Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford’s war against its own students

thefp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#41

Post by yamtaddle »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #29
yamtaddle wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised they allow alcohol at student organization events, period. My boring public university no-one's heard of sure didn't, years back.

Look we are trying to have a moral panic about political correctness here get in the spirit please.

God, now I'm thinking about how much better our fundraisers would have been if we could have sold drink tickets, for the organizations I was involved in. And how much more I'd have cared about fundraising if we could have diverted some of the proceeds to buy ourselves alcohol "for official functions", LOL.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#42

Post by scotty79 »

nickff wrote: post #40
scotty79 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-drinker all of those seem to me pretty reasonable requests for any kind of gathering. A bit organized perhaps, but not insane as some commenters suggest.

They're not requests , they're requirements .

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker. I think I used the word request improperly. I am aware that those conditions must be met. But then again I am not surprised that those were stated as requirements rather than requests.

From what I understand a request is just a polite suggestion easily, routinely ignored if it requires additional work or foresight and deviates from pre-estabilished culture.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#44

Post by aidenn0 »

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

This looks to apply to on-campus parties only? If so, it's more liberal, if also more complicated, than the university I went to where the policy for alcohol on-campus was "No."

Granted you could find dozens of parties within a mile of campus there; I don't know the geography of Stanford.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#45

Post by ben_w »

bennysonething wrote: post #16

"For the past several years, Stanford has required students to adhere to a Student Party Policy, which includes a highly detailed “Harm Reduction Plan” mandating multiple sober monitors and designated alcohol service areas, and prohibiting the serving of any hard liquor. Party hosts must also provide “EANABs,” or Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages, to “contribute to an inclusive and inviting experience” for a…

The welcome event for freshers at Aberystwyth uni had the speaker (Chancellor? Don't remember) practically encouraging people to relax and drink as well as studying.

One of my acquaintances at university did an exchange year with an American university, was forced to attend an alcoholism awareness group therapy program after being caught at a party with one beer, at which (I paraphrase but by his own description) almost caused a riot by plainly describing his experiences with alcohol when the moderators of that program asked him to share.

Myself however, I was exactly the "lock yourself away in your bedroom and study (without drinking)" personality that one of the authority figures told all of us not to be.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#46

Post by com2kid »

tptacek wrote: post #32

This is such a weird article that I feel like I must not understand it. From what I can tell: A fraternity hosted one or more parties where, by finding of fact and apparently the admission of the frat itself, they served alcohol to minors, contravening an obvious Stanford policy; as a result, they had to go through an annoying adjudication process and spend several months under the thread of a long-term suspension of…

> transpose this setting to a workplace and there would be no adjudication at all, only an immediate termination.

One only wishes, and maybe now days that is true, but even 10 years ago this wasn't a sure thing, especially if the aggressor was at a high level in the company.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#48

Post by tatrajim »

As I reminisced on an earlier post about the chilling atmosphere for students at Stanford, the situation was a mite different in the 1970s. My first day there as a callow freshman from the Midwest, the cool guy next door in the dorm kindly approached me and muttered "Hey kid, you want a hit of hash?"

The one inviolable rule for university housing at the time was "no growing of pot plants in a dorm room facing the street". Otherwise, cheerful anarchism prevailed, mixed with some anti-war near mayhem. Good times, indeed.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#49

Post by stagger87 »

blakesterz wrote: post #33
908B64B197 wrote: post #14

How could this: > Stanford now has more than 10,000 administrators who oversee the 7,761 undergraduate and 9,565 graduate students—almost enough for each student to have their own personal butler. (There are about 2,290 faculty members.) These bureaucrats make up an increasingly powerful segment of the university population, as they expand their portfolio and send the message that all conflict should be adjudicated b…

Where is that 10,000 number coming from? I don't see it on the PDF they link to, and I don't see it on the Stanford site: https://facts.stanford.edu/administration/staff/ That 10k number doesn't even sound impossible, knowing what we know about large universities now, but I just wonder where it came from. Maybe I'm missing something obvious on that PDF?

On the linked article.

Ctrl+F -> "10,000"

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#50

Post by fatnoah »

blakesterz wrote: post #33
908B64B197 wrote: post #14

How could this: > Stanford now has more than 10,000 administrators who oversee the 7,761 undergraduate and 9,565 graduate students—almost enough for each student to have their own personal butler. (There are about 2,290 faculty members.) These bureaucrats make up an increasingly powerful segment of the university population, as they expand their portfolio and send the message that all conflict should be adjudicated b…

Where is that 10,000 number coming from? I don't see it on the PDF they link to, and I don't see it on the Stanford site: https://facts.stanford.edu/administration/staff/ That 10k number doesn't even sound impossible, knowing what we know about large universities now, but I just wonder where it came from. Maybe I'm missing something obvious on that PDF?

I assume it comes from this line: 12,336* managerial and professional staff

There's a more granular breakdown here: https://irds.stanford.edu/data-findings/academic-and-non-aca...

Post reply on HN