Pros
Great benefits, but there's a caveat
Cons
Stanford is a great place if you're looking for security. But, you’ll hate yourself in the long-term for sacrificing your motivation and desire to challenge yourself and grow if you stay here. If you're looking for professional growth, it is not the place. If you're looking for a great income, it is not the place. If you're looking to have an impact with your creativity, it is not the place. If you’re looking to make a decent yet lower-than SF Bay Area wage while having great security, it is that place. This is how you may get screwed. On one hand, Stanford tells you that since you have amazing benefits, your salary can't be too high. Then they wonder why the turnover rate is insane. Once you begin and learn that the previous person was making a lot more than you, you automatically begin to shut-down. Your performance plummets and you begin running like a rabbit to get the hell out of there. They're simply not direct or honest in their hiring process. The salary range they provide (if they still do that, I haven’t been a part of Stanford for sometime), is extremely misleading. Whatever job you take, expect your salary to be on the very low-end of that scale. Also, expect whatever job you take to be directly affected by your previous position. If you went from a gardner to a Doctor, Stanford HR will insist to pay you based on your gardening income. This hardly happens, but you get the picture. If you're making salary X, it will be below market. Why? They tell you that your benefits account for an additional 30% of "income." Well, OK that sounds great right? Then if you were to get that same position as an hourly staff, do you think they would pay you your original hourly income plus that 30%? Dream on. They will tell you that what you're making per hour is too high. You'll most likely make your annual salary's hourly rate even when you have no benefits. This way, they pay their full-times employees little by telling them they have great benefits and also keep their hourly employees with low wages by touting their "high" hourly wages. Most of the benefits are accounting tricks. They say you get X value of benefits, when they probably pay a tenth of that to the benefit provider. So, they screw you over and still expect you to thank them. They’re not hiring idiots, but they treat you like one. Example: You're making 100k with benefits. 100k comes out to ~$50 per hour. Uncle Sam, takes around ~35% (maybe more depending on your circumstance). So, you're actual hourly rate is around $37. With Stanford's benefits, that's not a bad deal at all assuming that you're getting paid the right salary for that job. But, you'll likely make $70k ($35/hour) at Stanford because they inflate benefits. The $35/hour after taxes is around $25/hour. So you just lost over $10 per hour because of the way they calculate your salary. So, you decide why not work strictly as an hourly employee? I'll at least make more per hour since they'll use the same calculation to add the 30% of benefits to my hourly income right? Wrong. If you were hired as hourly, you may be lucky to earn $40/hour without benefits for a job with $35 with benefits that should actually pay $50/hour. You ask them, wait a second what about the fact that this job has no benefits? They tell you that the typical hourly of a similar position is $35 (They don’t mention benefits) and you're getting overpaid at $40/hour. Basically, when it benefits them to include benefits so they don't have to pay full-time employees well, they do. When it benefits them to solely focus on your hourly to pay their hourly employees little, they do the same. As someone else already mentioned, this is a great place to learn, grow and move on (either to a higher position at Stanford or another place). If you decide to stay complacent and stay in the same position for more than two years, you'll hate yourself forever. Don't buy into the idea that Stanford is an educational non-profit. IAnyone who has worked here knows how much the university spends on Palm Trees and how much they shell out for their execs.