What is Stanford like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not laid back

There are more weirdos that go there than hypm

Anarcho-libertarians that don’t grow up

The campus feels like it’s a Taco Bell

Lots of grifters and scammers

Racist dog whistle for Hispanic architecture?

Go back to your WASPy Yale and enjoy life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any college that doesn’t get bashed on DCUM?

Yes. But I think with Stanford, for a lot of people who went there, there is a real sense of loss over what it had become. This is true to an extent of other elite schools as well; the current admissions process and the tenure process has homogenized the T10s so the personalities that made them distinct have noticeably faded. With that loss of individuality comes a sense of loss. For some schools, it is sharper than others. For instance, Stanford is a bland facsimile of what it used to be (alum here). Meanwhile my impression is that Princeton has better retained some of what made it unique. Yale on the other hand had also lost some of its character.

I agree that Stanford used to be like, the West Coast version of the University of Chicago/ Brown. But now it is not that.

I am laughing at the comparisons to Taco Bell architecture--that is exactly it! it has extremely underwhelming campus, sort of hot and dusty and very blah. USC has much better architecture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think it's pretty clear at this point that one goes to Stanford undergrad for the connections and not the experience. The fun nerd vibe of the 90s is a long time ago. Stanford and Palo Alto are extremely transactional. If a student doesn't vibe with that, they will be miserable.

Multi-generational Stanford family here. I don't personally care, but Stanford is not interesting presently. They made some poor choices. Stanford has the resources to be an intellectual hub for everything. But they went all in with tech corporate groupthink and as a consequence Stanford undergrad is walk-on-eggshells boring. Students suck it up for four years. Get the resume boost. And get their little jobs in private equity or venture capital

Lame

Avarice is what defines Stanford these days

Not just Stanford, but the trend at all major US universities is toward more tech/STEM. These students tend to be more entrepreneurial and goal focused than the typical liberal arts/intellectual types.

So a tech/STEM major is not an intellectual type.

(In fact, STEM majors are more intellectual than "the typical liberal arts/intellectual types".)

No they’re not. All they care about is the almighty dollar.

Oh come on. The average CS major is far more intellectual than the average English major.

Nah...where did you get that idea? Many CS majors cannot speak or write well. Liberal arts majors can generally analyze better and are more versatile thinkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not laid back

There are more weirdos that go there than hypm

Anarcho-libertarians that don’t grow up

The campus feels like it’s a Taco Bell

Lots of grifters and scammers

Racist dog whistle for Hispanic architecture?

Go back to your WASPy Yale and enjoy life.

Santa Fé has amazing architecture

Stanford doesn’t

You are the racist for suggesting Stanford is Hispanic architecture

[Anonymous]

Stanford University's campus has been compared to Taco Bell style buildings for at least the past 20 years. Odd that others haven't heard that before this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re both Mission revival. Taco Bell’s mostly dropped the design, the mission bell is a pun on the founder, Glen Bell.

It's so bizarre that no one on this thread seems to know this!! You see this style of architecture all over California.

You don't have to like it, but it's truly ignorant not to recognize that it's not a one-off thing on campus: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS971US971&q=mission+style+architecture&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8j8Hx8q3_AhX-lIkEHeLAAtYQ0pQJegQICBAB&biw=1057&bih=591&dpr=2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re both Mission revival. Taco Bell’s mostly dropped the design, the mission bell is a pun on the founder, Glen Bell.

It's so bizarre that no one on this thread seems to know this!! You see this style of architecture all over California.

You don't have to like it, but it's truly ignorant not to recognize that it's not a one-off thing on campus: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS971US971&q=mission+style+architecture&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8j8Hx8q3_AhX-lIkEHeLAAtYQ0pQJegQICBAB&biw=1057&bih=591&dpr=2

Yep, kitsch-tastic garbage, all the authenticity of a Taco Bell. And odd that it was such an early example, the secularization of the missions ended with San Jose, and just a bit later, it's hey let's build a mission!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not laid back

There are more weirdos that go there than hypm

Anarcho-libertarians that don’t grow up

The campus feels like it’s a Taco Bell

Lots of grifters and scammers

Racist dog whistle for Hispanic architecture?

Go back to your WASPy Yale and enjoy life.

Santa Fé has amazing architecture

Stanford doesn’t

You are the racist for suggesting Stanford is Hispanic architecture

?? And what do you think it is, anti-Hispanic bigot? Vietnamese architecture?

Stanford has an awesome campus. You just hate diversity and openness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think it's pretty clear at this point that one goes to Stanford undergrad for the connections and not the experience. The fun nerd vibe of the 90s is a long time ago. Stanford and Palo Alto are extremely transactional. If a student doesn't vibe with that, they will be miserable.

Multi-generational Stanford family here. I don't personally care, but Stanford is not interesting presently. They made some poor choices. Stanford has the resources to be an intellectual hub for everything. But they went all in with tech corporate groupthink and as a consequence Stanford undergrad is walk-on-eggshells boring. Students suck it up for four years. Get the resume boost. And get their little jobs in private equity or venture capital

Lame

Avarice is what defines Stanford these days

Not just Stanford, but the trend at all major US universities is toward more tech/STEM. These students tend to be more entrepreneurial and goal focused than the typical liberal arts/intellectual types.

So a tech/STEM major is not an intellectual type.

(In fact, STEM majors are more intellectual than "the typical liberal arts/intellectual types".)

No they’re not. All they care about is the almighty dollar.

Oh come on. The average CS major is far more intellectual than the average English major.

Nah...where did you get that idea? Many CS majors cannot speak or write well. Liberal arts majors can generally analyze better and are more versatile thinkers.

That’s an old stereotype. Most universities with “tech” in the name have vibrant art and theater communities because they realize that current generations of STEM students are left and right brained. E.g., RIT just built a huge theater complex for student created productions and gives student grants for original work.

[Anonymous]

Frederick Law Olmsted, of Central Park and Boston’s Emerald Necklace, designed Stanford jointly with Leland Stanford. There’s an interesting article about their constant feud building it. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/a-gentleman-s-quarrel
Stanford styled his buildings on the lines of California’s old Spanish missions and suggested the campus roads be named after padres and Spanish governors. And he placed the church at the center, where a beneficent Christian creator belonged for the highest expression of humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frederick Law Olmsted, of Central Park and Boston’s Emerald Necklace, designed Stanford jointly with Leland Stanford. There’s an interesting article about their constant feud building it. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/a-gentleman-s-quarrel
Stanford styled his buildings on the lines of California’s old Spanish missions and suggested the campus roads be named after padres and Spanish governors. And he placed the church at the center, where a beneficent Christian creator belonged for the highest expression of humanity.

We toured the campus when DC visited (applied but rejected :.) The campus is enormous and stunning. I would have loved to have attended there! Beautiful weather, beautiful campus, amazing academics...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not laid back

There are more weirdos that go there than hypm

Anarcho-libertarians that don’t grow up

The campus feels like it’s a Taco Bell

Lots of grifters and scammers

Racist dog whistle for Hispanic architecture?

Go back to your WASPy Yale and enjoy life.

I hate west coast architecture, sorry. - NP

[Anonymous]

Taco Bell founded 1962.

Stanford main quad built 1887-1906.

Stop saying Stanford is like Taco Bell, dummies.

Among other things it shows you’ve never actually been there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any college that doesn’t get bashed on DCUM?

Yes. But I think with Stanford, for a lot of people who went there, there is a real sense of loss over what it had become. This is true to an extent of other elite schools as well; the current admissions process and the tenure process has homogenized the T10s so the personalities that made them distinct have noticeably faded. With that loss of individuality comes a sense of loss. For some schools, it is sharper than others. For instance, Stanford is a bland facsimile of what it used to be (alum here). Meanwhile my impression is that Princeton has better retained some of what made it unique. Yale on the other hand had also lost some of its character.

I agree that Stanford used to be like, the West Coast version of the University of Chicago/ Brown. But now it is not that.

I am laughing at the comparisons to Taco Bell architecture--that is exactly it! it has extremely underwhelming campus, sort of hot and dusty and very blah. USC has much better architecture.

You are an idiot. Have you ever been to the peninsula? I lived there for years and it was never “hot and dusty”. As for “blah” that only reflects your lack of taste.

[Anonymous]

I think the campus is objectively beautiful but somewhat soulless. Just feels very corporate and overly manicured. I don’t get the Taco Bell complaints though.