8 ms·

I think the core bit you've missed is: Stanford explicitly selects for perfectionists by requiring extremely high standards of (most) students. Those students h

I think the core bit you've missed is: Stanford explicitly selects for perfectionists by requiring extremely high standards of (most) students. Those students have spend several years working very hard to get in, aware that even the slightest mis-step can cost them everything they've worked for. But they're surrounded by people trying to help them get in. Then they get to Stanford and discover that the university administration is actively hostile, it's looking for reasons to get rid of imperfect students, or students that can be blamed for imperfection (anyone running a group of students that has a problem).

majormajor 3y ago
> But they're surrounded by people trying to help them get in. Do you mean helicopter parents? Or referring to the administration?
- heffer 3y ago
  I understood it as meaning a social and academic environment that is supporting them in getting into Stanford.
- Psychlist 3y ago
  I mean supportive parents, and very likely also a supportive school and supportive community. "led a youth group" on the application doesn't arise in isolation, any more than high grades in external exams come from homeschooling (they can in both cases, but you're in the 0.1% of the 1% who get into Stanford territory).
tptacek 3y ago
But that's all of life, too, isn't it? If you host a party in real life that serves alcohol to minors and get caught, you'll face more annoying consequences than a 1 year party moratorium. And, as I said, I'm pretty sure that if you deliberately dump a cup of coffee onto a coworker, you'll be fired instantly.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Psychlist 3y ago
  Two things: college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes so making the normal consequence of any mistake the end of your career goes against that. Historically the decent young men of Stanford were able to get drunk, pull dumb stunts, embarrass themselves, then graduate and join "real life". The recent decision that sexual assault should be taken off the list of allowable "dumb stunts" is still working its way through the system, and right now we seem to be at the "major overreaction" stage. Secondly, part of the idea of Stanford and other elite schools is to create social links so that even quite serious mistakes aren't career-ending. The idea that "your first business will fail, and that's ok" is necessary because almost all new businesses do fail. Society needs that, and since the US can't have a social safety net, we need that group of rich kids with rich friends to provide at least some people who can afford those failures. We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I don't accept either of these premises. Stanford students are adults (indeed, many of them aren't even young adults). It is not principally the mission of Stanford to insulate its students from consequences. We just had a story here earlier today where HN is up in arms (somewhat reasonably so) because of Stanford's refusal to visit consequences on students who protested an odious speaker. Here the consequences we're talking about are even sillier: it's the right to host official school-sanctioned parties with alcohol service. Who gives a shit? Second, it indeed may be a subtextual benefit of Stanford that attendance cements your status among an elite (this touches on the "human capital" vs. "signaling" debate). But to whatever extent that's the case, it's a bad thing. Stanford attendance is an unimaginably rarified privilege. If Stanford's disciplinary process happens to mute some of the status benefit of making it in, so much the better. I don't have much to say about the coffee-cup case, which is very sad, and which fortunately doesn't occupy much of the attention of this article the way the frat party case does. So: let's just focus our attention on the frat party. And in response to it, I'd just remind you of the scene in The Social Network, where the Winklevii attempt to escalate to the president of Harvard their concerns about Zuckerberg stealing the idea for ConnectU. Retaining lawyers to fight sanctions against underage drinking is that, but like 6 times dumber.
nitwit005 3y ago
This isn't an issue of a student being "imperfect". The issue is actual criminality. Throwing hot coffee at someone is an assault. People have been arrested for throwing coffee at cashiers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fencepost 3y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong, but a misdemeanor (or a meeting between the students if acceptable to both, except apparently it was an administrator and not the coffee-dampened football player who filed the complaint) might have been preferable to a 5-page single-spaced letter threatening a final-semester senior with expulsion. "Where'd you go to school?" "7 semesters at Stanford, finishing as captain of the women's soccer team, then they expelled me a month before graduation for throwing coffee on someone who'd sexually assaulted one of my teammates." Yeah, I'm pretty sure misdemeanor charges with a fine and maybe community service would've been preferable to threats of expulsion from VERY EXPENSIVE school you were about to graduate from. All the time, all the money, all the student loans, but no degree. Good thing Stanford apparently makes its money on research. What are the odds ANY of the women on the soccer team she was captain of ever give money to the school as alums?
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    You don't appear to be responding to anything I wrote, other than apparently agreeing it was a criminal issue.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    The "coffee-dampened" student was physically injured [1], according to the university. The fact that this act of violence was done on account of disagreeing with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding does not make it less serious - quite the contrary, the fact that this was retaliation over the outcome of a proceeding makes it far more serious as it risks igniting a cycle of further escalation and retaliation. Would you have been so nonchalant if the accused was found responsible, and he poured coffee on his accuser because he felt the outcome of the proceeding was incorrect? If not, then the accused deserved the same protection from accusers dissatisfied with the outcome of sexual misconduct proceedings. 1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/ https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...
Manuel_D 3y ago
The university was being actively hostile towards Meyer? It seems unambiguous to me that the hostility originated with Meyer. One does not accidentally spill coffee and it just happens to land on the person your friend unsuccessfully accused of harassment out of the 10k+ students on campus. According to the university, this resulted in physical injury [1]. This isn't just the university trying to "get rid of imperfect students". Violent retaliation on account of dissatisfaction with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding is a very significant transgression. If the university didn't sanction Meyer it would set the precedent that pouring boiling water on classmates is tolerated behavior - do you want the friends of men found responsible of sexual assault pouring boiling water on accusers if they feel the outcome was unjustified, in the same vein as what Meyer did? It's unfortunate that the university's actions seem to have prompted Meyer to take her life, but that does not mean their actions were wrong. That said I do agree with a lot of what the article wrote. I was an undergrad at Stanford 2011-2015. The university was ramping up its control on social life around that time. Slav house was shut down my junior year, and they were already starting to tighten the reigns on band and greek life. I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be. Perhaps students will start to socialize more off campus, but that's not really feasible without a car (and the attended risks of driving under the influence). 1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/ https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...

majormajor 3y ago

> But they're surrounded by people trying to help them get in. Do you mean helicopter parents? Or referring to the administration?

heffer 3y ago
I understood it as meaning a social and academic environment that is supporting them in getting into Stanford.
Psychlist 3y ago
I mean supportive parents, and very likely also a supportive school and supportive community. "led a youth group" on the application doesn't arise in isolation, any more than high grades in external exams come from homeschooling (they can in both cases, but you're in the 0.1% of the 1% who get into Stanford territory).

tptacek 3y ago

But that's all of life, too, isn't it? If you host a party in real life that serves alcohol to minors and get caught, you'll face more annoying consequences than a 1 year party moratorium. And, as I said, I'm pretty sure that if you deliberately dump a cup of coffee onto a coworker, you'll be fired instantly.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Psychlist 3y ago
Two things: college is supposed to be an opportunity to learn from mistakes so making the normal consequence of any mistake the end of your career goes against that. Historically the decent young men of Stanford were able to get drunk, pull dumb stunts, embarrass themselves, then graduate and join "real life". The recent decision that sexual assault should be taken off the list of allowable "dumb stunts" is still working its way through the system, and right now we seem to be at the "major overreaction" stage. Secondly, part of the idea of Stanford and other elite schools is to create social links so that even quite serious mistakes aren't career-ending. The idea that "your first business will fail, and that's ok" is necessary because almost all new businesses do fail. Society needs that, and since the US can't have a social safety net, we need that group of rich kids with rich friends to provide at least some people who can afford those failures. We can argue about whether the victim of the coffee-dumping was wrong to think it was a minor thing, but hopefully we can all agree that the death penalty was a bit harsh for that offense?
- tptacek 3y ago
  I don't accept either of these premises. Stanford students are adults (indeed, many of them aren't even young adults). It is not principally the mission of Stanford to insulate its students from consequences. We just had a story here earlier today where HN is up in arms (somewhat reasonably so) because of Stanford's refusal to visit consequences on students who protested an odious speaker. Here the consequences we're talking about are even sillier: it's the right to host official school-sanctioned parties with alcohol service. Who gives a shit? Second, it indeed may be a subtextual benefit of Stanford that attendance cements your status among an elite (this touches on the "human capital" vs. "signaling" debate). But to whatever extent that's the case, it's a bad thing. Stanford attendance is an unimaginably rarified privilege. If Stanford's disciplinary process happens to mute some of the status benefit of making it in, so much the better. I don't have much to say about the coffee-cup case, which is very sad, and which fortunately doesn't occupy much of the attention of this article the way the frat party case does. So: let's just focus our attention on the frat party. And in response to it, I'd just remind you of the scene in The Social Network, where the Winklevii attempt to escalate to the president of Harvard their concerns about Zuckerberg stealing the idea for ConnectU. Retaining lawyers to fight sanctions against underage drinking is that, but like 6 times dumber.

nitwit005 3y ago

This isn't an issue of a student being "imperfect". The issue is actual criminality. Throwing hot coffee at someone is an assault. People have been arrested for throwing coffee at cashiers.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fencepost 3y ago
Maybe I'm wrong, but a misdemeanor (or a meeting between the students if acceptable to both, except apparently it was an administrator and not the coffee-dampened football player who filed the complaint) might have been preferable to a 5-page single-spaced letter threatening a final-semester senior with expulsion. "Where'd you go to school?" "7 semesters at Stanford, finishing as captain of the women's soccer team, then they expelled me a month before graduation for throwing coffee on someone who'd sexually assaulted one of my teammates." Yeah, I'm pretty sure misdemeanor charges with a fine and maybe community service would've been preferable to threats of expulsion from VERY EXPENSIVE school you were about to graduate from. All the time, all the money, all the student loans, but no degree. Good thing Stanford apparently makes its money on research. What are the odds ANY of the women on the soccer team she was captain of ever give money to the school as alums?
- nitwit005 3y ago
  You don't appear to be responding to anything I wrote, other than apparently agreeing it was a criminal issue.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  The "coffee-dampened" student was physically injured [1], according to the university. The fact that this act of violence was done on account of disagreeing with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding does not make it less serious - quite the contrary, the fact that this was retaliation over the outcome of a proceeding makes it far more serious as it risks igniting a cycle of further escalation and retaliation. Would you have been so nonchalant if the accused was found responsible, and he poured coffee on his accuser because he felt the outcome of the proceeding was incorrect? If not, then the accused deserved the same protection from accusers dissatisfied with the outcome of sexual misconduct proceedings. 1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/ https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...

Manuel_D 3y ago

The university was being actively hostile towards Meyer? It seems unambiguous to me that the hostility originated with Meyer. One does not accidentally spill coffee and it just happens to land on the person your friend unsuccessfully accused of harassment out of the 10k+ students on campus. According to the university, this resulted in physical injury [1]. This isn't just the university trying to "get rid of imperfect students". Violent retaliation on account of dissatisfaction with the outcome of a sexual assault proceeding is a very significant transgression. If the university didn't sanction Meyer it would set the precedent that pouring boiling water on classmates is tolerated behavior - do you want the friends of men found responsible of sexual assault pouring boiling water on accusers if they feel the outcome was unjustified, in the same vein as what Meyer did? It's unfortunate that the university's actions seem to have prompted Meyer to take her life, but that does not mean their actions were wrong. That said I do agree with a lot of what the article wrote. I was an undergrad at Stanford 2011-2015. The university was ramping up its control on social life around that time. Slav house was shut down my junior year, and they were already starting to tighten the reigns on band and greek life. I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be. Perhaps students will start to socialize more off campus, but that's not really feasible without a car (and the attended risks of driving under the influence). 1. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/ https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-fam...