[MV72018]

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.

[MV72018]

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.