Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.
I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.
Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?
What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?
Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?
Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.
As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.
I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.
Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?
What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?
Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?
Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.
As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.