WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - 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: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 (/thread-22958.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: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 (/thread-22958.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - 81alum - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 02:23 PM)MV72018 Wrote:I'll happily accept that corrective. In fact, I and my fellow SLE-ites probably made that argument while we were at Stanford.(02-19-2022, 11:21 AM)81alum Wrote: Having degrees from Stanford, U Chicago, and Princeton, but teaching my whole career at a Cal State, has given me a perspective on "best schools." I loved my experience at Stanford and agree that it provided me with a top notch education--although it had its weaknesses as well. And I have had a few students in my current institution who are every bit as talented as I was and who got an education every bit as superb as I did. As noted above, Honors Programs can be fabulous in many places. Especially at the undergraduate level, the quality of the education really depends much more on the attitude of the student, the quality of advising, the willingness to seek out the most appropriate faculty as opposed to just "taking courses." Granted, the "40 year decision" gives the pedigree of a prestigious institution to the graduate and that is a considerable advantage--but if you ask what a student actually learns then there are many appropriate pathways, and no best institution.
I think at Stanford it was almost impossible to not receive a quality education. At my current institution, the student has to work hard and plan a great deal to receive a quality education. And most, frankly, do not. But for a bright, well motivated student, a fabulous education can be obtained at most institutions--even outside of college. It is a matter of fitting the student to the right environment. If the right environment is Oregon State, so be it. Without having a window into TVO's soul we are in no position to judge.
Sorry, at Stanford, it is quite easy to NOT obtain a quality education -- assuming that "education" means "genuine education" rather than just "training." Many students master various methods and techniques and are able to "solve" certain problems in their fields and yet are not "educated." I knew many students at Stanford whom I did not regard at all as having obtained an education properly so called. I could give many examples, but here are just two. It was and is quite easy to spend four years at Stanford (and almost any other U.S. university) and not become adept at doing "critical analysis," i.e., not have learned how to critically analyze arguments, worldviews, and policies and express one's conclusions in a well reasoned, clearly expressed, well-edited manner. Moreover, many if not most of the students who graduate from Stanford with a B.A. or B.S. degree have no more than cocktail-party-level familiarity with even a handful of the greatest ideas of philosophy, works of creative literature, or great works of the fine arts. In my book, anyone who is incapable of serious critical analysis and is quasi-culturally illiterate regarding the great works of the humanities, fine arts, and even the social sciences does not deserve to be called educated. Nowadays, anyone who has a decent measure of competence in a single field of specialization -- often technical -- and superficial knowledge at best of all fields outside her or his field of specialization is widely regarded as "educated." Thanks but no thanks on that permissiveness. Whether it is fair to say that a student who graduates from Stanford with a bachelor's degree is educated in a meaningful sense depends at least as much on the values and habits of mind and drives of the students with whom she or he is good friends as it does on Stanford's requirements for graduation. For me, it is the possibility of linking up with an exceptionally intellectually ambitious peer group that increases the chances of a student acquiring a bona fide education at Stanford over many other schools. Not a guarantee, but it does offer possibilities. However, Stanford needs to take care that the allure of Silicon Valley riches and prestige and the school's relentless promotion of entrepreneurism doesn't lead an even greater percentage of the undergraduate student body to succumb to the cult of technical mastery, something that while not incompatible with acquiring an education makes it a more difficult thing to do, arguably against the current in the "hot" (and often lucrative) technical fields.
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - MV72018 - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 02:34 PM)81alum Wrote:(02-19-2022, 02:23 PM)MV72018 Wrote:I'll happily accept that corrective. In fact, I and my fellow SLE-ites probably made that argument while we were at Stanford.(02-19-2022, 11:21 AM)81alum Wrote: Having degrees from Stanford, U Chicago, and Princeton, but teaching my whole career at a Cal State, has given me a perspective on "best schools." I loved my experience at Stanford and agree that it provided me with a top notch education--although it had its weaknesses as well. And I have had a few students in my current institution who are every bit as talented as I was and who got an education every bit as superb as I did. As noted above, Honors Programs can be fabulous in many places. Especially at the undergraduate level, the quality of the education really depends much more on the attitude of the student, the quality of advising, the willingness to seek out the most appropriate faculty as opposed to just "taking courses." Granted, the "40 year decision" gives the pedigree of a prestigious institution to the graduate and that is a considerable advantage--but if you ask what a student actually learns then there are many appropriate pathways, and no best institution.
I think at Stanford it was almost impossible to not receive a quality education. At my current institution, the student has to work hard and plan a great deal to receive a quality education. And most, frankly, do not. But for a bright, well motivated student, a fabulous education can be obtained at most institutions--even outside of college. It is a matter of fitting the student to the right environment. If the right environment is Oregon State, so be it. Without having a window into TVO's soul we are in no position to judge.
Sorry, at Stanford, it is quite easy to NOT obtain a quality education -- assuming that "education" means "genuine education" rather than just "training." Many students master various methods and techniques and are able to "solve" certain problems in their fields and yet are not "educated." I knew many students at Stanford whom I did not regard at all as having obtained an education properly so called. I could give many examples, but here are just two. It was and is quite easy to spend four years at Stanford (and almost any other U.S. university) and not become adept at doing "critical analysis," i.e., not have learned how to critically analyze arguments, worldviews, and policies and express one's conclusions in a well reasoned, clearly expressed, well-edited manner. Moreover, many if not most of the students who graduate from Stanford with a B.A. or B.S. degree have no more than cocktail-party-level familiarity with even a handful of the greatest ideas of philosophy, works of creative literature, or great works of the fine arts. In my book, anyone who is incapable of serious critical analysis and is quasi-culturally illiterate regarding the great works of the humanities, fine arts, and even the social sciences does not deserve to be called educated. Nowadays, anyone who has a decent measure of competence in a single field of specialization -- often technical -- and superficial knowledge at best of all fields outside her or his field of specialization is widely regarded as "educated." Thanks but no thanks on that permissiveness. Whether it is fair to say that a student who graduates from Stanford with a bachelor's degree is educated in a meaningful sense depends at least as much on the values and habits of mind and drives of the students with whom she or he is good friends as it does on Stanford's requirements for graduation. For me, it is the possibility of linking up with an exceptionally intellectually ambitious peer group that increases the chances of a student acquiring a bona fide education at Stanford over many other schools. Not a guarantee, but it does offer possibilities. However, Stanford needs to take care that the allure of Silicon Valley riches and prestige and the school's relentless promotion of entrepreneurism doesn't lead an even greater percentage of the undergraduate student body to succumb to the cult of technical mastery, something that while not incompatible with acquiring an education makes it a more difficult thing to do, arguably against the current in the "hot" (and often lucrative) technical fields.
Bravo that you are an alum of SLE. Having guest lectured there several time over the years, I regarded SLE as one of the last bastions of genuine (undergraduate) education on campus,
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - stanford22 - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 09:50 AM)jonnyss Wrote:(02-19-2022, 08:52 AM)Card10Fan Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYdICy9geV8&t=801s
Couldn't find the Stanford postgame videos but here is Oregon State's. Rueck is plenty complimentary when talking about our program. Talks at the very end regarding the NCAA tourney, how the PAC-12 rescheduled their games this year and a few of the games against the bottom tier teams didn't get chosen as makeup games potentially hurting their record. He hopes the committee takes that into consideration.
If VonOehloffen would have picked Stanford, I wonder what her role would have been on our tremendously deep team? She is a recruit I actually thought we were going to land. She looked very dejected in the postgame interview.
we likely have a spot open for a transfer!
Is someone transferring or are you saying this because we only have 14 players next season?
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - jonnyss - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 03:12 PM)stanford22
we likely have a spot open for a transfer!
[/quote' Wrote: Is someone transferring or are you saying this because we only have 14 players next season?
i was mostly being playful; but yes, because we only have 14 players if jenna does not return.
(and because we got a transfer this year. and because the NCAA loosened the rules to allow anyone, not just grad transfers, to transfer once without sitting out a year. and because if we offered her out of high school, she may gave the grades to transfer. and because although she wouldn't have played much this year, she would play next year as we need good guards!)
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - Goose - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 02:34 PM)81alum Wrote:What great thread drift. From a Stanford-OSU game to discussing liberal education. Actually, I have bad news for you. It is quite possible, in fact it seems pretty frequent that Stanford graduates do not have a classic "liberal" education nor any great "technical mastery". The curriculum now has so many paths through it that it is easy to find one that doesn't require actually learning much. I attended Stanford before SLE existed. We had to make do with Western Civ, but at least everybody had to take that. There actually was a body of knowledge that you could pretty much count on every Stanford graduate possessing. Right now, may Stanford degrees seem to have the attribute that you can't expect any particular body of knowledge to be possessed by the holders of said degrees.(02-19-2022, 02:23 PM)MV72018 Wrote: Sorry, at Stanford, it is quite easy to NOT obtain a quality education -- assuming that "education" means "genuine education" rather than just "training." Many students master various methods and techniques and are able to "solve" certain problems in their fields and yet are not "educated." I knew many students at Stanford whom I did not regard at all as having obtained an education properly so called. I could give many examples, but here are just two. It was and is quite easy to spend four years at Stanford (and almost any other U.S. university) and not become adept at doing "critical analysis," i.e., not have learned how to critically analyze arguments, worldviews, and policies and express one's conclusions in a well reasoned, clearly expressed, well-edited manner. Moreover, many if not most of the students who graduate from Stanford with a B.A. or B.S. degree have no more than cocktail-party-level familiarity with even a handful of the greatest ideas of philosophy, works of creative literature, or great works of the fine arts. In my book, anyone who is incapable of serious critical analysis and is quasi-culturally illiterate regarding the great works of the humanities, fine arts, and even the social sciences does not deserve to be called educated. Nowadays, anyone who has a decent measure of competence in a single field of specialization -- often technical -- and superficial knowledge at best of all fields outside her or his field of specialization is widely regarded as "educated." Thanks but no thanks on that permissiveness. Whether it is fair to say that a student who graduates from Stanford with a bachelor's degree is educated in a meaningful sense depends at least as much on the values and habits of mind and drives of the students with whom she or he is good friends as it does on Stanford's requirements for graduation. For me, it is the possibility of linking up with an exceptionally intellectually ambitious peer group that increases the chances of a student acquiring a bona fide education at Stanford over many other schools. Not a guarantee, but it does offer possibilities. However, Stanford needs to take care that the allure of Silicon Valley riches and prestige and the school's relentless promotion of entrepreneurism doesn't lead an even greater percentage of the undergraduate student body to succumb to the cult of technical mastery, something that while not incompatible with acquiring an education makes it a more difficult thing to do, arguably against the current in the "hot" (and often lucrative) technical fields.
I'll happily accept that corrective. In fact, I and my fellow SLE-ites probably made that argument while we were at Stanford.
In defense of the technocrats, if you actually get a "real" Engineering degree of some kind you probably can do something well. You may not really understand it but you can do it. I am familiar with this issue because in previous years I had to find employees who could do the work. Many seem to be seeking a credential that will allow them to immediately manage something somewhere without regard to what they actually know. I am sure there are many graduates that have a broad educational base as well as technical skills. Just don't count on it. Interview them like mad.
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - triangle2 - 02-19-2022
And, drifting back closer to the topic, everyone should watch to Rueck's press conference remarks. Not only is he articulate in identifying why he thinks Stanford is so good (e.g. seems incredulous that Jump is coming off the bench, impressed by depth and defensive effort), he is also carefully supportive of his players who just went through a brutal part of their schedule. I can see why someone would want to play for him. No throwing kids under the bus. I agree that von Oelhoffen seemed upset; both players at the press conference looked teary. With a big recruiting class coming, they are going to be much better next year.
Also, did anyone notice the junk defense OSU tried which looked like a modified box and 1? Haven't seen that from OSU before.
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - M T - 02-20-2022
I didn't watch the game live and had to watch a PAC-12 channel replay late Friday night. With ALL the dead time overnight, why do they waste some editor's time cutting a 2 hour game down to 1.5 hours??? The score was 6-4 when a chunk of minutes disappeared. After the requisitee commercials, 17 more points had been scored unseen, and then we had to wait for the clock to get fixed (more commercials).
Yep, Missy called foul #1 and foul #3 on us in the first 3:35. I didn't notice who called foul #2 (on Brink). We also had Kyle Bacon. There were the usual set of bad calls (we get called for a foul on a post player in the lane for 5 seconds, etc.).
I knew Brink didn't play much, but I was surprised when I saw it was only 8 minutes, and she had 3 fouls (meaning she could have played more).
I seriously think that Brink should come in off the bench rather than starting. Wait to see how the fouls are being called. Let the other players be the canaries.
Her playing time recently before being subbed out (usually due to a foul) has been (going back in time by games for 10 games):
1:34(M,B), 5:28(Scofield), 7:57(Jones), 4:34(Luna), 3:35, 6:11(S)(fouled at 4:11 but wasn't taken out), 5:38(M)(no foul!), 6:59(B), 2:19(L,B), 6:00I(J)(no foul!).
M=Missy Barlow, B = Kyle Bacon, L=Benny Luna, J=Lisa Jones, S=Robert Scofield. Those are refs that have caught my attention. No obvious pattern here.
Remember, 5 fouls spread over 40 minutes is one every 8 minutes. In those games, she was taken out at, on average, 5:00 into the game, usually for a foul. That translates to a 25 minute playing time to get 5 fouls.
For the season, she's got 66 fouls in 512 minutes playing time. That's one foul every 7.75 minutes. So, it seems she's 1/3 more likely to pick up fouls early. Whether that's on her or the refs, it doesn't matter so much - that's just how it is.
I think it would be wise to size up the opponent and the refs for a few minutes before bringing Brink in. If we play evenly or better than the opponent, let Brink sit for 4 minutes or so at the start. If the other team instead starts well, bring Brink in at 1:30 or so. If we're ahead, it doesn't hurt much to keep Brink on the bench. If we're down when she comes in, maybe the refs won't be as picky on her.
I think it works well for Stanford psychologically, if Brink buys in on it. She gets to be the cavalry coming in to change the battle. She would completely change the tone of the game, if it hadn't been going our way.
I think it would work psychologically on the other team too. They're going to know that Stanford has a big gun just waiting to come in off the bench. They might get a few points ahead, but Stanford's was playing with one hand tied behind their collective back. So they can't feel too good about it.
Technically, Brink is sitting an average of 5 minutes in the first quarter anyway. Let's try sitting her at the start of the quarter rather than the end. It seems it gives Stanford more options.
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - M T - 02-20-2022
Stanford's player situation this year has to really boost its recruiting for the next several years. Tara can point to this year and say, "It doesn't matter how good the other players are on the team, if you earn it, you'll get time on the court. And you will be on the court with very good teammates. "
RE: WBB: Stanford 87 -- Oregon State 63 - TheFarm07 - 02-21-2022
The Stanford - Oregon State presser for our team was just posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haw3mxe0EfI