Woooooo! You got accepted. So what's the real deal behind the Stanford hype?
I’m not a particularly sentimental person. I don’t really care for birthdays, I don’t save postcards, I don’t take pictures, and I don’t feel fuzzy during whimsical trips down Memory Lane.
So when I was digging through my old college acceptance letters while preparing for this post, I wasn’t surprised when I felt cold upon finding my Stanford letter. Actually, that’s not true. I felt a little gipped. As I read the letter, all I could do was take note of its exaggerations, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.
Therefore, over then next month, I will be authoring posts meant to be of service to the brand new Stanford University Class of 2014 admits. These posts are intended to serve as an injection of reality into that pending college decision process. Fun huh?
First, here’s a quote from my 2007 letter from John C. Bravman, Freeman-Thorton Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education:
“At Stanford we believe that teaching, learning, and conducting research comprise equally important components of an undergraduate education.”
This statement I qualify as a half-truth at best. At Stanford, professors teach…sorta. Students learn…sorta. And lots of people conduct research…sorta.
A real teacher engages their students and challenges their students to engage with course material. A real teacher pulls from students strands of potential and forces students to use their abilities in order to grow intellectually. And at Stanford? Eh, many Stanford professors don’t teach as much as they speak at you, read off of Powerpoint slides, or boast about their various accolades. Come to Stanford and you may get a few memorable intellectual experiences. But know that they are rare and that the fast-paced quarter system makes them easy to avoid. If that’s what you want, send back you commitment postcard today.
Now this brings me to Stanford students. They easily avoid intellectual engagement. With only 10 weeks in an academic quarter and midterms arriving as early as the quarter’s second week, students here are constantly moving from one project to the next. Those projects often fail to build upon one another or perhaps students simply fail to strive to connect them. Whatever the case, the fact is that Stanford students see outcomes, not processes. If that’s who you are, send back that postcard.
And research! It’s everywhere. In an attempt to keep you shackled to the bleak realm of Academia, Stanford will throw money at you at every point of your Stanford career. The research is usually dry and often purposeless, but the money sure is attractive. If you’re ever broke, check your email and “Research Assistant Needed” will likely appear again and again.
Now, this cornucopia of research opportunities probably seems to reject what I said earlier about Stanford students being non-intellectual. But no, it doesn’t. First, the students generally don’t engage with their research. As I said, these positions are well-paying jobs and they’re everywhere. Stanford students will work mindlessly for $14 an hour and another bullet point added to their resumes. Second, the research positions often require no real intellectual engagement. Thus on either side of the research game, not much thinking is put forth by undergraduates, nor is it required of them. And honestly, research is the real reason why professors are here. It’s not necessarily true that award-winners teach well, but it is true that they put their names and Stanford’s in famous publications, on national television, and in respected record books. That’s just how it is. If that’s the kind of atmosphere you want, your postcard should already be in the mail.
And as you may have discerned, teaching, learning, and research do not hold equal weight at Stanford. For the Administration and professors, Research is King. Teaching and learning matter more to some professors but not many. For students, learning may happen and it may not but its the apathy about that outcome that’s really key to the image of the Stanford student.
Stay tuned for more honest insight into Stanford life. Trust me, it does pay to know what you’re signing off on.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Dude this is really negative. A tirade about Stanford’s flaws is only as helpful as a rambling about how absolutely flawless Stanford is–unicorns fly around the quad fucking each other over rainbows in the California sun. I was totally unaware that Stanford tossed money around for “meaningless” research. The academics who have dedicated themselves to the very research you’re dismissing would probably say that what they’re doing is important, and that if you don’t recognize that, then you’re on the wrong research team. As for faculty connections, it’s true that professors only approach the top students or the struggling students. The rest of us have to take some initiative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
You also have some typos you should fix. Scare people away from Stanford with your own stories if you must. Don’t do it by posting embarrassing rants that draw the caliber of the student body into question. You go to a top-notch school. Act like you have some sense.
Really, Autumn, I agree with John. If you feel so negative about your Stanford experience, maybe you need to reevaluate you choices as a student. We all knew when we signed up for this school that emphasized research, and was large enough not to hold your hand at every opportunity. That said, the research opportunities at this school are legendary-I have friends who are already published in everything from Ecology to Cell Biology to Psychology. Yes, there are bad teachers at Stanford, and yes, some students skate through here acquiring little other than a bad attitude. But there is a reason that we are one of the most desired schools in academia. Take a step back (or a quarter off) and realize what an amazing place you attend, what awesome professors you can learn from, and what amazing research is out there waiting to be done. We really are lucky, and I’m sorry you can’t see it.
Gentlemen, my job is not to cheerlead for Stanford. I’m not lucky to be here. I happened to beat out about 9 other students for my spot because I performed extremely well in high school, volunteered, devoted myself to my extracurricular activities, wrote beautiful essays, and ran on five hours of sleep for four years. That’s not luck. I’ve never felt guilty for winning. And I won’t feel guilty for taking my Stanford diploma knowing that I dislike the institution overall. This “amazing place” has its flaws and I will expose them. If that scares people, so be it.
I am very much aware that my views of this school are unpopular. Believe me, you are not the first people to tell me that my stating my opinion is essentially sacrilegious. In fact, both of your responses merely serve as prime examples of how challenges to the status quo are met — foul language (as was the case with John) and suggestions that a critic leave campus (as was the case with Jared). The single mindedness of the Stanford community is to be a topic of another post, so I’m glad I have your examples here as fodder.
And to Jared, I never said I wanted my hand held. I am actually disgusted by such dependence and believe there is actually too much of it at Stanford. Indeed, forcing a student to actually think for himself is the exact opposite of hand-holding. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I wanted to be coddled, but you are incorrect, Sir.
Have I had some great experiences here? Yes. I’ve actively sought them out and put more into my courses and work than expected or required. I expect the best whenever I do something, but I just cannot say the same for Stanford.
I agree that Stanford misrepresents itself to potential students. Of course, this is a fault that is shared by all universities. Take a glimpse at other schools’ recruitment materials; they are all indistinguishable from each other. Smiling students sitting in a circle on a lawn on a sunny day discussing philosophy; majestic, history-steeped buildings dotting the campus grounds; engaged professors carefully cultivating the young minds of students; easy access to exciting entertainment and cultural centers; a strong athletic tradition; etc. etc. etc. You know the cliches. Just as advertisers convey an (idealized, perhaps misleading) image to sell a product, Stanford’s admissions marketers do the same. I have to cringe when I hear a Stanford tour guide brain washing the newest crop of eager young applicants and parents with the high ideals that Leland Stanford formed for his university or some other garbage.
This is not to say that misleading propaganda is justified simply because other schools also employ it. I certainly wish that Stanford had given me a more accurate picture of the University before I agreed to come. How nice it would be if Stanford tour guides would point out the “free speech zones” on campus or convey how the school’s network policy might as well have been written by the RIAA or relate the University’s ignoble role in the Vietnam War. Half of these things require an individual research project to discover and a student frantically trying to decide amongst competing admissions offers can’t reasonably be expected to unearth all of them. I don’t regret coming to Stanford, but I would have appreciated getting the pros and cons of the school rather than just the pros before I sent in my acceptance forms.
Finally, it’s fascinating how at the mere utterance of any criticism of the University a cadre of defenders will appear out of the woodwork to shout you down. I certainly worry about the tendency of irrational submission to power amongst the general citizenry; perhaps I should be equally concerned about Stanford students. Their arguments are parallel: “If you don’t like X, go somewhere else!” “If X has faults then you need to change, not X!” “If you think X is bad, then you’re just not thinking clearly, X is really good!” And so on. I think we’re only a step away from someone hurling some ridiculous, meaningless slur like “anti-Stanford” at you. Don’t let these people bully you around.
Well, Autumn, your last paragraph seems to me to be exactly what I was referring to by hand-holding. Stanford provides us the resources to have a great education, but we have to reach out and find the opportunities ourselves. This lack of intervention is what you simultaneously laud and denigrate. If this institution is to force students to think for themselves, to give students the opportunity to put more than expected into courses and to aim for the best, then students must BY DEFINITION be able to skate by, doing exactly what is required and nothing more. Actions trying to force students beyond this, whether it be a teacher taking aside a promising student after he/she underachieves or forcing students to come into office hours would be exactly the handholding you claim to oppose. Anyone who attends Stanford can get either a poor education, a good education or a great education (just like at any other school) depending on their level of engagement. One gets out what one puts in, basically. Sure, there is less support than at some liberal arts schools or smaller universities, but that is what we signed up for. So that is why your essay read to me like a cry for more hand-holding.
Furthermore, I am sure you put in the maximum in High School, went above and beyond the call of duty with your extracurriculars, and wrote beautiful essays. So did the rest of us. And so did probably another 3000 applicants who were turned away. Its no secret that Stanford has far more than its share of qualified applicants. At a certain point in the byzantine process of application, there occurs some academic equivalent of the stair test: throw the essays down the stairs and whichever goes farthest wins. This one depends on reviewers, moods, and so many variables I can’t even imagine. So yes, you “won” high school by getting in here (an absurd idea on face value, but never mind). Don’t ever imagine there wasn’t a fair amount of luck involved. Napoleon, after all, famously preferred lucky generals to skilled generals.
Finally, it seems odd to me that you would paint yourself as a victim. You are not challenging “The Status Quo” with this argument, you are offering a bitter and sad view of a school we hold dear. Yes, it has problems, and yes, those should be debated, but you offer no examples, no statistics, and no arguments, just bitter generalizations like “All Stanford professors are full of themselves and can’t teach” and “Most Stanford students (other than me, of course) are lazy and underperform”. If you are then surprised that you are met with disbelief and dismissal, well, you shouldn’t be. Don’t kid yourself: this article exposes no flaws, challenges nothing other than emotions, and has no construction, just criticism. Singlemindedness of Stanford, my ass.
Jared, I think we agree to a point when it comes to hand-holding. You see a lack of hand-holding at Stanford and I see a ton of it, but I think it does differ from the type of hand-holding at smaller schools. While professors at other schools give students personalized, individual attention, Stanford provides advising center on top of advising center on top of advising center. Dorms have Academic Advisors and Writing Tutors. Freshman are guided step by step through PWR after they are guided step by step through their schedule by Freshman Advisors. Research money (wages and grants) is incredibly easy to get from any kind of research — productive or not. Teachers who are content to provide written outlines of books rather than have students read the text (or not) are rotten. And yes, this has happened in a non-Freshman class. And yes, the students were bland and I did participate 70% of the time when few others dared to speak. And no, those experiences aren’t terribly uncommon.
Admittedly, students can (and many do) go about their Stanford careers and avoid these aids, but quite often, these aids just facilitate the skating you mentioned. The system doesn’t just make it possible to skate, it actually encourages skating. That’s not what an institution of “higher education” is meant to do.
Now let’s say that you could effectively evaluate the level of “luck” it took for me to get here. Does that luck mandate my loyalty to Stanford? Should I feel absolutely honored that I’m here and not at Yale? How about the University of Delaware? I’m just trying to figure out what it is about Stanford that makes it so unique of an institution.
Am I a victim of a lie? As Danny said above, Stanford and all other Universities misrepresent themselves. I was a victim of that misrepresentation and I am offering another representation of Stanford to those who are seeking to EVALUATE Stanford. The idea that a single portrait should exist and that it must be pushed by every Stanford affiliate is absurd.
Read my post again if you need to. There is an existing way that things are done on this campus (unengaged students and teachers; an abundance of research funds; and the improper prioritization of learning, teaching, and research). I am challenging both Stanford’s representation of these things AND I am challenging whether these things are actually best for the university. Is that not challenging the status quo and the dominant thinking? If you see no flaws offered in my post, look again and look around.
Stick to your guns, Autumn! You have an important point to make, even if the cheerleader types don’t want to hear it. I am reminded of that brilliant article a few years ago by that girl who was turned off by the mindless happy-talk on visiting days. (I think it was called “Sorry Stanford, but the Pro-Fro is a No Go.”
Stanford won’t really be first rank until, like Harvard, MIT etc it doesn’t feel the need to snow recruits with a lot of crap that tells you nothing about what life at the school is really like. Actually, life here is pretty good, although not perfect. Better to present a more honest picture to the “Pro-Fros.” Visiting days too often come across like we’re trying to get people to join our fraternity or sorority than to join us at one of the world’s top centers of learning.
Autumn, I think your point is better articulated in your response to Jared than it is in the original post. I would consider posting that instead as I think it is a more accurate assessment of the university.
For Stanford admits, what alternative do you propose? You’re basically telling them not to come unless they are lazy and do not want to be intellectually engaged. Or at least that’s the impression I get reading this. These admits do value intellectual engagement (or at least managed to convince the admission committee that they do) and might be pretty proud of that quality in themselves. It is just as unfair to prey on that to discourage them from attending as it is for the university to paint an unrealistic portrait of itself to encourage you to attend.
Of course, there are flaws in the university; nothing’s perfect. But you make it sound like they are unique to Stanford. If you want to point out the drawbacks of the quarter system, an elite education, or a research institution vs. a liberal arts college, fine. Those are things that should be considered by admits. But, honestly, Autumn, I don’t think this criticism of Stanford is as productive as it could be because it comes off as an angry rant.
Autumn,
I agree with most of your points, particularly those on the intellectual-engagement problem apparent in the quarter system. The work piles on to the point where it’s impossible to do a substantive number of units and be actively engaged in them each quarter.
But while I think there are a whole slate of problems in this area at Stanford, I’m unconvinced that Stanford is any worse than other places. More likely, I think this problem is rampant at all elite education institutions in the United States–in which case I would argue that it’s a more general problem across the board for the members of our generation getting a higher education.
Thus, if admits turn down Stanford, are they really going to get a better alternative? Probably not–I’m an equal-opportunity cynic.
The pompous, holier-than-thou tone of this article is one truly negative thing about Stanford students that I would warn pro-fros of. I have few complaints about the university itself though…
Can you provide some concrete examples or better yet, constructive solutions for the problems you’re seeing?
{ 2 trackbacks }