Live data from Hacker News

Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

stanford.edu

81–90 of 169 posts

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

#81
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…

> Solitude.

I can remark on this. (20+ years. Not by choice, entirely.)

Your point regarding conformity is valid given the qualification that for the overwhelming majority that is a perfectly reasonable choice. This holds true even for some remarkably exceptional people. As an example, Euler somehow managed to be Euler and a family man. And then you have individuals such as Beethoven who seemed destined for solitude even though he was not happy about it at all.

> rare

The long standing mantra of "to thine own self be true" holds. This is the golden compass. For some, being true one's self may require the path of solitude. For others, it may not.

The rare thing is to follow the sage advice.

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

#82
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even quantitative degrees just require patience and perseverance - it might be intimidating to be surrounded by people much better at math/physics/cs than you, but if you put in the time and effort, getting a degree in one of these subjects is very doable. It's a matter of effort rather than being smart.

I definitely agree. On the other hand, I do think that someone who has walked through the fire and pounded their head against hard concepts for 4 years legitimately comes out smarter in some dimensions.

Yes, I'd agree with that. I think a person's capability to increase how smart they are is generally underestimated.

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

#83
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.

Or you could graduate, and do the same thing, except making $10k+ a month while you are doing it. The idea that college is now about romance and partying is part of what's skewing the prices.

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

#84
post #83

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.

Or you could graduate, and do the same thing, except making $10k+ a month while you are doing it. The idea that college is now about romance and partying is part of what's skewing the prices.

When has college not been about party and romance?

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

#85

William Deresiewicz's address to West Point, "Solitude and Leadership" ( http://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/ ) remains the best piece on leadership I've read to date. Ironically, as pointed out by Deresiewicz, the address is given to newly minted officers in the US military. The address was requisite reading in this year's Venture for America application process, and is more than just a guide in be…

The speech was given to the freshmen at the academy. They still have 4 more years until they become officers.

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

#86
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…

At the risk of sounding trite, college is what you make of it. If all you care about is trading in your four years and n-thousand dollars for a marketable degree, then of course you aren't going to feel like you learned anything, but I argue that this is your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding (aside: "actual learning and understanding" is an incredibly vague phrase and that bothers me. Oh w…

your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding

How do mandatory pre-reqs fit into this? When I went to school, I had about 10 years of programming experience already, but no java. That got me out of exactly zero classes, because the first two classes were effectively java syntax and apis. It also made the first two years of classes completely trivial, and was also unavoidable. At one point, I got accused of cheating because "it's impossible to learn C without attending lecture".

You want to know what kills the desire to seek harder things? When you have to complete a mountain of tedious bullshit that you largely already know to get anywhere, and there is no getting around it. This is a real problem with computer science degrees. I did not need to sit around and hear what if statements and looping constructs are, or watch TA's that don't really understand memory management try to explain it.

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

#87
post #15
post #2

"It portrayed the average Princeton/Yale/Harvard/Stanford student as extremely bright and morally earnest but ultimately rather uninspired and herd-like conformists." Colleges go out of their way to select 'herd-like conformists' during the admissions process, so why would they then try to change them once they got there? This Brooks article never made any sense to me.

The admissions people say they reject excellent-but-bland applications, but perhaps it's a matter of degree.

Yes... so instead they accept people who superficially differentiate themselves and pretend to be non-conformists which then becomes another "admission strategy."

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

#88
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…

Nailed it completely. Great comment.

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

#89
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding trite, college is what you make of it. If all you care about is trading in your four years and n-thousand dollars for a marketable degree, then of course you aren't going to feel like you learned anything, but I argue that this is your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding (aside: "actual learning and understanding" is an incredibly vague phrase and that bothers me. Oh w…

your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding How do mandatory pre-reqs fit into this? When I went to school, I had about 10 years of programming experience already, but no java. That got me out of exactly zero classes, because the first two classes were effectively java syntax and apis. It also made the first two years of classes completely trivial, and was also unavoidable. At one point, I got a…

Sorry, in retrospect that first comment came across as super condescending when I didn't mean it that way at all.

How do mandatory pre-reqs fit into this?

I agree with you here -- they suck and shouldn't exist. I had the luxury of attending a school that (with the strange exception of the Econ department) didn't allow mandatory pre-reqs as a matter of policy.

You want to know what kills the desire to seek harder things? When you have to complete a mountain of tedious bullshit that you largely already know to get anywhere, and there is no getting around it.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that the opportunities for hard things aren't there, just that you weren't motivated (and perhaps rightly so) to pursue them. Also, these things are only tedious because you already know them. It sounds like you went back to college because you saw an economic advantage in doing so and are upset because it wasn't also intellectually advantageous. In other words, you were optimizing for economics and not knowledge. If you were instead optimizing for knowledge, then it sounds like going back to college would not have been the best choice for you, although I still stand by the claim that it's impossible to go through college without being presented with an opportunity to learn something of deep and meaningful value.

Anyway, I think the problem is not so much that college is generally useless, but rather that there is an economic benefit for seemingly smart, self-educated people like yourself to go back to college even though the experience is perhaps not that useful for you otherwise.

EDIT:

My point is this: Just because you can pass classes you already know everything about with an easy A in college doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity to learn more advanced things via the faculty and resources provided to you and it's partially on you to take advantage of those opportunities. Moreover, I think it's impossible to go through college and have none of those opportunities open to you.

With that being said, college isn't necessarily the best way to learn things, and whether or not it is is completely dependent on who you are. In your case, college was probably economically advantageous in the long run, but sounds like it wasn't the best way to learn novel skills. This doesn't mean college isn't a valid way for people to educate themselves generally, as not everyone comes to college able to place out of everything.

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

#90
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding trite, college is what you make of it. If all you care about is trading in your four years and n-thousand dollars for a marketable degree, then of course you aren't going to feel like you learned anything, but I argue that this is your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding (aside: "actual learning and understanding" is an incredibly vague phrase and that bothers me. Oh w…

your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding How do mandatory pre-reqs fit into this? When I went to school, I had about 10 years of programming experience already, but no java. That got me out of exactly zero classes, because the first two classes were effectively java syntax and apis. It also made the first two years of classes completely trivial, and was also unavoidable. At one point, I got a…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN