Bad days for Stanford - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bad days for Stanford (/thread-23552.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bad days for Stanford (/thread-23552.html)
Pages:
1
2
Bad days for Stanford - Phogge - 10-10-2022
Football for sure but only about 55 people in the Bay Area care (and less care about men's hoops) but today's SFGate headliner focuses on the mental health resources of the U.
My pet peeve is that if you are only admitting genius/go-getters you have a core problem. How about admitting a few just "A" students that have a life outside of traveling teams, piano lessons, chess club, school government and Model UN? Kids who study but watch TV, hang out, go fishing, work on a car, bag groceries or read trash fiction. Just to diversify the student body in other ways besides race and ethnicity.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - BobK - 10-10-2022
This is a brobdingnagian problem for America, California and my county re homeless
Plus our colleges were mentioned as in State University’s
RE: Bad days for Stanford - TrumpCard - 10-10-2022
Here's the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/stanford-mental-health-17494881.php.
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.
On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?
IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities. Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home. Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment. Those choices will continue throughout life. Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm? And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help. Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen). Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - GK3 - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 10:45 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Here's the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/stanford-mental-health-17494881.php.
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.
On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?
IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities. Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home. Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment. Those choices will continue throughout life. Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm? And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help. Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen). Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.
The article I saw clearly implies that the help given to those who do reach out is very inadequate. This is an important enough issue that I would expect to read or hear something from the President and BoT that makes it clear that they are working on and will fix the problem. I don't get the impression that is being made a significant enough issue. Winning football and basketball teams are nice, but this issue is a far bigger issue. Maybe its time a new leader for the University is found.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - Phogge - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 10:45 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Here's the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/stanford-mental-health-17494881.php.
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.
On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?
IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities. Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home. Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment. Those choices will continue throughout life. Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm? And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help. Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen). Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.
Well rounded can mean a lot of things. I would hate being in any setting (employment, social, foxhole) with only Stanford geniuses. Thankfully I didn't have to.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - dabigv13 - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 10:09 AM)Phogge Wrote: Football for sure but only about 55 people in the Bay Area care (and less care about men's hoops) but today's SFGate headliner focuses on the mental health resources of the U.
My pet peeve is that if you are only admitting genius/go-getters you have a core problem. How about admitting a few just "A" students that have a life outside of traveling teams, piano lessons, chess club, school government and Model UN? Kids who study but watch TV, hang out, go fishing, work on a car, bag groceries or read trash fiction. Just to diversify the student body in other ways besides race and ethnicity.
I worked bagging groceries in high school and worked on cars (and at Stanford was able to finagle some garage space from the solar car club with some friends to work on our cars). I don't think that my presence did anything for overall mental health at Stanford though. And kids who bag groceries and work on their cars are probably just as likely to have mental health problems as anyone else I would guess.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - Softball Fan - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 11:32 AM)Phogge Wrote:(10-10-2022, 10:45 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Here's the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/stanford-mental-health-17494881.php.
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.
On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?
IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities. Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home. Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment. Those choices will continue throughout life. Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm? And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help. Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen). Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.
Well rounded can mean a lot of things. I would hate being in any setting (employment, social, foxhole) with only Stanford geniuses. Thankfully I didn't have to.
Stanford "geniuses" have as many diverse interests as any other group of people, perhaps more. I learned this from frequently visiting my son's friends and attending some of the events he participated in at Stanford. Go on campus and interview a few students before making sweeping generalizations from afar.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - Leftcoast - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 11:34 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: I worked bagging groceries in high school and worked on cars (and at Stanford was able to finagle some garage space from the solar car club with some friends to work on our cars). I don't think that my presence did anything for overall mental health at Stanford though. And kids who bag groceries and work on their cars are probably just as likely to have mental health problems as anyone else I would guess.
Add me to the Stanford admits who spent time bagging groceries. In the 80s it was a union job that paid 2.5x over minimum wage making it an easy choice when I needed a job. I even went back for several months the summer of my freshman year. My Stanford Sophomore summer on I worked on internships or TA positions instead but I enjoyed bagging groceries much more than you might think and high school me enjoyed the paychecks even more. (Actual job title, "Courtesy Clerk").
For comparison purposes let's look at modern day wages. Minimum wage in my area is $15/hr so if grocery stores still paid 2.5x for Courtesy Clerks, which they DO NOT, courtesy clerks would be pulling in $37.50/hr.
I still had time for AP classes, extra curricular activities, school, a minimal social life, and a job but my family didn't see me much. Hopefully there's still a place at Stanford for kids who do more than obsess over grades.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - dabigv13 - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 11:47 AM)Leftcoast Wrote:(10-10-2022, 11:34 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: I worked bagging groceries in high school and worked on cars (and at Stanford was able to finagle some garage space from the solar car club with some friends to work on our cars). I don't think that my presence did anything for overall mental health at Stanford though. And kids who bag groceries and work on their cars are probably just as likely to have mental health problems as anyone else I would guess.
Add me to the Stanford admits who spent time bagging groceries. In the 80s it was a union job that paid 2.5x over minimum wage making it an easy choice when I needed a job. I even went back for several months the summer of my freshman year. My Stanford Sophomore summer on I worked on internships or TA positions instead but I enjoyed bagging groceries much more than you might think and high school me enjoyed the paychecks even more. (Actual job title, "Courtesy Clerk").
For comparison purposes let's look at modern day wages. Minimum wage in my area is $15/hr so if grocery stores still paid 2.5x for Courtesy Clerks, which they DO NOT, courtesy clerks would be pulling in $37.50/hr.
I still had time for AP classes, extra curricular activities, school, a minimal social life, and a job but my family didn't see me much. Hopefully there's still a place at Stanford for kids who do more than obsess over grades.
Working as a courtesy clerk certainly had its perks. It was still a union job but the pay was pretty close to minimum wage IIRC (early 2000s). Screwing around on carts, driving the motorized handicap cart back from the parking lot, seeing the depraved orders some people get.....there does seem to be fewer courtesy clerks these days however. Those confounded self checkout stands are likely to blame.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - PVTree - 10-10-2022
Going by student attendance at games (football, basketball, etc.), It would appear that the fortunate ones that get the thick envelope don't include many who have interests in sports or supporting (they may support in other ways but not by attending games) their schoolmates who are athletes.
I remember a quote from one of the Stanford books given out to students which said something like "I think Stanford admits half the students without much talent, like me, so we can go support the other half of the students that do have talent in sports, music, dance, etc."
I remember my frosh dorm (Donner) camping out at the stadium nights before a game so we could have 50 yard line seating. At Saturday's game, the first home game with students, there was an ok turnout by them, but it seems that 75% of them left at halftime.
As a Stanford fanatic, it saddens me that the pool of avid Stanford supporters is dwindling every year.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - BostonCard - 10-10-2022
Also, don’t assume that everyone at Stanford fits that stereotype. At my son’s high school, they rejected a bunch of the “genius/go-getters” and wound up admitting an excellent but otherwise decidedly ordinary student. Maybe she wrote something on her essay that just captivated the admissions officers attention, or maybe she came across as more “genuine” than the reams of applicants that they get, or maybe it’s just the capricious nature of the admissions process. But be that as it may, while the typical story is about a 4.0 GPA/1600 SAT, world class violinist who devised a smart toilet that can detect cholera in Haiti, the typical Stanford student is much more decidedly “normal”-ish.
BC
RE: Bad days for Stanford - gailtate - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 10:45 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Here's the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/stanford-mental-health-17494881.php.:
I was able to access it for free, but maybe folks get only a limited number of free articles.
The article appropriately treats this problem as a society wide issue that also happens to affect Stanford students.
On the issue of altering the Stanford admissions process to address mental health issues:
Do we have reason to think that people who watch a lot of TV aren't also suffering from mental health disorders?
Do we have reason to think that putting a small number of laid back kids into a pressure cooker environment is going to be good for them?
Do we have reason to think that society will experience fewer instances of suicide if Stanford rejects more people with mental health issues?
IMHO, this is a problem that requires contributions from students, parents, and universities. Parents should be providing a supportive environment at home. Students should try to gain sufficient self-awareness to determine whether or not they will thrive in a high-pressure environment. Those choices will continue throughout life. Will they run the rat race of trying to earn tenure as a prof, of trying to get promoted to MD at an investment bank, of trying to make partner at a top law firm? And, of course, Stanford has a role to play too in supporting students who seek out help. Hiring a few more therapists would be great (and I think it will happen). Nevertheless, as was the case with Meyer, a key problem is getting students to reach out for help in the first place.
Might more "laid back" (less frenetic) students and staff have a healthy mitigating effect on the pressure cooker? In that connection, a study at Paly High School in the wake of epidemic suicides a decade+ ago revealed a "shame" factor: that the more susceptible to self-harm a student was, the less inclined they were to reach out for help. Draw your own conclusions about mom/dad expectations at home...
RE: Bad days for Stanford - Giants - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 11:47 AM)Leftcoast Wrote:(10-10-2022, 11:34 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: I worked bagging groceries in high school and worked on cars (and at Stanford was able to finagle some garage space from the solar car club with some friends to work on our cars). I don't think that my presence did anything for overall mental health at Stanford though. And kids who bag groceries and work on their cars are probably just as likely to have mental health problems as anyone else I would guess.
Add me to the Stanford admits who spent time bagging groceries. In the 80s it was a union job that paid 2.5x over minimum wage making it an easy choice when I needed a job. I even went back for several months the summer of my freshman year. My Stanford Sophomore summer on I worked on internships or TA positions instead but I enjoyed bagging groceries much more than you might think and high school me enjoyed the paychecks even more. (Actual job title, "Courtesy Clerk").
For comparison purposes let's look at modern day wages. Minimum wage in my area is $15/hr so if grocery stores still paid 2.5x for Courtesy Clerks, which they DO NOT, courtesy clerks would be pulling in $37.50/hr.
I still had time for AP classes, extra curricular activities, school, a minimal social life, and a job but my family didn't see me much. Hopefully there's still a place at Stanford for kids who do more than obsess over grades.
Courtesy Clerks currently earn $15.25/hour in Contra Costa Co. under the union contract with UFCW Northern California.
leftcoast - Leftcoast - 10-10-2022
Yup, UFCW lost a lot of leverage since the 80s.
By the late 80s the big chains were closing stores, modernizing (think smart checkout, barcode scanners, modern inventory systems, etc) and opening up six months later as non-Union. I know “my” store said if they hired me back for my Soph summer it would be at a reduced 30% payout (new two-tier contract, continuous workers kept their original salary, new ones came in much lower) as I learned when I dropped by to say “hi.”
I was set already to work an Ops job for a start-up so it wasn’t a big deal but interesting time to have a first hand glimpse of struggling unions during the 80s.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - Phogge - 10-10-2022
I doubt that many of TODAY'S kids interested in SU are working or having much leisure time.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - TrumpCard - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 03:01 PM)Phogge Wrote: I doubt that many of TODAY'S kids interested in SU are working or having much leisure time.
What is your affiliation with Stanford? Can you tell us the basis for this assertion?
RE: Bad days for Stanford - DenverCard - 10-10-2022
Well rounded can mean a lot of things. I would hate being in any setting (employment, social, foxhole) with only Stanford geniuses. Thankfully I didn't have to.
[/quote]
How about Thecardboard? Mostly comprised of Stanford geniuses and you're just another one of the guys and gals here.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - FarmTeam - 10-10-2022
I suspect this will be an unpopular view, but how about not admitting kids with mental illness and substance abuse problems like the kid featured in the article? I'm sorry, but what did anyone expect was going to happen?
And his sense of entitlement is amazing to me. He expected that Stanford was going to give him a ton of resources on top of what is almost certainly a free education or nearly-free education? My god.
I'm not at all indifferent to mental health issues, but I feel like people are expecting way too much from universities these days. They're in an impossible position in many respects, plus it's not their mission to be everything to everybody.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - mutoo1 - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 03:28 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: I suspect this will be an unpopular view, but how about not admitting kids with mental illness and substance abuse problems like the kid featured in the article? I'm sorry, but what did anyone expect was going to happen?hmmm...victim mentality & snowflake syndrome are much of what's wrong with today's youth, along with texting instead of talking, social media addiction and too much indoctrination in the lower grades. not to mention too many other addictions.
And his sense of entitlement is amazing to me. He expected that Stanford was going to give him a ton of resources on top of what is almost certainly a free education or nearly-free education? My god.
I'm not at all indifferent to mental health issues, but I feel like people are expecting way too much from universities these days. They're in an impossible position in many respects, plus it's not their mission to be everything to everybody.
bagging groceries is far beneath today's aspiring stanford student.
i'm older now but feel younger having said it. we should long for the days of dean fred and how he got it; he & his staff admitted a far broader range of students than is the case today.
stanford is being ruined by greed as well as excesses not focused on what should be its core mission: educating its students to think for themselves.
leaving at halftime saturday night, i said to my wife, there were probably not even 10,000 fans at the game...i wonder if the athletic department even thought about reducing the $30 parking fee? i'm fortunate in not having to care about that but alas, i do.
i also said to my wife that i have a nagging feeling stanford will find a way to lose this game.
another alas: i stayed up and watched us lose in an unimaginably painful way.
RE: Bad days for Stanford - BostonCard - 10-10-2022
There was plenty of free parking on Lausen. Not a very far walk to the stadium.
BC