Stanford changes its mind about NYC

[phantasmagoric]

<p>applejack,</p>

<p>

They are officially 50/50 partners in the project with Cornell managing the campus and the Technion focused on working with them on curriculum / business development / faculty. They forged that partnership in the summer, not as an add-on to Cornell’s bid.

</p>

<p>This is simply semantics: one could say that the partnership with the Technion is part of the proposal, or you could say that what Cornell drew up for a campus is the proposal.</p>

<p>

I’m not sure why you think it’s such a feather in your cap to say Stanford didn’t need a partner beyond CCNY

</p>

<p>You’re confusing who made what points. And I’m not sure why it’s such a feather in your cap that we aren’t praising Cornell on our hands and knees, or why you keep coming back to argue even after you’ve stepped out.</p>

<p>

Of course Cornell lags behind in business incubation due to their isolation.

</p>

<p>See, I don’t think it’s an “of course.” Stanford was a rural school when it was founded (“the farm”). You couldn’t even really call it “suburban” by the 1940s given its isolation and pastoral quality. Stanford needed its graduates to have jobs, so that’s why the university (esp. Fred Terman) decided to build up industry around it: by starting the Stanford Industrial Park (now the Stanford Research Park), wooing outsiders to come and set up business near Stanford, and encouraging its graduates to found companies. The result was a snowball effect, and that’s how we have SV today. </p>

<p>Perhaps the reason Cornell couldn’t also do this is that having NYC only a few hours away pulls all the industry away. (After all, both the Stanfords were from NY, though they chose to found a school on the West Coast.)</p>

<p>history1,</p>

<p>

Knowing this, I don’t see how anyone can say that Cornell’s and SU’s proposals were = at the start of things.

</p>

<p>That’s really what I’ve been talking about throughout this entire discussion; by “proposal,” I’ve been mostly indicating the campus, as that’s been the use of the term since the start of this whole process a year ago. More recently, with the strategic partnerships, startup funds, etc. I can see how you’d combine it all as the proposal itself.</p>

<p>I think there were enough details released to know that the proposals in this sense were relatively equal, as they called for about equal numbers of everything (although Stanford proposed to spend more). The nitty-gritty details of the campuses are not likely to significantly change the relative quality of proposals at this level.</p>

<p>

that Cornell would not have won if the Technion had not been a part of its proposal.

</p>

<p>Of course it’s fair to argue that. Bloomberg has more or less stated that: “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made it clear that the synergy between the two institutions was a critical factor.”</p>

<p>

I will say that I don’t think VC funding will ultimately be a problem and “close proximity” in a city like NY takes on a different meaning due to how nearly everything in NYC is connected via a good subway system.

</p>

<p>If the VCs are in NYC, then sure, that would be “close proximity.” But my point is that the VCs won’t be in NYC. Part - or most - of the reason for this is as I stated, the network effect. There’s a critical mass of tech industry in SV and for even large VC firms, it’s not worthwhile to set up an office elsewhere to be close to the tech industry there, which is likely dwarfed by SV. NYC has some 316,000 tech jobs, compared to SV’s 225,000, although the latter is far more concentrated. If Cornell/Technion are truly going to add 30,000 jobs, do you think that having 346,000 tech jobs would be more likely to attract VCs from SV? I seriously doubt it. But many VCs had already stated they’d follow Stanford to NYC. So IMO, because of this, the city really shot itself in the foot.</p>

<p>There’s a reason that even the most prestigious and wealthy VC firms like KPCB, Sequoia, and Mayfield don’t have offices outside of Sand Hill Road, and if they do, it’s in Shanghai or Beijing, not NYC.</p>

<p>

your argument that Cornell won only because SU dropped out has nothing to do with an “inferiority complex,” but with your attempt to downplay Cornell’s win because you feel SU was beat out ultimately by a school you feel is inferior.

</p>

<p>That’s not what I’ve been saying. As I’ve said many times, Cornell (with Technion) was ultimately the more attractive one, and it had won before Stanford walked out. But Stanford would have walked away regardless, considering that the negotiations had never worked out. I will repeat what I said before: “Cornell did indeed win by the time Stanford had dropped out.”</p>

<p>

you begin to list the ways that Stanford was “superior” to Cornell, even thought that had nothing to do with the conversation.

</p>

<p>What are you referring to? Post #86? If so, that was a listing of how tech industry is cultivated. Stanford is indeed superior to Cornell in this; this is uncontested. It also had everything to do with the conversation: we were discussing two recent articles that datalook had posted. One article brought up who is losing out more on this, NYC or Stanford. I had a more general response to the articles (as I stated) and had taken a specific viewpoint on this. (Notice in that list, I also brought up areas in which Stanford and others would do equally well, or in which Stanford and others would have equal difficulty.)</p>

<p>But if you have an inferiority complex, I can see how you could misconstrue this as a drive-by attack on Cornell to make students feel bad.</p>

<p>

by a school you feel is inferior

</p>

<p>That, again, is your inferiority complex at work. I do not think that “Cornell” is inferior. I’ve stated several times I don’t think it makes sense to compare universities on the whole at this level. Rather, Cornell’s ability to be successful with this immense project is inferior, relative to Stanford. Even the articles note that the Technion was necessary to shore up Cornell’s inferiority to Stanford in this. By “this,” I mean “creating a tech industry.”</p>

<p>

one can spin things and say that Cornell won because it was more ambitious and hungry for the site. Alternatively, borrowing something from an earlier poster, one can say that SU lost because it was too timid and not willing to take a bold risk in this instance.

</p>

<p>Exactly - as I’ve said several times, much of it is open to interpretation given the gaps in knowledge (although how many gaps you perceive depends on how gullible you are in politics). You mostly have to base it on the probability of certain realities.</p>

<p>

Bloomberg mentioned on his radio show a few days after the winner was announced that the issue of toxic waste at the site was no real issue at all

</p>

<p>Well, of course Bloomberg would say that. (They don’t know how bad the toxic waste is, which is what the whole contention was. Nobody can say until they tear down the current buildings and see. As articles stated, Stanford was scared of being liable if toxic waste held back construction; Stanford wanted more certainty in the contracts.)</p>