The objective of Stanford University, Jane and Leland Stanford wrote in their Founding Grant in 1885, is “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life . . . to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization; teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s interesting, I think, to keep that stated objective in mind when reading the following information and quotes:

Sources of funds for the 2003-2004 fiscal year:

37 percent sponsored research

16 percent endowment income

3 percent other investment income

19 percent student income

9 percent health care services income

4 percent expendable gifts

12 percent other income

— Stanford Facts, 2004,

Stanford University Web site

“What could universities be? Well, the course offerings could be designed for the benefit of the students. Too often the courses offered are not what undergraduates should study but what the faculty wants to teach . . .

“The social class markings that the degree brings are an escalator to a more successful life after graduation. It is not so much the educational experience as the social class identification that is the payoff. It’s what the degree connected to the name of the institution stands for. The endowment of social class is the selective private university’s major asset . . .

“A knowledgeable friend of a private university with a superior academic reputation echoed the student’s observation while reaching out to include the faculty. When asked what he thought Stanford University’s most serious problems might be, he replied: ‘Just one. I wonder whether this excellent, research-oriented faculty and this splendid student body with its diverse interests haven’t drifted toward a kind of unwritten agreement: you don’t bother us too much, and we won’t bother you too much.’ “

— Richard Huber, “How Professors Play the Cat Guarding the Cream,” 1992.

“At a more pragmatic level, does college truly lead to better jobs? Not necessarily. The more people go to college, the less a college degree is worth. Though college graduates definitely earn more than high school graduates, more and more businesses require a college degree for jobs that used to be performed by people without degrees. It’s not unheard of for bookstores to insist on some college experience for their applicants, and many positions, regardless of the nature of the business, are open only to college graduates. Yet the salary of these jobs is often minimal, and the types of jobs that count as ‘college jobs’ would surprise many people.

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines the following as college jobs: manager of a Blockbuster video store, legal secretary, insurance claims adjuster. Not all college graduates get ‘college jobs.’ Some end up waiting tables, or selling clothing, or driving vans.”

— Zachary Karabell, “What’s College For?” 1998.

“At present, the universities are supposed to provide, in a more systematic way, what the leisure class provided accidentally and as a by-product. This is a great improvement, but it has certain drawbacks. University life is so different from life in the world at large that men who live in an academic milieu tend to be unaware of the preoccupations and problems of ordinary men and women; moreover their ways of expressing themselves are usually such as to rob their opinions of the influence that they ought to have upon the general public. Another disadvantage is that in universities studies are organized, and the man who thinks of some original line of research is likely to be discouraged. Academic institutions, therefore, useful as they are, are not adequate guardians of the interests of civilization in a world where everyone outside their walls is too busy for unutilitarian pursuits.

“In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and the capacity.”

— Bertrand Russell, “In Praise of Idleness and other essays,” 1935.

In next week’s column, I’m going to look at careers.

Andrea Runyan is a Stanford student who admits that chance had a lot to do with her getting accepted, and prestige had a lot to do with her choosing Stanford. She would love for you to send your ideas to arunyan@stanford.edu.