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

Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#61

Post by jes5199 »

treenyc wrote: post #8

That is why people who attended Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf school perform so well in College. It is a school that DOES NOT give grades to students. And the teach write feed back to the students based on whole aspects of their development including social interaction. When college get ride of tests and grade will be a good start.

I like the no-grades aspect of it, but I'm pretty turned off by the way they pressure parents to avoid having computers and recorded media around children - and that they even delay learning how to read - and that the prohibition is for religious reasons that they don't usually discuss in public.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#62

Post by gojomo »

cjimmy wrote: post #48
gojomo wrote: post #3

This is one of the reasons I think people err by reading too much into accounts from the 'Stanford Prison Experiment'. The students then (as now) weren't a sample of all people, but a particular kind of privileged young male, especially deferential and trusting towards professors, and especially willing to role-play with confidence that some other authority was managing the consequences.

The participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment weren't Stanford students. I'm not sure any of them were. They were selected by Zimbardo from responses to an ad in Palo Alto. They were selected for their normal-ness, mentally and physiologically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

You're right that they may not have been exclusively Stanford students. But they were recruited through city and campus newspapers, limited to male college students who were in Palo Alto for the last two weeks of August 1971, and had to report to an on-campus location to sign up.

I've seen definitive references that some were Stanford students, and my guess under those conditions would be that most were.

But even if most were not: a cohort of 24 male college students (23 white; 1 asian) in 1971 was not representative of society at large. Those in comfortable Palo Alto for the last 2 weeks of summer break, even less representative. And those who arrived on campus in response to a classified ad for paid volunteers "needed for psychological study of prison life", less representative again.

(As one of the followup studies footnoted in Wikipedia discovered, the mere presence of the "study of prison life" phrase in the recruitment ad changes what kind of people respond.)

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#63

Post by WiseWeasel »

jcnnghm wrote: post #53

I went to school, then dropped out, and then went back. I finished my BS last week with a 4.0 GPA. I dropped out because I wasn't learning anything, and it was an incredibly time consuming grind that wasn't any fun. I dropped out to start a company, and probably learned more every few weeks doing that, than it would be possible to learn in years of classes. There isn't a guide and every problem requires actual though…

Well that would have been boring! How about a BS in four-five years with a bunch of random cool-sounding classes in between, along with a fair share of partying and establishing hopefully enduring friendships and romantic relationships.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#64

Post by nazgulnarsil »

rayiner wrote: post #57

We've created a winner-take-all society where the cost of losing is a soul-sucking micro-managed job and the constant worry that getting sick could mean medical bills that can never be paid off. In this society you do not get points for asking big questions. You get points for getting the right degrees to serve the right signaling functions to get the right jobs which offer luxuries like health insurance and the flex…

"Kids aren't stupid. They tailor their behavior to the incentives they are offered."

To be fair economics has only been around for 300 or so years. We've had birth control in one form or another for thousands and we haven't even caught up with that yet.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#65

Post by barry-cotter »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #63
jcnnghm wrote: post #53

I went to school, then dropped out, and then went back. I finished my BS last week with a 4.0 GPA. I dropped out because I wasn't learning anything, and it was an incredibly time consuming grind that wasn't any fun. I dropped out to start a company, and probably learned more every few weeks doing that, than it would be possible to learn in years of classes. There isn't a guide and every problem requires actual though…

Well that would have been boring! How about a BS in four-five years with a bunch of random cool-sounding classes in between, along with a fair share of partying and establishing hopefully enduring friendships and romantic relationships.

None of that needs to cost most of $100,000 dollars.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#66

Post by WiseWeasel »

barry-cotter wrote: post #65
WiseWeasel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that would have been boring! How about a BS in four-five years with a bunch of random cool-sounding classes in between, along with a fair share of partying and establishing hopefully enduring friendships and romantic relationships.

None of that needs to cost most of $100,000 dollars.

It's all priceless.

It's also possible that Stanford might not be the best place for you if you are unable to get grants/scholarships, and it places too great of a financial burden. You can have a successful career with degrees from other universities as well.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#67

Post by schmico »

lhnz wrote: post #46

I am getting quite tired of listening to people argue for or against conformity. You don't become a shepherd by making yourself into a black sheep. And there is nothing wrong with conforming. There is nothing wrong with wearing fashionable status symbols. There is nothing wrong with climbing hierarchies, nothing wrong with pleading for a comfortable life, or listening to what your friends think is cool. There really…

I agree as well, but to a point. Do we really want our most targeted education resources being directed towards conformists? I think these institutions should be (almost) reserved for those who are pursuing leadership and cutting edge thinking.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#68

Post by vecter »

jcnnghm wrote: post #53

I went to school, then dropped out, and then went back. I finished my BS last week with a 4.0 GPA. I dropped out because I wasn't learning anything, and it was an incredibly time consuming grind that wasn't any fun. I dropped out to start a company, and probably learned more every few weeks doing that, than it would be possible to learn in years of classes. There isn't a guide and every problem requires actual though…

If your subjects were that easy, it sounds like you weren't challenging yourself enough. Quantitative degrees like math or physics weed out a lot of people who simply can't complete the material. For most soft subjects, I agree that it's only a matter of putting in time, but those honestly aren't difficult or interesting (as you've noted).

If I'm looking at resumes and I see a person with straight As in a hard major, I know that not only can they "complete a list of work", but that they're also probably smart. If I see a person who has straight As but majored in social sciences, I really can't conclude much about them.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#69

Post by hkmurakami »

jcnnghm wrote: post #53

I went to school, then dropped out, and then went back. I finished my BS last week with a 4.0 GPA. I dropped out because I wasn't learning anything, and it was an incredibly time consuming grind that wasn't any fun. I dropped out to start a company, and probably learned more every few weeks doing that, than it would be possible to learn in years of classes. There isn't a guide and every problem requires actual though…

People hire college graduates because they have demonstrated that they can be given a list of work, and a criteria for how their work will be judged, and complete the work. That's it. From my experience many grads will require a lot of hand holding to actually complete their work the first time, because they don't really know how to do anything, and can't think for themselves. The degree indicates that they are trainable; once they are shown what to do, they can keep checking the boxes for at least 4 years.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in these lines above. A degree (any degree) communicates some bare minimum qualification, rather than high standards of ability or talent.

A comment by a Phd. friend comes to mind: "A Phd. proves that a person can grind at one seemingly endless problem for years upon years, unperturbed by the countless setbacks and seeming lack of progress along the way to (hopefully) a breakthrough. Nothing more, nothing less."

Let's suppose that a Phd. really only proves this one trait about someone. Is this "signal" worthless?

I personally don't think so. I for one am a person who definitely cannot stick to one particular problem for years upon years. I'm not suitable for a position in, say, IBM Labs [1]. For a Hiring Manager in such a place, screening for a Phd. does in fact make sense.

[1] Thankfully, the world has options for invalids like myself.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#70

Post by mattstreet »

endtime wrote: post #55
mtgentry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means that by framing an activity as a "growth experience", it loses a bit of it's soul. Ghandi, Lindbergh, Jobs - they all changed the world because they had a fire in their belly and couldn't sit still. They didn't pursue things because it would grow their character. They did things because they we're compelled to.

I don't think a world in which everyone is trying to be (or thinks they are) the next Steve Jobs would be so great.

There would be even more kids with no father in their lives.
Post reply on HN