Live data from Hacker News

Stanford’s war against its own students

thefp.com

91–100 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#91
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 wor…

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.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#92
post #62

I can't take the use of "war" in this headline seriously at all. Why is everything framed so threateningly? Maybe this is a bad policy, but it seems to me they want to ensure on-campus, official student organization run, parties that serve alcohol do so responsibly and provide other drinks so people don't feel like they have to drink booze. Maybe they've gone too far in another direction, but seems something Standfor…

I don't like that either and if someone can suggest a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the article itself), we'd be happy to change it.

"Stanford's aggressive crackdown on its own students" ?

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of undergrads live on campus. Off-campus housing is quite expensive (it's in Palo Alto), since you're competing with Googlers and the like for real estate.

This is not a problem or experience unique to Stanford: NYC has 600,000 university students living in it, and they manage to tear it up just fine without relying on the campus to host their parties.

The point is that the vast majority of Stanford undergrads live on-campus. That is presumably not true for universities in NYC. Given that Stanford undergrads live almost entirely on-campus, it is not surprising that on-campus parties form the backbone of the party scene. And given that most undergrads in NYC do not live on-campus, it is not surprising that their party scenes are not as impacted by campus rules.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#94
post #30
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... There are quite a few sites whose content is mostly skewed but which occasionally publish good articles that, for whatever reason, wouldn't get published by less tendentious sites. Our approach is to downweight such sites but not to ban them, and to turn the penalty off when an article seems good for HN—…

Hi dang! I think this article is a tough case. This is an interesting and intellectually curious article, but it is not separable completely from the rest of the website - there is a large "EXTRA! Listen to 'The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling'" which is ideological flamebait that would not be allowed on HN, along with most of the rest of the website. Has HN ever considered amending the "original source" policy to use t…

Way to argue against intellectual curiosity.

If anything, "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling" is intellectually rich and fascinating. Almost everybody who bothered to open their minds and actually listen to it is incredibly positive about it. It's incredibly thorough. Not only does it discuss the controversy from different angles, it also does a deep dive on the roots of online activism. It's near impossible to not learn something from it.

It's not "ideological flamebait", it's a well-researched master piece.

Had you given some right-wing/left-wing cheap shot, you'd have a point, but this isn't it. Perhaps the time you spent on silencing articles or entire publications should be spent on actual curiosity.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#95

"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…

> Attempts to make their world risk free

It's nothing to do with risk free for the students. Nothing.

It's to reduce liability for the university. That is the world we live in.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been to Palo Alto? It's rather different from New York. Even SF is more boring and significantly smaller than NY.

Boring and smaller aren't the concern: I went to a large state school in an extremely boring suburb of DC. We still managed to cram people into overpriced off-campus housing and to drink ourselves stupid.

Sure, there are just very few Stanford undergrads who live off-campus. And most Stanford undergrads would not choose to live off-campus in order to be able to party more.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#97
post #45

"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) alm…

You rebel you

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#98

"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…

[flagged]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boring and smaller aren't the concern: I went to a large state school in an extremely boring suburb of DC. We still managed to cram people into overpriced off-campus housing and to drink ourselves stupid.

Sure, there are just very few Stanford undergrads who live off-campus. And most Stanford undergrads would not choose to live off-campus in order to be able to party more.

Which is fine! But that's a "them" problem, not a culture-way-proxy-how-dare-they-not-allow-students-to-booze-in-a-college-dorm problem.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#100

"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…

All of these rules sound onerous, but they boil down to the same rules as when I was in college ~15 years ago in a very different place (and only applied to public and openly promoted parties).

They're a very low-lift means to reducing hospital trips, at the very least.

Post reply on HN