[Goose]

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.

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.
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.

[Goose]

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.

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.
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.