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

241–250 of 269 posts

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#241

Post by bgentry »

mkoubaa wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we're talking about a case where students were, in 2012, accused of cheating on a bio test, and not found guilty . Meanwhile: cheating is absolutely rampant --- and has presumably only gotten much, much worse since 2012.

I've seen people cheat first hand dozens of times and know that a jury would find them not guilty. Legal standards are very high

The standards should be high in any situation where you can significantly harm a person's life trajectory, even if not in a criminal court. Getting kicked out of Stanford for cheating could definitely derail a person's life.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#242

Post by red-iron-pine »

randycupertino wrote: post #217
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do house parties not exist at Stanford?

They certainly exist and are fun (as well as playing beer pong in the fountain) but it's nothing as wild as say ... Arizona State. source: went to big state university undergrad then 4 years at Stanford. Miles of difference in the party scenes. Stanford social scene: Beige Toyota Prius Big State U: Lime green Ferrari 250 GTO

U Texas football had tailgate parties that got sponsorship from several big named beer brands, hot dog companies.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#243

Post by iosono88 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #44
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.

[dead]

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#244

Post by red-iron-pine »

ben_w wrote: post #74
version_five wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, from how I understand you post I feel like it could be a comedy skit about a Welsh guy going to the coastal US and acting normally, like telling drinking stories, while the sheltered people around him are horrified.

*Welsh student* "Felly beth bynnag, ar ôl i ni i gyd orffen y pumed peint, David, chwedl llwyr ei fod, penderfynodd roi un o'r defaid yr oeddem wedi'i ddwyn i sedd gefn car y deon. Beth bynnag, arweiniodd un peth at un arall, a nawr ni chaniateir o fewn hanner milltir i'r Amwythig." *American stares back in monolingual, desperately grasping with one hand for some holy water as they believe they have witnessed Speakin…

"so I was at this party and this British dude was so drunk he starts speaking, no shit, in Elvish. Like full-on Tolken, man!"

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#245

Post by mcv »

> Stanford now has more than 10,000 administrators who oversee the 7,761 undergraduate and 9,565 graduate students

Is that normal? This sounds ridiculously excessive to me. (Also, Stanford is a lot smaller than I thought.)

Amsterdam has two universities, each with 30k+ students and about 5000 employees (+/- 1000).

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#246

Post by 908B64B197 »

tqi wrote: post #87
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…

> Attempts to make their world risk free has turned it into "fuck up once and we'll destroy you". TBH I think it is a much bigger problem that low-stakes hyper-local issues have been elevated into proxy battles for national politics. Truly, the fact that anyone who is not either attending or administering this university cares about their party policy at all (let alone enough to write about it professionally) is comp…

>> Attempts to make their world risk free has turned it into "fuck up once and we'll destroy you".

>> TBH I think it is a much bigger problem that low-stakes hyper-local issues have been elevated into proxy battles for national politics.

Ironically, another hyper-local problem that's been elevated at the national level is the shoplifting epidemics that's happening not far from Stanford.

I can't help but to be amazed at the completely different treatment a shoplifting thug will receive (absolutely no repercussion) vs a model Stanford student who has one (victimless) mishap (bullied to suicide by bureaucrats).

Truly mind boggling.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#247

Post by tptacek »

bgentry wrote: post #241
mkoubaa wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen people cheat first hand dozens of times and know that a jury would find them not guilty. Legal standards are very high

The standards should be high in any situation where you can significantly harm a person's life trajectory, even if not in a criminal court. Getting kicked out of Stanford for cheating could definitely derail a person's life.

The overwhelming majority of high-achieving students can't get in to Stanford to begin with, so it's hard for me to understand how being asked to leave Stanford could be ruinous.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#248

Post by tptacek »

fortran77 wrote: post #211
tptacek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) The coffee assault apparently caused a physical injury. (2) If you dumped so much as a cup of cold water on someone in a workplace, you'd be out on your ass that day. I honestly don't understand what we're even debating here. This isn't middle school. These are adults, in one of the most selective institutions on the planet.

Yes. They should have left this to the police and courts and, if she gets convicted, or pleads guilty, expel her. This also ensures there’s a proper public record for future schools or employers. I don’t know why the author of this piece tried to wave away a felony assault. And I’m saddened that a woman who got in to Stanford doesn’t believe in due process, but instead opts for vigilante justice based on a rumor. We…

Zero is the number of workplaces that would wait for a police report before terminating someone for throwing a beverage. The unreality of these kinds of message board discussions when it comes to getting the police involved to settle disputes always throws me. I mean, get a police report if you want to press charges, but Stanford is under absolutely no obligation to involve the police before threatening expulsion.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#249

Post by tptacek »

prepend wrote: post #233
tptacek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) The coffee assault apparently caused a physical injury. (2) If you dumped so much as a cup of cold water on someone in a workplace, you'd be out on your ass that day. I honestly don't understand what we're even debating here. This isn't middle school. These are adults, in one of the most selective institutions on the planet.

The article and references does not describe any injury from the coffee. Not from the football player’s account, nor from any medical treatment. College isn’t a workplace. And even in a workplace it depends on the circumstances. In my workplace, super regulated, if a third party claimed that someone threw coffee on someone else, no one is getting fired that day. And if they were then it would be a pretty huge wrongfu…

You get that there are additional sources of information beyond what the author of this article provides, right? It's not cheating to go look things up.

Re: Stanford’s war against its own students

#250

Post by tptacek »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #194
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…

I think the issue is making mountains out of molehills. If you have ever been subject to the faceless institutional processes judicial, or non-judicial, they can be weaponized in a way that forgets there is a human on the receiving end. We need to be careful when things go overboard with applying the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit of it which is about justice. Sometimes, the punishment is the process. >…

My claim is that this article seems to be about Stanford making molehills out of molehills.
Post reply on HN