think you are all selling yourselves short a little bit.  Sure Stanford changed most of you and for the better it seems.  But you all did most of that yourselves. 

I suppose it depends upon how you define the question - and how much you're trying to be absolute versus comparative.

Most folks change a lot during college in a way that sets the stage for the next 40+ years. For those who attended Stanford, that almost defines choosing Stanford as a 40 year decision. It also means self-approval leads to folks looking back positively at their college choice. Private schools are particularly adept at turning this basic truism into gratitude for Dear Alma Mater and thus seeding the bed for future donations. Public schools are starting to try as state funding disappears, but most are rank amateurs at the game.

Stanford's excellence at this particular task is clearly shown in this thread.
[/quote]

Not just public colleges, either.  My wife graduated from a prestigious public high school a few seconds years ago :) and has recently be getting quarterly money pitches in the mail.  She swears if the phone calls ever start she is going to politely explain to the caller where the sun does not shine.  My sweet, innocent angel.

[Rally]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=12483.msg123969#msg123969 date=1439237238]

Stanford has not cornered the market on good professors, students, classes, books, etc, etc. They really don't have top secret knowledge about the key to life.  Although perhaps that information was doled out at one of those 8:00 classes I learned to zombie through.....Dammit.

Frankly, I think you are all selling yourselves short a little bit.  Sure Stanford changed most of you and for the better it seems.  But you all did most of that yourselves. 

I suppose it depends upon how you define the question - and how much you're trying to be absolute versus comparative.

Most folks change a lot during college in a way that sets the stage for the next 40+ years. For those who attended Stanford, that almost defines choosing Stanford as a 40 year decision. It also means self-approval leads to folks looking back positively at their college choice. Private schools are particularly adept at turning this basic truism into gratitude for Dear Alma Mater and thus seeding the bed for future donations. Public schools are starting to try as state funding disappears, but most are rank amateurs at the game.

Stanford's excellence at this particular task is clearly shown in this thread.
[/quote]

Not just public colleges, either.  My wife graduated from a prestigious public high school a few seconds years ago :) and has recently be getting quarterly money pitches in the mail.  She swears if the phone calls ever start she is going to politely explain to the caller where the sun does not shine.  My sweet, innocent angel.