Outside Topic "The War at 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: Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" (/thread-24871.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: Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" (/thread-24871.html)
RE: "The War at Stanford" - 82lsju - 09-21-2024
(09-21-2024, 02:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Agree with qwerty, but I suspect the person complaining about PowerPoint is complaining about how it is used. Just like prose can be well-written (rare, but great when you see it) or a literary disaster, PowerPoint is a communication tool, not an end in itself. Way too often, corporate presentations are a disorganized disaster, and when not used properly, PowerPoint can contribute to that. But if you have ever seen an engaging speaker ((rare, but great when you do see it), you realize that a well-put together talk can actually be great.
BC
my top of mind biggest gripes about powerpoint, and yes like any tool it can be misused or used well.
- using 10 point (or smaller fonts) to "fit everything on the slide", which to me seems to be trying to avoid having whatever you have on the slide being readily readable, understood, and discussed, my rule of thumb is nothing smaller than 14 point font
- hammering through "60 slides in 60 minutes" and declining to take questions "I'll get to that on a later slide" or "hold that question until we finish the material", many of the slides with the previously mentioned 10 point (or smaller font), my rule of thumb is at least 5 min per content slide so no more than 12 content slides in an hour.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Goose - 09-21-2024
(09-21-2024, 02:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Agree with qwerty, but I suspect the person complaining about PowerPoint is complaining about how it is used. Just like prose can be well-written (rare, but great when you see it) or a literary disaster, PowerPoint is a communication tool, not an end in itself. Way too often, corporate presentations are a disorganized disaster, and when not used properly, PowerPoint can contribute to that. But if you have ever seen an engaging speaker ((rare, but great when you do see it), you realize that a well-put together talk can actually be great.I agree that PowerPoint is a tool but only a tool. It can be used effectively and cogently or otherwise. Viewgraphs have been around for many, many years. Anything PowerPoint can do has been done first on viewgraphs. However PowerPoint makes it much easier to create an impactful presentation with much less effort. It is possible to use PowerPoint as an educational tool rather than a persuasive instrument, although in my experience that is seldom the case.
BC
The inherent problem with PowerPoint is that allows the quick and easy creation of very professional and persuasive appearing presentations oriented toward influencing opinions and eliciting actions/decisions based on pure nonsense.
(09-21-2024, 11:01 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: BUT Powerpoint is an important and effective communication tool. Those who use it well know how to condense a complicated argument into very succinct discussion points -- and presenting the presentation live (or these days, online) is every bit as important a communications skill.I agree that there are many mountains of creative writing embedded in many PowerPoint presentations. I need to modify your initial points somewhat to match what IMO is reality.
Save the joys of reading great prose for leisure or detailed expression for reference textbooks. But face reality -- Horses for Courses -- when you are tasked with communicating for business, influencing opinions, or, especially, eliciting actions or decisions, it's a multimedia world, whether we like it or not. And learning how to use these tools, whether they be Powerpoint or web platforms, is a very important skill. And yes, our universe firmly includes sound bites, Tik Tok clips, and other systems that tap into everyone's inner ADHD.
And I say this as an alumnus of both Stanford's Creative Writing Program and its Business School.
Quote:Those who use it well know how to condense a complicated argument that is actually very weak and poorly supported into very succinct discussion points that effectively hide the questionable assumptions or bald-face lies behind bullet points that function as indisputable postulates -- and presenting the presentation live (or these days, online) is every bit as important a communications skill.Yes, you can put lipstick on a pig quite effectively, and the result when properly presented doesn't appear to be a pig.
Quote:But face reality -- Horses for Courses -- when you are tasked with communicating for business, influencing opinions, or, especially, eliciting actions or decisions, it's a multimedia world, whether we like it or not. And learning how to use these tools, whether they be Powerpoint or web platforms, is a very important skill. And yes, our universe firmly includes sound bites, Tik Tok clips, and other systems that tap into everyone's inner ADHD.Whenever one is tasked with making a presentation to achieve a particular decision/action/opinion it is wise to consider your audience whenever possible. I agree that in today's business operations it is probable that 80 to 90 percent of the people in the room have little interest in or knowledge of the subject in question. They are present to ensure that nobody has any grounds to question the resulting decision/action whatever it may be. If the decision turns out to be wrong, the blame is already well distributed. A well delivered PowerPoint presentation can convince this part of the audience that the earth is flat.
The few people that are in the room that actually are informed and care will view the presentation critically. This can be a big problem. It is best to get as many of those people "on your side" before you make the "big presentation" as possible. You can do this using PowerPoint presentations to a smaller, more "elect" group, but you better be prepared for questions and have some "back up" slides ready when they hit the weak points. Hopefully the decision will already be made before you make the "big presentation". If you can't "wire" the result in advance, you may still succeed. It is now however not a given and you may face some harsh questioning. Some of that questioning may be quite off-base, but as the OP points out, in today's sound-byte world that may not matter. Whatever you do don't even consider admitting you are wrong about anything :-).
All PowerPoint presentations aren't "lies" but virtually are all at best incomplete, usually intentionally. Occasionally you will see a PowerPoint that presents alternative solutions for the purpose of debunking them, but in my experience this is rare. You also risk confusing the 90% so most people don't do it. I have given some PowerPoint presentations when I knew the decision was "wired", some for, some against my desired outcome. I have also given many others where I didn't know what if anything would result. Sometimes the results were surprisingly favorable. It isn't "magic" but it can "work", both for good and for ill.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - qwerty49 - 09-21-2024
(09-21-2024, 04:18 PM)Goose Wrote:(09-21-2024, 02:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Agree with qwerty, but I suspect the person complaining about PowerPoint is complaining about how it is used. Just like prose can be well-written (rare, but great when you see it) or a literary disaster, PowerPoint is a communication tool, not an end in itself. Way too often, corporate presentations are a disorganized disaster, and when not used properly, PowerPoint can contribute to that. But if you have ever seen an engaging speaker ((rare, but great when you do see it), you realize that a well-put together talk can actually be great.I agree that PowerPoint is a tool but only a tool. It can be used effectively and cogently or otherwise. Viewgraphs have been around for many, many years. Anything PowerPoint can do has been done first on viewgraphs. However PowerPoint makes it much easier to create an impactful presentation with much less effort. It is possible to use PowerPoint as an educational tool rather than a persuasive instrument, although in my experience that is seldom the case.
BC
The inherent problem with PowerPoint is that allows the quick and easy creation of very professional and persuasive appearing presentations oriented toward influencing opinions and eliciting actions/decisions based on pure nonsense.
(09-21-2024, 11:01 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: BUT Powerpoint is an important and effective communication tool. Those who use it well know how to condense a complicated argument into very succinct discussion points -- and presenting the presentation live (or these days, online) is every bit as important a communications skill.I agree that there are many mountains of creative writing embedded in many PowerPoint presentations. I need to modify your initial points somewhat to match what IMO is reality.
Save the joys of reading great prose for leisure or detailed expression for reference textbooks. But face reality -- Horses for Courses -- when you are tasked with communicating for business, influencing opinions, or, especially, eliciting actions or decisions, it's a multimedia world, whether we like it or not. And learning how to use these tools, whether they be Powerpoint or web platforms, is a very important skill. And yes, our universe firmly includes sound bites, Tik Tok clips, and other systems that tap into everyone's inner ADHD.
And I say this as an alumnus of both Stanford's Creative Writing Program and its Business School.
Quote:Those who use it well know how to condense a complicated argument that is actually very weak and poorly supported into very succinct discussion points that effectively hide the questionable assumptions or bald-face lies behind bullet points that function as indisputable postulates -- and presenting the presentation live (or these days, online) is every bit as important a communications skill.Yes, you can put lipstick on a pig quite effectively, and the result when properly presented doesn't appear to be a pig.
Quote:But face reality -- Horses for Courses -- when you are tasked with communicating for business, influencing opinions, or, especially, eliciting actions or decisions, it's a multimedia world, whether we like it or not. And learning how to use these tools, whether they be Powerpoint or web platforms, is a very important skill. And yes, our universe firmly includes sound bites, Tik Tok clips, and other systems that tap into everyone's inner ADHD.Whenever one is tasked with making a presentation to achieve a particular decision/action/opinion it is wise to consider your audience whenever possible. I agree that in today's business operations it is probable that 80 to 90 percent of the people in the room have little interest in or knowledge of the subject in question. They are present to ensure that nobody has any grounds to question the resulting decision/action whatever it may be. If the decision turns out to be wrong, the blame is already well distributed. A well delivered PowerPoint presentation can convince this part of the audience that the earth is flat.
The few people that are in the room that actually are informed and care will view the presentation critically. This can be a big problem. It is best to get as many of those people "on your side" before you make the "big presentation" as possible. You can do this using PowerPoint presentations to a smaller, more "elect" group, but you better be prepared for questions and have some "back up" slides ready when they hit the weak points. Hopefully the decision will already be made before you make the "big presentation". If you can't "wire" the result in advance, you may still succeed. It is now however not a given and you may face some harsh questioning. Some of that questioning may be quite off-base, but as the OP points out, in today's sound-byte world that may not matter. Whatever you do don't even consider admitting you are wrong about anything :-).
All PowerPoint presentations aren't "lies" but virtually are all at best incomplete, usually intentionally. Occasionally you will see a PowerPoint that presents alternative solutions for the purpose of debunking them, but in my experience this is rare. You also risk confusing the 90% so most people don't do it. I have given some PowerPoint presentations when I knew the decision was "wired", some for, some against my desired outcome. I have also given many others where I didn't know what if anything would result. Sometimes the results were surprisingly favorable. It isn't "magic" but it can "work", both for good and for ill.
LOL Goose, you must have really been burned by some bad PowerPoint presentations to be so, um, "ignited" about them. Yes, they're not all lies, and no, they're not all consciously or nefariously incomplete. You and 82 have, though, touched upon some key things I learned in 40 years of constructing and delivering C-Level presentations, to foreign and domestic, private sector and public sector clients:
1. Damn right you need to "wire" the presentation. You always need an insider who will chime in at the appropriate time. I guess this could be considered nefarious, but to me it's just common sense and part of the job.
2. Never, ever use more than 10 slides. NEVER. If you can't make the key points in 10 slides you have scoped the project wrong. But scoping the project can be a different skill set than delivering it. And many months of hard work can be behind those 10 slides.
3. One hour to present those 10 slides. On average, you talk for 1 minute and give the audience 5. That means everything gets buttoned down in one hour, because the last slide is always the summary of "what should happen next." This in itself presumes there is consensus in the room. And that consensus is reached before the presentation is given, by all the key underlings and bosses (ie the ones who get to claim credit). See #1 above.
4. To 82's point, yes, nothing smaller than 12pt font, ever. I would add, no slides that are just bullet point text, and conversely, no more than 3-4 boxes and arrows on any page.
5. He/she who delivers a presentation by reading every damn word on the screen verbatim never works on my team again. Paraphrasing what they're looking at has two advantages: you keep people awake, and you get to make the same point in at least two different ways at the same time.
6. Have a Trojan Horse early on -- a point that obviously requires some detailed, data and fact-based embellishment. That way when the Harsh Questioner, who's been waiting for this moment, invariably pipes up, I'll say, "I'm glad you brought that up. Those are exactly the kind of questions we asked ourselves. In this case, we had to do a,b,c, and when we tested it we found d,e,f, blah blah blah." The Trojan Horse takes about 8-10 mins typically and takes time away from the other slides, but it shows by example that you've done your homework, gives you instant credibility and paves the way ahead. This is a combination of #1 and #2, especially if the Insider sees a chance to jump in.
Those are some of the things that worked for me. As is often said, YMMV.
I get you were being glib, but I can't agree that PowerPoint simply enables nonsense. C'mon, it's just a tool. Have you ever gone through a market entry project, where hundreds of millions of dollars and staff hours are potentially going to be committed, including families who have to move to a new location somewhere in the world? Or a post-merger integration -- where all of a sudden you have two of everybody and need to figure out how to move forward? Not a lot of room for nonsense on those.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Mick - 09-22-2024
In 2004, I sat through a 357-slide PowerPoint on knowledge management from a BCG consultant. 80% of the slides were densely written flow charts. Took a day and half to complete, and he glossed over much of it. I had no choice, I had to implement the strategy. My boss, the Vice Chair of a Big 5 firm sat through about an hour, then begged for mercy. He called me up afterward "Did I need to know any of that sxxt?" Told him I would summarize it for him.
My general rules on PowerPoint slides are (1) four lines, four words per line, (2) don't read off the slides; slides support your points, they don't make your points, (3) use multimedia when and whenever possible, extra points if it involves video of either clients or people in the room, (4) break the rules selectively and (5) save the attorneys from themselves. Attorneys loooooove treating PowerPoint like Word. Seven of my former employees are now CMOs/CMBDOs/CBDOs and they stick to those rules, generally speaking.
In 2010, I was asked to deliver a social media best practices presentation back when it was a hot topic in the legal profession. It was at an industry gathering of clients in New York when I was based in Silicon Valley. As was typical, the presentations ran long, and neither the sponsor nor the emcee kept the program on track. The main sponsor gave me about a half hour notice that they would have to cancel my presentation (no, I wasn't happy). I said, well if there's a few minutes left, let me just put up a slide or two. Instead, I apologized for the lack of time on behalf of the sponsor and moderator, I ran through my slides, hitting on the high points, and told the room, "if you're interested in seeing the full presentation, give me a call." I heard from 60% of the attendees.
RE: "The War at Stanford" - dabigv13 - 09-22-2024
For some truly bizarre and incomprehensible slides, the military has you covered. A fun twitter account to follow. There's so many bangers here it's hard to pick just one example.
https://x.com/DefenseCharts
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Goose - 09-22-2024
(09-22-2024, 09:32 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: For some truly bizarre and incomprehensible slides, the military has you covered. A fun twitter account to follow. There's so many bangers here it's hard to pick just one example.I have to give some of the military presentations a little slack. How do you explain the inexplicable :-)?
https://x.com/DefenseCharts
RE: "The War at Stanford" - 82lsju - 09-22-2024
![[Image: the-cognitive-style-of-powerpoint.jpg]](https://www.edwardtufte.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/the-cognitive-style-of-powerpoint.jpg)
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Mick - 12-13-2025
(04-01-2024, 04:01 PM)StanFanFam13 Wrote: I didn't love this article, and I've spent some time wrestling with how much of that is some misplaced defensiveness on the part of my alma mater vs. actual, factual issues with its coverage and analysis. I won't pretend to be neutral here but will try to be reasonable in my criticisms.
I do give Theo Baker credit for what seems to be thorough and accurate reporting. We know from his reporting on MTL that he is an impressive and accomplished young journalist (helped, though not diminished, by being the child of two very accomplished journalists). I believe strongly that investigative journalism plays a vital role in society, and I am confident that he will go on to do important things.
I confess, though, to some frustration with his fixation on Stanford. I get it—that's his corner of the world, and it helps to report on what you know. But lately, it feels like after landing a book deal based on his MTL reporting, he is looking for his next big scandal and letting the cart drive the horse. In an October article for New York magazine, he worked hard to tie SBF (who was raised by Stanford professors but did not attend Stanford) to the University and to paint campus as a "fraud cluster," largely by repeating other people's observations about Elizabeth Homes and reaching to not only create parallels but to really implicate the school.
Now, he has secured another high profile byline by using Stanford campus as a lens through which to comment on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the polarized nature of campus culture in the U.S. As other commenters have observed, this is hardly unique to Palo Alto, but Baker tries hard to convince us that Stanford is uniquely worthy of discussion and analysis. He certainly seems to have done his homework here. I believe that he conducted the extensive interviews that he says he did, that he reported quotes faithfully, and that he represented the scenes he described as they happened.
I will note, however, that on a porous campus where outsiders often come to protest in White Plaza and where newsworthy incidents sometimes involve non-students, Baker seems either unable to verify or uninterested in verifying whether some of the more incendiary interactions he reports actually involve members of the Stanford community. Sure, it's fair to assume that a critical mass of participants in these protests/events are students, but he's not reporting quotes that represent the vast majority (i.e. pulled from a petition signed by a bunch of stanford.edu email addresses). He's going for shock value, quoting profanities and death threats in an article that invokes Stanford starting with its very title. And while his opening anecdote identifies by name a Stanford student saying some very troubling things, such attribution is noticeably absent or vague throughout the rest of the piece.
Second, while my anecdotal experience doesn't at all negate Baker's observations and reporting, I will add here that as a Palo Alto resident who spends significant time on Stanford's campus, I have not experienced it as a war zone. Of course I saw the tents. I walked past them multiple times a week on my way from the Tresidder parking lot to the Coupa Cafe outside of Green Library. While there have no doubt been flare-ups, I observed students sitting in their respective encampments, scrolling on phones, occasionally trying to engage passers-by, but being respectful when those people (myself included) chose not to engage with them. Like I said, Baker's reports of conflict are surely also accurate—both can be true! But he has written an article that, to me, painted campus as constantly warlike, which I found borderline misleading in its omissions.
Speaking of omissions, standard journalistic practice is for a writer to disclose at the earliest possible opportunity any personal affiliation that might either impact their reporting or create the perception of impacting their reporting. Theo Baker's Jewish identity surely falls into this category. He does address it—but waits until 75% of the way through the article, which feels irresponsible (though some fault lies with the editors who didn't more that paragraph higher in the story).
Finally, if I could ask Baker anything, it would be what he hoped to accomplish with this story. Perhaps the response is that, as a journalist, his job is to simply tell the truth of what he sees and experiences. That his job is simply to report out. That he is not in charge of what happens next. Of course, the result of his investigation into MTL is a case study in journalistic impact. He can't be insensible to it, but there is an argument to be made that he's not responsible for it.
That said, at the college level in particular (where resources are more scarce and there are a finite number of directions one can shine journalism's spotlight), it feels worth interrogating what the point of it all might be. And I'd argue that one point could be to make a place and an institution better. I don't believe this article does that. When Stanford—and particularly Stanford students—have been in the national spotlight these past few years, the scrutiny and trolling from the outside world always seem to amp up tensions in ways that make it impossible to resolve conflict. Last year, when student protestors and an administrator at the law school clashed with a federal judge, students were doxxed and harassed online. Trucks drove around campus toting screens that displayed their name, pictures, and contact information. It made those involved feel more unsafe and more entrenched. In short, it made everything worse. While Theo Baker's article bemoans the state of Stanford campus, he had to know what the result would be. At this point, it's hard for me not to see him as part of the problem.
Theo Baker's book about Stanford is titled "How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University."
How to Rule the World by Theo Baker: 9780593832837 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
Review: "“Poignant, maddening, and genuinely hilarious, How to Rule the World is to be devoured—and fast, before Stanford buys up and sets fire to every copy. (Talk about a burn book!)” —Mark Leibovich, #1 New York Times bestselling author of This Town
"How to Rule the World" is part expose of Stanford - "less a school than a business" where certain wealthy, brainy students are cultivated as future members of the "ruling elite" - and part memoir of the wunderkind who peeled back the curtain and revealed what he saw."
He toppled Stanford's president as a freshman. Now he's written a tell-all about the university
RE: "The War at Stanford" - BostonCard - 12-13-2025
Mick dateline='[url=tel:1765671215' Wrote: 1765671215[/url]']
" certain wealthy, brainy students are cultivated as future members of the "ruling elite"
Wondering whether Baker’s expose of Stanford includes himself. After all, he comes from a successful family of reporters and seems pretty brainy, and is likely destined to be a member of the elite reporting circles at the New York Times, Atlantic, or (these days) as owner of a successful substack.
BC
RE: "The War at Stanford" - Mick - 12-13-2025
(12-13-2025, 06:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Mick dateline='[url=tel:1765671215' Wrote: 1765671215[/url]']
" certain wealthy, brainy students are cultivated as future members of the "ruling elite"
Wondering whether Baker’s expose of Stanford includes himself. After all, he comes from a successful family of reporters and seems pretty brainy, and is likely destined to be a member of the elite reporting circles at the New York Times, Atlantic, or (these days) as owner of a successful substack.
BC
Student at Phillips Academy, then Stanford, son of two very successful media folks, Baker says he is no nepo baby...Meet Stanford student whose reporting led to resignation of president
He seems fairly confident... https://theobaker.info/about
RE: "The War at Stanford" - 2006alum - 12-13-2025
(12-13-2025, 11:18 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-13-2025, 06:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Mick dateline='[url=tel:1765671215' Wrote: 1765671215[/url]']
" certain wealthy, brainy students are cultivated as future members of the "ruling elite"
Wondering whether Baker’s expose of Stanford includes himself. After all, he comes from a successful family of reporters and seems pretty brainy, and is likely destined to be a member of the elite reporting circles at the New York Times, Atlantic, or (these days) as owner of a successful substack.
BC
Student at Phillips Academy, then Stanford, son of two very successful media folks, Baker says he is no nepo baby...Meet Stanford student whose reporting led to resignation of president
He seems fairly confident... https://theobaker.info/about
The lady always doth protest too much. I do think he is well qualified to write a book about the ruling elite, but not for the reasons he puts forward... And quite honestly: there is almost nothing about Stanford that is categorically different from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/etc. in terms of grooming the select few for positions of power. Maybe it just seems novel to his parents and their benefactors because they are all multi-generational East Coast elites?
RE: "The War at Stanford" - TrumpCard - 12-14-2025
Occam’s razor: This perspective allowed him to get the biggest book deal.