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

Stanford’s war on social life

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 402 posts

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#181

Post by fallingfrog »

ravel-bar-foo wrote: post #171
fallingfrog wrote: post #152

The only problem with this article is that it tries to tie the loss of culture and fun with increasing diversity or something. As if including black people is gonna make it less fun? No, the loss of fun is due to financialization and lawyers getting involved with everything and trying to make everything about maximizing profits and fear of lawsuits. Got nothing to do with equality. The DSA for what it’s worth, throws…

On the other hand, I would not be surprised if (lack of) diversity is being used as an excuse/cudgel to shut down student orgs.

It’s a totally cynical excuse though. Just a cover for their real goals, which is to have less liability and a more reliable profit stream. The problem with this article is that it seems to take everything these administrators are saying at face value, as if they genuinely are shutting down campus life in retaliation for black people not getting invited to the parties. I mean come on.

Here’s the Stanford board of directors:

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/board-members/

You think any of these people actually care about diversity as opposed to money?

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#182

Post by the_only_law »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #172
lotsofpulp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One factor might be the ubiquity of recording devices. It seems reasonable that people behave differently if they think their spontaneity might expose them to liability down the road due to a recording of it.

There’s also something about dating. The kids I know in college right now have no interest in dating or love or romantic involvement. I don’t know how that applies here, but it’s a big change from when I was in college.

A little past college age now, but even people I know in their late 20s have given up on dating and such. I won't pretend to know all the reasons, but I find it funny how much every one I know hates dating apps for good reasons, but always comes back to them.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#183

Post by fallingfrog »

Here’s the Stanford board of trustees:

Felix J. Baker, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Baker Brothers Investments, New York, NY

Richard N. Barton, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Zillow, Seattle, WA

Aneel Bhusri, Co-Founder & CEO, Workday, San Francisco, CA

DeAngela J. Burns-Wallace, Secretary of Administration & CITO, State of Kansas, Topeka, KS

Michael C. Camuñez, President & CEO, Monarch Global Strategies LLC, Los Angeles, CA

Michelle R. Clayman, Managing Partner & Chief Investment Officer, New Amsterdam Partners LLC, New York, NY

RoAnn Costin, President, Wilderness Point Investments, Cambridge, MA

James G. Coulter, Founding Partner & Executive Chairman, TPG Capital, LP, San Francisco, CA

Roberta B. Denning, Greenwich, CT Katharine B. Duhamel, San Francisco, CA

José E. Feliciano, Co-Founder & Managing Partner, Clearlake Capital Group LP, Santa Monica, CA

Henry A. Fernandez, Chairman and CEO, MSCI Inc., New York, NY

Angela S. Filo, Co-Founder, Yellow Chair Foundation, Palo Alto, CA

Sakurako D. Fisher, San Francisco, CA

James D. Halper, Executive Chairman, Owl Rock Opportunities Fund, Los Angeles, CA

Marc E. Jones, Chairman & CEO, Aeris, San Jose, CA

Tonia G. Karr, San Francisco, CA Sarah H. Ketterer, CEO, Causeway Capital, Los Angeles, CA Carol C. Lam, Attorney, La Jolla, CA

Marc S. Lipschultz, Co-Founder and President, Owl Rock Capital, New York, NY

Kenneth E. Olivier, Chairman Emeritus, Dodge and Cox, San Francisco, CA

Carrie W. Penner, Walton Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA

Laurene Powell Jobs, Founder/President, Emerson Collective, Palo Alto, CA Mindy B. Rogers, Atherton, CA

Lily Sarafan, CEO, Home Care Assistance, San Francisco, CA

Srinija Srinivasan, Palo Alto, CA

Jeffrey E. Stone, Chairman Emeritus and Senior Partner, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago IL

Gene T Sykes, Global Co-Head of M&A & Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Elizabeth H. Weatherman, Special Limited Partner, Warburg Pincus, LLC, New York, NY

Maurice C. Werdegar, CEO, WTI, Portola Valley, CA Clara Wu Tsai, La Jolla, CA

Jerry Yang, AME Cloud Ventures, Palo Alto, CA

Charles D. Young, Chief Operating Officer, Invitation Homes, Dallas, TX

You really think any of these people care about diversity? They care about money.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#184

Post by codefreeordie »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #162
codefreeordie wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny/sad thing is that mostly our society doesn't actually work that way -- we just believe that it does. You can absolutely have a highly successful career and life, for a wide variety of definitions of successful, without attending a top college, and while having "interesting" life experiences for all sorts of definitions of interesting. There are many paths through life even in our current bureaucracy-ridden…

Most people aren't successful for the reasons they imagine, but more importantly - most people aren't unsuccessful for the reasons they imagine. The increasingly democratic views of what is and isn't successful are our society's greatest I'll, as much as I do hope people keep supporting the things they love and wish to be.

Indeed. You don't need "a good, respectable career" to have a good life. Even if you wish to have a life containing moderate wealth, you still don't need that. (Up to you whether you believe that moderate wealth is either required or desirable for a "successful" life)

And even if you want "a good, respectable career", there are many paths to achieving that goal as well.

I feel that we have allowed too much "program thinking" to control our school-age children. We put them in the best preschool program we can afford, then run them through a carefully managed elementary program, finally we push them into an elite-college-prep high-schools program and then enroll them in a university degree program.

Afterward, is it a surprise that these kids graduate and expect to find pre-mapped "programs" to follow for the next part of their lives?

And bigger companies know this and will oblige -- intern programs, of course, and then new-grad programs and well-tended career ladder progression with a performance review program.

None of this is bad by itself, but it is unnecessarily limiting to look at life as a series of programs. It is allowing others to define success for you. Which is easy -- because deciding what the eff you want out of life is hard -- but it is so limiting.

Even if what you end up doing looks kinda like one of the programs, choosing the path yourself is so valuable.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#185

Post by ravel-bar-foo »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #159
zbrozek wrote: post #149

My interactions with Stanford administrators convinced me that I didn't need a graduate degree and that I would never donate to the school. Beyond that, I also got totally fed up trying to figure out how to get definitive positive permission to do anything. At one point I asked facilities if I could build an oven to cure composites. They reviewed and approved the plans. But when some other group within the school saw…

And we're told the reason China is rocketing ahead is because of IP theft. Meanwhile, we can't train competent engineers, technicians, and tradesmen, in the West, because everyone is too caught up in this type of gatekeeping and pigheadedness.

When I was in college the science building had a machine shop. Old-time professors remembered when the department hired technicians to build experiments. Students would build crazy things there for classes, like 2 meter high tesla coils.

After I graduated they built a new science building for $X00M. It was very eco-friendly, had its own cafe, lots of natural lighting, lots of nooks for small groups of students to gather and study ... but no machine shop. (Although since then they have added a 3D printer service.)

But when you look at places with high rates of innovation like Shenzhen or SV, one of their strengths is that the people with knowledge of techniques are nearby to readily avaiable facilities for production. I wonder how much production knowledge has been lost from the West (c.f. the rust belt), and how much that will cost us in the long term.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#186

Post by bradgessler »

whymauri wrote: post #97
Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is true at MIT as well. Can’t imagine the hacks of old being allowed. Indeed, at a time the admissions process was advertising MIT's hacks of old, and they were featured in the museum, the administrators changed both the makeup and mission of the campus police. From experienced and wise older officers who were looking for a calmer post before retirement into younger aggressive sorts, and they started arresting…

The administrators have gotten insufferable. In 2019 I co-ran an event for student-alumni bonding that invites alumni from all years, mostly families, to come back to the school and share a large historic feast with students. The administrators did not like that this would include alumni from a dormitory that was closed for 'policy violations' (note: most of these alumni are perfectly functional parents and adults! t…

Next time consider getting a potato salad liability insurance policy so you can put the institution at ease.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#187

Post by ryandrake »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #175
chairmanwow1 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are exactly the problem OP is talking about

Children don’t always make responsible, adult decisions.

Imagine how boring the world would be if everyone made responsible, adult decisions at all opportunities!

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#188

Post by bradlys »

codefreeordie wrote: post #133
majormajor wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that the root cause is the financialization and rat-race-ification of everything. You gotta go to college to make a good living. You gotta go to a TOP college especially. You gotta work your ass off in high school to get in. And so everyone just is told their whole childhood to compete harder and harder in this race to the bottom and there's no more room for interesting experiences since a truly interest…

The funny/sad thing is that mostly our society doesn't actually work that way -- we just believe that it does. You can absolutely have a highly successful career and life, for a wide variety of definitions of successful, without attending a top college, and while having "interesting" life experiences for all sorts of definitions of interesting. There are many paths through life even in our current bureaucracy-ridden…

It really depends on your definition of success. If you know enough Stanford grads - you’d know that many of them will consider themselves failures in life if they haven’t founded and IPO/sold a company for $100m+. I know quite a few like this… I also know quite a few who did it and only think they’re a success in life because of said event.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#190

Post by theicfire »

sanj wrote: post #104
dougmccune wrote: post #15

I spent 3 years living in one of the co-ops briefly mentioned in the article ("In 2013, the administration took over the student-run anarchist house and painted over the old murals."). I wouldn't call it an "anarchist house" but it sure as hell was a lot of fun to live there. I painted some of those murals that are now apparently gone. We built a giant illegal loft in our room to make it two stories (which we would d…

This was wonderful to read. I lived in a similar beautiful mess, but it still exists! https://pika.mit.edu/

First time I've seen this show up on HN. I lived there too :). I still live in a co-op to this day.. actually one a few blocks away from Stanford.
Post reply on HN