Get down to earth
For years I have been troubled by the concentration in our GSB publications about the financial and career success of a relatively small number of class members, with much less emphasis on what is really important to a lot of us -- our families, the communities we live in, and the condition of the world we inhabit. Although that is beginning to change, it still causes discomfort.
While pondering this sense of distance from many of the things reported in GSB publications, I have watched the earth deteriorate (as we all have), and wondered regarding business endeavors in general: Why don't humans create as nature does, organically, with renewal and reuse of everything? Why do we do the expedient thing, but not the truly conscientious thing? Why do we have a short-term perspective, when the earth itself, from which we come, is surely a long-term proposition?
The Ecology of Commerce, by Paul Hawken, has stated what I had been thinking, in much more profound terms and with proposals to address the problem. It delineates our shortsighted business practices that deplete resources without adding anything, that create toxic substances and situations -- and even create businesses to clean them up -- when our commercial efforts should be only those that do nothing harmful in the first place. To that end, if we do not change business fundamentally, as the one worldwide human endeavor supporting our various societies, we will destroy our own and perhaps most of the earth's life as we know it. Nowhere have I seen the problem or its solution stated more concisely.
We should encourage the proliferation of business only with a commensurate concentration on what it does to benefit the world, taking the long view in every phase of business if we are to continue to have a world for our children to enjoy. Every student coming through our school should consider the physical, cultural, and economic effects of any business undertaken, else we shall continue to destroy lakes, rivers, oceans, land, flora, fauna, and native cultures with abandon. If we, the most privileged and educated members of the human race, do not use our one earth with the greatest care, we do not deserve our privileges and education, nor the opportunity to spoil more of the earth for those less fortunate or powerful.
The GSB has an opportunity to help change humanity's treatment of our earth and of life itself. Were the School to publicize its tangible support, in the classroom and in student projects, for reengineering established businesses and creating new enterprises that are truly kind to the earth and its peoples, you might be surprised to find many heretofore reluctant donors moved to contribute.
Ann Gordon McStay, MBA '80
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Well done!
In the course of a long weekend, I did some reading. I think your magazine has developed into a first-rate report. It covers all the activities of the School with style and zing! Well done.
Peter Thorp
Vice President, Citibank, N.A.
New York, New York
Who pays?
The table on page 28 of your December issue prompts me to ask an awkward but very serious question: Who will pay the costs of a Stanford MBA 20, 30, or 40 years from now?
That table identifies 25 percent of the Class of 1997 as "international" students, an increase from 18 percent 10 years earlier and 19 percent 25 years earlier, and it is a fact that, even at "full tuition," international students are subsidized by U.S. citizens.
President Casper wrote in his newsletter to alumni last year that full tuition covers only 60 percent of the cost of a Stanford education; the other 40 percent comes from current gifts, endowment, and other income (research contracts, real estate rentals, licenses, etc.), with most of the latter generated locally.
Gifts and endowment come overwhelmingly from U.S. citizens -- mostly alumni. Neither the culture nor the tax structures of foreign countries encourage gifts to U.S. universities. This certainly is true for Stanford fundraising. I know this from my experience as a past chairman of the Business School Fund (and other funds) and as a past vice president of the Stanford Associates, during my nearly 40 years of fundraising for Stanford. While there are notable exceptions, Stanford has not been successful in obtaining financial support from our international alumni.
My obvious concern is that, as the percentage of international alumni increases, prospects for continued (let alone increasing) alumni support are jeopardized. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens are paying, through our U.S. taxes and our gifts to the GSB, an increasing percentage of the cost of MBA degrees of our international students.
While Stanford should want -- even need -- international students, in my personal opinion, the question is simply: Is it fair and prudent that the cost of their education should be at all subsidized by U.S. citizens?
Charles Eldon, MBA '50
Sierra Vista, Arizona
Veteran MBA students
As a member of the Class of 1972, I enjoyed seeing the statistical comparisons of the classes of 1972, 1987, and 1997. The statistic that has probably changed the most was left out -- the number of military veterans. As I recall, over 50 percent of our class had spent time in the military.
David Hoster II, MBA '72
Jackson, Mississippi
From the editor
The GSB admissions office no longer asks applicants if they have served in the military. However, students are asked to identify their most recent job. Six people in the MBA Class of 1997 entered the GSB directly from the armed services of the United States or another country.
This is an official Stanford Graduate School of Business webpage
Copyright © 1996 Stanford University - Graduate School of Business