A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) (/thread-5241.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) (/thread-5241.html)
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - stupac2 - 06-05-2013
Housing was ridiculous when I was a student. Sophomore year I was put in a "one-room triple" that was clearly a converted study room. Housing only made it marginally non-stupid for us after we built a fully detachable wall in part of the room. (The issues were things like the ventillation being ass and there being over 50 windows in the room, so it was nice and sunny and also nice and hot, and the lights not being conducive to have people working and sleeping at the same time, etc.)
Even worse, though, were the people who put in the dank basement of some building (I can't remember its name). At some point in my time there Munger (I think? Or is that the new one? Whatever the new grad building near Wilbur replaced.) came online and it helped, but it just made it so that the current population could almost all get housing, instead of having a couple hundred in limbo.
I'm assuming that's a reference to your Lagunita, since that complex is the only thing still called Lagunita, and I'm not sure where they'd put a building over there (side note, I really want to say "Lagunitas" every single time, stupid beer making me forget the dorms I lived in). Maybe between Lag and GovCo? There's a parking lot there that could probably be replaced somehow. Otherwise not much room without tearing buildings down.
If the administration is serious about adding 2k undergrads they're going to need to increase housing a lot, there's no spare and what's here now is of pretty poor quality (not that anyone really cares about the living conditions of undergrads, though). The attitude they took while I was there, which treats undergrads as little more than chattel, won't fly when it's 2k who need housing, instead of a hundred or two.
Until the stadium is filled...admit 'em all, I say! - Redrum - 06-05-2013
Had my older daughter, the Redrumette, was talking smack to me in an Atlanta restaurant this week about how Stanford is really a graduate institution with a undergrad population around to pay the bills. Last time she was that cheeky she was giving me s**t for my quirky soccer coaching.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - Farm93 - 06-05-2013
If housing on campus is so bad, then just find a place in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, Atherton, East Palo Alto or Redwood City. After all, at most USA universities a large percentage of undergrad students actually elect to live off campus. And at most schools, I would guess the majority grad students live off campus. So no problem hit El Camino kids. ;)
Oh right, for all the whining about housing the reality is that there is no better housing option in Silicon Valley. In fact the off-campus options are so inferior and/or so expensive that everyone wants to live on campus. When I graduated I would have happily lived on-campus rather than the dump I could afford in Redwood City for my first year.
Space on-campus is available, it is just a matter of building the facilities (and parking) rather than a new high end auditorium. I suspect donor preferences are not aligned with that goal though.
Back in the 80s and 90s there was a concern over demographics and education. There were preciously few elite universities starting up, and those elite universities that were established were not expanding. So as the country was growing it was becoming harder and harder to get into high quality private research universities.
We all celebrated 5.69%, but I suspect politically that is a problem. Much like allocating some funds to financial aid to get Congress out of the endowment management business, I suspect we will see the top 15-20 universities in the USA begin to entertain undergrad enrollment expansion projects too.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - g1313 - 06-05-2013
Isn't complaining about housing one of the great unifiers of college life? At the end of the day there is a lot to like about the housing situation at Stanford, especially if you compare it to some of the giant concrete dorms at some east bay schools.
I think some of the circumstances that stupac mentioned were only temporary due to ongoing CIP projects - I know when I was there in the early 2000s they were converting dorm libraries and study rooms to housing rooms because Branner was closed for a year.
I'm guessing that a new Lag building would take either the parking lot between Lag and GovCo, or between Lag and Roble. Maybe there is an outside chance they would build it across the street at Roble Field is today? On the Manzanita side there isn't a ton of space either, the most likely target is Manzanita Field, or the smaller empty plot between the dining hall and Schwab.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - 82 Card - 06-06-2013
Back in our day, I rented one of the Eichlers in Palo Alto with the woman I eventually maried. After we sublet one of the rooms, it worked out cheaper than living in the dorms. Much nicer than any dorm. From what I hear about the Palo Alto market, the same arangement would not be affordable today.Â
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - 82lsju - 06-06-2013
I was surprised to read about the relative cost of time of average net tuition
According to Hennessy, net tuition (as calculated by subtracting financial aid from total costs of attending Stanford) was $16,586 in 2010-2011, compared to $16,090 in 1991-1992 on an inflation-adjusted basis.
Weve actually made the institution more affordable over time, and that no doubt bears directly on whats happened with our student body in terms of more socio-economic diversity in it, and of course lots of applications, Hennessy said.
and pleased to read about the upcoming renovation of the Old Chemistry Building
According to Hennessy, the University recently found a donor to fund a renovation of the Old Chemistry Building, which will become an undergraduate science center with both classrooms and laboratory space. That renovation would fulfill a long-standing goal for both Hennessy and Provost John Etchemendy Ph.D. 82.
That building is an architectural treasure, and we are delighted we can restore it, Hennessy said.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/06/04/plan-to-grow-undergrad-population-to-affect-faculty-housing/
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - stupac2 - 06-06-2013
Yeah I have way fewer debts than friends who went to schools with lower sticker prices, because aid is so generous.
As for the Old Chem building, while renovating is a good thing, I'm a bit sad there won't be any more games of zombie tag in the run-down building. That was fun.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - FarmBoy - 06-06-2013
Quote:(as calculated by subtracting financial aid from total costs of attending Stanford
How do they define "financial aid?" Do they subtract the value of loans from the cost of tuition or is that just grants? Because that could misrepresent the true cost significantly. If students in 1992 spent an inflation adjusted $16K plus took on $2K in loans, that's a lot different from students in 2011 paying $16K plus taking on $20K in loans.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - yvonne - 06-06-2013
Considering median household income in the US from 2007-2011 was $52,762, I'd say quite a few people in 2013 are paying no tuition. At least those outside the major metropolitan areas would probably be true.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - FarmBoy - 06-06-2013
But what's the median income for households of admitted students?
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - jacketree - 06-06-2013
In the US, the total number of high school graduates is expected to rise only modestly over the next several decades although demographics will significantly change. There is a lot of demographic information in this report: http://chronicle.com/article/Wave-of-Diverse-College/136603/ I think the baby boomlet, or whatever they called it. My daughter's graduating high school class (2009) was supposed to be the peak.
Stanford can have whatever population and mix it can afford based on cost and space considerations. There are enough qualified applicants. I too find it sort of strange that Hennessy just "assumes" the grad population will inexorably rise, so to balance the mix he therefore needs to bring in more undergrads. No, just re-balance the mix.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - FarmBoy - 06-06-2013
Do folks here think that the undergraduate population will become significantly more international in the coming 10-20 years? We may be past the US peak, but I'm sure there's several million "high school" graduates in China and India ready to submit their applications, especially as those countries gain wealth.
Re: A bigger Stanford? (Not talking about the o-line) - stupac2 - 06-06-2013
(06-06-2013, 01:11 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Do folks here think that the undergraduate population will become significantly more international in the coming 10-20 years? We may be past the US peak, but I'm sure there's several million "high school" graduates in China and India ready to submit their applications, especially as those countries gain wealth.
Aren't there pretty stringent caps on educational visas? Seems unlikely that we'd get much more if that's the case.
On the other hand, if we manage to meaningfully reform our immigration system this will likely be changed (if that's even the case, I'm not 100%), but the odds of that are looking low right now.