Maximiliana Bogan – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Wed, 10 May 2017 04:53:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Maximiliana Bogan – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Things you come to understand very quickly when you start taking two or more language classes at the same time https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/10/things-you-come-to-understand-very-quickly-when-you-start-taking-two-or-more-language-classes-at-the-same-time/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/10/things-you-come-to-understand-very-quickly-when-you-start-taking-two-or-more-language-classes-at-the-same-time/#respond Wed, 10 May 2017 09:52:53 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1127252 *NOT two or more new languages. 1. You now know as many if not more details about the daily personal lives of your classmates as your own siblings. If you are in an introductory language class, you are going to learn about other people’s siblings, pets and things they do in their free time. While you […]

The post Things you come to understand very quickly when you start taking two or more language classes at the same time appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
*NOT two or more new languages.

1. You now know as many if not more details about the daily personal lives of your classmates as your own siblings.

If you are in an introductory language class, you are going to learn about other people’s siblings, pets and things they do in their free time. While you may be more interested in getting a job with your dazzling new language skills than in creating lasting, intimate relationships with other speakers, the first things you learn will be small talk.

The certain knowledge that, at any moment, any one of you may be called upon to correctly interpret and passably answer your professor (who will, without exception, speak at no fewer than 100 words per minute) forges a delicate, survivalist bond. Same boat and all that – one filled with many holes, a lot of cortisol and a single emergency aid kit with complicated instructions that come in a language you still can’t read.

2. How to provide the smallest possible amount of information to adequately answer any question, and – barring that – quickly growing comfortable with outright lies.

Maybe my sister’s a neurosurgeon. Maybe she’s a balloon saleswoman or a business executive or a legal consultant. We just don’t know, because when my contextual and grammatical knowledge are equal to that of a first-grade native speaker and I have to give a sensible answer as to what my family members do for a living, my mother is a “teacher,” my father is a “teacher” and my sister is a “student.”

3. Your charms and cleverness mean nothing because you can’t bullshit your language teacher.

Whatever comfort you take in knowing that you could probably get your point across to a native speaker in a real-life situation evaporates when you’re speaking to your professor and hear yourself use the informal “you” instead of the polite “you.”

There are not that many situations in which you can’t talk in some wide, philosophical circles for a while and come out with a slightly better grade than you otherwise would have made, but new languages are the antithesis of that situation. The more you talk – which you will, because now you’re nervous that you forgot the right word, and you’re trying to convey the idea through a lot of other monosyllabic words – the worse it gets.

4. Grammar has no tangible grip on the fabric of reality, and it will fuck you up slightly differently in every language.

5. The possible number of things native speakers of those languages are talking about when you eavesdrop is far, far larger than you ever imagined and you Should Be Nervous.

6. A is for effort.

7. F is for phonetic.

8. Your Accent is Not Neutral.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Things you come to understand very quickly when you start taking two or more language classes at the same time appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/10/things-you-come-to-understand-very-quickly-when-you-start-taking-two-or-more-language-classes-at-the-same-time/feed/ 0 1127252
Against interdisciplinary majors: An interview with Professor Priya Satia https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/07/against-interdisciplinary-majors-an-interview-with-professor-priya-satia/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/07/against-interdisciplinary-majors-an-interview-with-professor-priya-satia/#respond Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:01:54 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124965 We have messy lives that we try to construct around our complicated interests, and for many of us, college is where we lay the foundations. The Big Question, of course, is where we want those foundations to lead. I always figured that interdisciplinary majors were the way to go. They look so much like an […]

The post Against interdisciplinary majors: An interview with Professor Priya Satia appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We have messy lives that we try to construct around our complicated interests, and for many of us, college is where we lay the foundations. The Big Question, of course, is where we want those foundations to lead.

I always figured that interdisciplinary majors were the way to go. They look so much like an opportunity to incorporate two or more disparate fields into a single glorious degree. As a pathologically indecisive person, they seemed like an easy, clean-cut answer to the very hard question of “What interests you?”

But according to Priya Satia, that’s exactly the wrong way to look at interdisciplinary majors. She suggests that, although interdisciplinary majors are designed to allow students to tailor their studies and pursue their specific interests, they may not offer the clarity and self-knowledge we expect.

Professor Satia is a professor in Stanford’s History Department and specializes in British Empire history – particularly in the Middle East and South Asia. She has more degrees than most college students have average hours of sleep, and her studies span chemistry, international relations, economics, and history.

And yet, with a veritable menagerie of academic perspectives, Priya Satia knows where she stands – with both feet firmly planted in history. And she emphasizes that lens, that consistent method of thought, is both an intellectual priority and an incredible asset.

The merits of classical disciplines, as Satia describes them, lie primarily in shaping the method of a student’s thoughts. “They give you a set of tools,” Satia commented, which you can cross-apply and take with you no matter where your interests wander. “I think it really helps you, just kind of psychologically, to have that core, and it gives you an intellectual identity.” This mental toolbox can be hard to develop in interdisciplinary majors without already knowing exactly how you think best.

Satia juxtaposes history and the STS major as an example. “Say, you know, right now between the ages of 18 and 22, ‘I’m really interested in the relationship between society and technology… I’m going to study that as a historian, and supplement it with x, y, z.’ Now, zoom forward 10 years, and now the question I’m most preoccupied with is inequality. As a historian, I learned that you can read texts from the past, you can think about them critically and put them in conversation with each other. Those are the tools I’m going to use to now answer these questions.”

The way that we think about problems is incredibly important in efficiently working toward solutions, and interdisciplinary majors – while designed to explore the cross-sections of student interests – may become too specific to be widely applicable. “It doesn’t arm you with tools that will enable you to answer any number of questions,” Satia concludes.

Satia argues that the more you pursue an interdisciplinary major simply because it has the right name or the right description that includes the words you’re looking for, “without a really good understanding of what the disciplines are that make up that program, the more that could backfire intellectually. 

“You could come out with less of a sense of who you are as a thinker; you may come out unable to complete the sentence ‘I am a ___. I am a historian, I am a sociologist, these are the set of tools I have acquired to answer this question about society, or science, or what have you.’”

This interview wasn’t the brutal critique of interdisciplinary majors that it might sound like. Satia herself completed an interdisciplinary undergraduate degree in international relations, and she makes it clear that the mix of methodology offered by interdisciplinary courses can work for some people. “If you come to it having a really clear sense of what its [an interdisciplinary major’s] component disciplines are and you want that sum of all parts, that’s great. But if you go to it because the name lines up with subjects that you’re interested in, you may end up with no clarity and a lot of confusion.” The difference for her is whether a student is “going into it well-informed versus going into it lost.”

Satia draws on her own experience to further illustrate her point. While talking about her chemistry and IR double major, she explained, “I had two interests; I was interested in inequality, and I was interested in how the universe worked. That’s what I wanted to explore philosophically as a science major, but I had this other interest too, this real world interest – why are some places poor and some places rich – and those two big questions are separate to me.

“Most students come in here with one or two big questions like that, and you need some guidance as to what is a discipline that works best for you, what’s most compelling to you and what you buy. I tried economics, I did a master’s in economics, and I could see the power of that, but I didn’t buy it in the end. I didn’t think it was arriving at the right answers to that question of inequality; I thought history made more sense to me.”

Going further in that vein, Satia touches on a foundational element of college in the U.S. “I think that, so far as college is about figuring out your identity as a thinker, and having some confidence in your ability to think that way, you really need a discipline. And the word is literal, right? Mental discipline.”

Finding your discipline, understanding and exploring varying (and sometimes opposing) schools of thought, is a huge part of The College Experience™. And while interdisciplinary majors are neatly packaged to encompass two or three disciplines, Satia suggests that exploring each discipline in depth may be of greater benefit to students.

“I think sometimes students come with a kind of preconceived sense of what they’re interested in and they don’t realize — let’s say you’re interested in international relations, you could major in the interdisciplinary major by that name, but you could also study IR as a political scientist or as a historian. I think the only kind of intellectual case for doing it as international relations is if you’re conscious that you want to have exposure to all those different disciplines. You shouldn’t think that that is the only way to approach the subject.”

In the end, Satia recommends studying under a major that will send you into the future with an understanding of your own mind – how it works best, what skills you use best and most enjoy using. “You’ve got to be really clear what you are first, and what you are second. You want to know what step to take first when you’re thinking about how to solve a problem.”

When it comes down to it, of course, people work well with different approaches, and diversity of thought is imperative. On the broad set of influences in her life, Satia says, “Everything stays with you. My interest in flying has been a huge influence on the work I’ve done as a historian. All those things stay a part of what you do, it’s not like anything is wasted. It’s just what you prioritize. How much you want to devote your life to one thing over another. So is something an influence? Or is it your profession – is it what you do?”

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Against interdisciplinary majors: An interview with Professor Priya Satia appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/07/against-interdisciplinary-majors-an-interview-with-professor-priya-satia/feed/ 0 1124965
Denominations of boy https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/28/denominations-of-boy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/28/denominations-of-boy/#respond Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:54 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124851 Let’s break it down: the pros, the cons, and the cons - because at the heart of it, all these -boys are B-grade con men.

The post Denominations of boy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In the big bad world of modern social archetypes, the fuckboy is a well-known figure. More recently, up-and-coming softboys are making their bid for fame (you can read all about it here). Many of us are aware of these terms and the underlying social context they carry, but if these concepts are new to you, there’s one very important thing to keep in mind. A fuckboy is not a jock or a frat boy or a flat-out asshole. They come from all creeds and walks of life. Similarly, a softboy is not necessarily a poet or a hipster.

These archetypes do not depend on a person’s occupation, appearance, age or any other traditionally stereotype-worthy characteristic. They depend on a person’s mode of manipulation. How they behave in order to get what they want, especially (though not exclusively) when it comes to getting laid. These archetypes have a favorite tool and a routine that runs like clockwork. And they can be anybody.

Naturally, not all boys fall perfectly into “fuckboy” or “softboy” – it would be ridiculous to reduce such a large demographic to two measly categories. That totally ignores all the other wonderful -boy types. Sadboys, nerdboys, nice guys, “just guys”… We don’t want to leave them out. They need to have their say. So let’s break it down: the pros, the cons and the cons – because at the heart of it, all these -boys are B-grade conmen.

The Fuckboy:

We all know him. He’s not too worried. He’ll coast by on his looks, or his connections, or some other form of arbitrary privilege. Social norms are this guy’s best friend – they justify his actions for him. It’s not his fault: Boys are just boys. The fuckboy’s tool of choice is blame. Passing off responsibility to anybody and everybody else involved in a bad situation. What is it with you anyway? Why are you acting so crazy? You’re overreacting, and you need to calm down.

The Softboy:

As linked above, quite a bit of thought has already gone into the softboy. He’s the sensitive one. He’d never be That Guy. He’s socially aware. He is, of course, highly qualified to comment on the deep political undercurrents, the social conflict and personal turbulence that underlie the work of any author. He’s more into “something special” than a bona fide relationship, and he hates that some people have to put a label on everything. And you knew that going in – he thinks it’s very important to be honest and open about these things. So when it all goes to hell? Hey, you knew what you signed up for, so who’s really guilty here? But you shouldn’t feel bad; you don’t need to apologize. Sometimes shit just happens, you know?

Denominations of boy
The softboy appears to be a sensitive soul. (MAXIMILIANA BOGAN/The Stanford Daily)

The Nerdboy:

The nerdboy can be difficult to identify at first – there’s a lot of variation in the external expression of nerdboy-ness. But, without a doubt, he has been disenfranchised by society. His potential and his brilliance have been ignored all his life in favor of Other Guys. He grew up with the absolute certainty that high school isn’t the end for him, and that someday the target of his malice will see him rich and successful, and oh, how the tables will have turned then. He needs no external source of validation – his conviction and the inevitable payoff of his suffering are all the vindication he needs. He speaks condescension as a second language. When girls don’t like him, it’s because he’s a nerd. People are just too shallow to see past his physical exterior. Everybody except the object of his affections, of course, whom he will idolize and exalt beyond any reasonable or healthy standard.

When it comes to girls, he’s not shy about using those societal stereotypes that caused him so much grief. That idolization will transcend into blatant fabrication of artificial competition. You’re the smartest girl he’s ever met, and it’s so nice that he can talk to you as an equal – surprising as that fact is. He loves that you can not just hold your own in a conversation (almost like a fully functional human adult), but can lead one. He’s never met a girl that could win an argument against him before. You must really be special to outmaneuver him. Other girls care about stupid things like hair and makeup, but you are the exception. You’re better than other girls – you are deserving of his praise and affections.

The Sadboy:

A lot of crossover with the softboy here. The sadboy is also sensitive and in touch with his feelings, but he uses those feelings differently. The sadboy knows it’s not fair to you, but that won’t stop him from sharing. He has a lot of “dark shit” that he’ll feel really bad about unloading onto some unsuspecting friend or acquaintance, but not bad enough to engage the problem directly and take healthy measures to correct it.

Instead, he will look for salvation, which will come exclusively from somebody else understanding his pain and loving him anyway. The sadboy doesn’t know if he can go on. He doesn’t know how to live without you. You’re the one thing, the only thing, the most important thing in his life, all that he cares about, and he needs you. He’ll send you music (obscure indie, EDM or light metal only) at 2 a.m. and wait for you to ask why he’s up at 2 a.m. The answer is that he couldn’t sleep, so he decided, “Fuck it, I’ll watch the sunrise.”

Denominations of boy
Beware the sadboy’s charms. (MAXIMILIANA BOGAN/The Stanford Daily)

The Nice Guy:

The nice guy is probably the broadest and most well-known archetype. He’s your average person, a good guy, doing what anybody would do. He pretends to be a team player, the reasonable one – but the more inconvenience he runs into, the more it’s really all about him. He’ll say problematic things, and if anybody calls him out, then jeez, nobody can take a joke these days.

Nice guys finish last, obviously, but he doesn’t mind because he knows that when he finds the Right Person, they’ll see that he’s been the One all along. He wants somebody who’s not afraid to be real. It’s so sad how girls these days act like sluts to get attention. What happened to the good old 50s romance? You look better without makeup anyway.

Denominations of boy
Meet the nice guy. (MAXIMILIANA BOGAN/The Stanford Daily)

The Idea Man:

This guy is waiting for the revolution. Things are gonna change, man, and he’ll be ready when it comes, just you wait. He’s the guys that’s been skimping on rent for three years – if he’s not just sleeping on your couch – talking about how everything’s gonna be different, he’s just gotta get that one stroke of luck and off he’ll be. His career is stagnating at the moment (how long has it been now?) – influences outside of his control are out to get him. What can you do when everything in the world is going wrong? Surely you see that he’s doing everything he can? But just stick it out for a little bit longer. He’s had a bad run of luck, but that luck will turn. He would never do work that is beneath him. If you don’t see what he sees, if you don’t believe as he does in that brighter future just around the corner, then it’s because you don’t get it. He is always right. He will not be persuaded or cajoled.

These archetypes are standard deviations, which stem from a single, unifying value: themselves. They bestow their affections like gifts. It’s not just anyone that can catch their eyes. They view people as those parts they need or want at the moment, and merely employ different means of exploiting those parts.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Denominations of boy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/28/denominations-of-boy/feed/ 0 1124851
Thoughts on minimalism from somebody who’s not really a minimalist, but who is trying their darnedest https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/09/thoughts-on-minimalism-from-somebody-whos-not-really-a-minimalist-but-who-is-trying-their-darnedest/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/09/thoughts-on-minimalism-from-somebody-whos-not-really-a-minimalist-but-who-is-trying-their-darnedest/#respond Thu, 09 Mar 2017 14:04:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124612 As an interior decorating aesthetic, a way of life, and a mindset for success, simplifying and learning to cut out negative energy is both a legitimately noble goal, and an increasingly fashionable trend among the glam folk of the Internet.

The post Thoughts on minimalism from somebody who’s not really a minimalist, but who is trying their darnedest appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Every couple of months or so, I wake up in the morning and decide to become a Minimalist. I resolve to completely transform my life, simplify my world and cut out all unnecessary stress and worry – anything that doesn’t actively Make Me Happy goes on the chopping block.

For the next 24 hours I lead an incredibly productive life, rearranging my furniture and redistributing my clothes into slightly different piles. This is usually the same state of mind in which I scrap all my career plans and tell myself I deserve to take classes just for fun. A few days later my steely will to simplify is more or less shoved aside by my incapacity to adequately organize my time, and within a week, I inevitably find myself surrounded by stacks of handouts, flyers and Post-It reminders. Rinse. Repeat.

I believe in minimalism, I really do. I’m an undeniably messy person, but I’ve convinced myself (in an earnest yet misguided attempt) that even though I don’t actually do anything that contributes toward minimalism as a lifestyle, I’m a Minimalist at heart. However, my most recent bout of desire to self-improve has left me with an inconvenient case of Personal Accountability, and I think it’s time for me to face the truth.

I like chalking up my failures to factors that are not myself as much as the next person, but the fact is that the problem isn’t minimalism. It’s Minimalism – that “pure” lifestyle in which you somehow end up paying $800 for a solid black canvas, and looking suspiciously at your bank account wondering how “they” got ya.

The differences between minimalism and Minimalism are aesthetically pretty noticeable, but the more important discrepancies are about the process. As a Minimalist, I quite failed. I do not read Kant, or Clorox my laptop keyboard exactly as often as the User’s Manual instructs. My bedspread is multicolored, and I write in Moleskine lookalikes. (I mean, come on – those notebooks are $30. That’s a bit ridiculous even to be Insta-glam.) And if we’re being completely honest here, I just don’t like rectangular décor that much.

So while I will continue to quietly covet those clean lines and crisp contrast (which are somehow both vaguely Scandinavian and halfway Eastern/fengshui), I’ve realized that some people (me) must resign themselves to the pursuit of unglamorous minimalism. You know, the kind where you’d settle for just being a slightly less-frazzled and weary person.

Minimalism as an ideology is super appealing. How can anybody resist all those blogs and photo-journals documenting life as a Fulfilled Adult with a chic monochrome wardrobe and all-chrome kitchen appliances? As an interior decorating aesthetic, a way of life and a mindset for success, simplifying and learning to cut out negative energy is both a legitimately noble goal and an increasingly fashionable trend among the glam folk of the Internet. It falls nicely into that category of things that would be genuinely wise, but are still not too pretentious to pursue before the age of 30.

But as they say about “all that glitters” – it’s not all goals.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Thoughts on minimalism from somebody who’s not really a minimalist, but who is trying their darnedest appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/09/thoughts-on-minimalism-from-somebody-whos-not-really-a-minimalist-but-who-is-trying-their-darnedest/feed/ 0 1124612
Getting the most out of Admit Weekend https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/08/getting-the-most-out-of-admit-weekend/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/08/getting-the-most-out-of-admit-weekend/#respond Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:20:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124551 As the end of March draws inexorably nearer, so too does an even more important time in the life of prospective college students around the country — the end of April. Across the country, high school seniors are cutting class, loitering irresponsibly and will soon be making those time-honored pilgrimages to their possible new schools. […]

The post Getting the most out of Admit Weekend appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As the end of March draws inexorably nearer, so too does an even more important time in the life of prospective college students around the country — the end of April. Across the country, high school seniors are cutting class, loitering irresponsibly and will soon be making those time-honored pilgrimages to their possible new schools.

The onslaught of Stanford Admit Weekend activities — and all the clever, rhyming abbreviations you ever wanted — are scheduled for April 27, and the weekend is sure to be an event. Current Stanford students are encouraged to help out all the eager young ProFros soon to flood campus, as hosts and as guides. RoHos, HoHos (yes, really) and MoFo’s abound.

While it’s still up for debate as to whether Admit Weekend is actually a constructive use of anyone’s time, there are a lot of things to do during Admit Weekend that no ProFro should miss! Here are some tips on how to approach Admit Weekend and maximize your Stanford experience:

1. Take this chance to memorize campus.

In terms of understanding Stanford as an institution, Admit Weekend is definitely a great opportunity to see White Plaza and Tresidder Union. The food, ebullience and general order of events you will experience are more or less useless as a gauge for the future, but the geography of campus is unlikely to change!

2. Start networking.

Rarely will you find a situation better designed to encourage bonding than at Admit Weekend!

Where better to start a community than among thousands of extraordinarily competitive teenagers, all of whom have just discovered that they are among the most special five (excuse me, 4.8) percent of high school seniors, many of whom are coming up on the high-pressure deadline of choosing their home for the next four years and most of whom will inevitably ask the question, “So where else are you deciding between?”

Friends who strain-their-personalities-to-the-limits-of-human-capacity-in-order-to-appear-likeable-and-attention-worthy-amongst-peers-each-more-elite-and-distinguished-than-the-next stay together!

Get everybody’s Snapchat and phone number, start a group text to find people living near your temporary dorm, and then continue to receive weird notifications and see all the Snapstories from people you do not know long after Admit Weekend is over.

Also, there’s definitely a sliver of a chance that you’ll identify, meet and win the heart of that one Stanford community member destined to be the mentor that will change the way you see the world and teach you the lessons that will take you to greatness. So you should totally get on that during your two-day stay.

3. Use your time wisely.

Take advantage of Stanford’s amazing academic facilities to catch up on all your second-semester-senior work. It’s important that you learn to manage your time well because as we all know, it won’t be the same in college. Green Library is an oasis of productivity and serenity, and the beautiful wide open lawns that smatter the campus are prime spots for you to ignore your already irrelevant high school classwork and simply enjoy having an excuse to skip class and travel to exotic Palo Alto.

4. Experience the dining halls.

As a Stanford freshman, you will be eating at campus dining facilities more often than you might imagine right now. So you might as well take advantage during Admit Weekend because it’s going to be a while before dining hall food is that fresh again.

5. Go to all those “parties” that are scheduled for 11 p.m.

Campus is dry for Admit Weekend, so you know all those ProFro “parties” will be a great time! Enjoy dark sweat chambers, uncomfortable small talk and lukewarm and horrifyingly sober attempts at dancing with the full power of your mental faculties — it’s unlike anything else.

6. Go to information sessions and fairs.

The best possible thing you can do at Admit Weekend is overload your brain with far too much information to ever be sifted through by a human and to collect an inordinate number of fliers, handouts and stylized bookmarks advertising literally every single activity you could ever do on Stanford’s campus.

You’ll tell yourself that you’ll remember the important details, which you won’t. You’ll promise to look the rest up later on the website (you’re not sure which one because there are approximately 8,000, but you’re sure you’ll be able to figure it out), which you also won’t do, but it’ll make you feel better knowing you could.

Keep all those papers and leaflets since maybe you’ll use them when you finally get to campus to enroll! Proceed to toss them all into the recycling bin after you’ve been on campus for a month, and realize that you still have no idea what the hell to do even though you received near-identical handouts again at NSO.

 

Admit Weekends are designed with a lot of great intentions! They produce good results for some people at some schools in some circumstances, probably. Somewhere, they could even help kids make informed, self-aware decisions and reduce the anxiety of making a significant choice.

So if you are not that kid at one of those schools in one of those circumstances, take comfort in the fact that most other people aren’t that kid either, and your decision probably shouldn’t be based solely on an Admit Weekend experience anyways!

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Getting the most out of Admit Weekend appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/08/getting-the-most-out-of-admit-weekend/feed/ 0 1124551
Video: Majors according to Stanford students https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/video-majors-according-to-stanford-students/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/video-majors-according-to-stanford-students/#respond Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:37:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1123951 What’s the hardest major at Stanford? What are CS majors really like? The Grind’s Maximiliana Bogan interviews Stanford students from different majors to find out what some common stereotypes are. Thank you to all participants who appear in this video. Music: Youtube–Best Music Compilation Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Video: Majors according to Stanford students appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>

What’s the hardest major at Stanford? What are CS majors really like? The Grind’s Maximiliana Bogan interviews Stanford students from different majors to find out what some common stereotypes are.

Thank you to all participants who appear in this video.

The post Video: Majors according to Stanford students appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/video-majors-according-to-stanford-students/feed/ 0 Majors according to Stanford students nonadult 1123951
Five types of people you’ll meet on Valentine’s Day https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/14/five-types-of-people-youll-meet-on-valentines-day/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/14/five-types-of-people-youll-meet-on-valentines-day/#respond Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:59:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1122921 1. Fully enjoys the holiday; sincerely wishes people a happy holiday and sends candy-grams — genuinely enthusiastic human being Does homework the day it was assigned Hopelessly addicted to caffeine Dislikes blue-raspberry on principle Sleeps approximately eight hrs a week Secretly thinks they’re the best driver in their friend group 2. “Valentine’s Day is a corporate […]

The post Five types of people you’ll meet on Valentine’s Day appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
1. Fully enjoys the holiday; sincerely wishes people a happy holiday and sends candy-grams — genuinely enthusiastic human being

  • Does homework the day it was assigned
  • Hopelessly addicted to caffeine
  • Dislikes blue-raspberry on principle
  • Sleeps approximately eight hrs a week
  • Secretly thinks they’re the best driver in their friend group

2. “Valentine’s Day is a corporate ploy designed to commodify love for capital gain.” Intentionally wears black on the day of.

  • “I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist”
  • Self-described mess
  • Has a blog
  • Keeps finger nails super short
  • Actually orders pistachio ice cream
  • Plays at least two obscure instruments
  • Lawful evil

3. Benign acceptance — here to have a good tim;, not too ruffled; will smile but politely abstain from Valentine-y activities.

  • Vague but weirdly positive
  • Long eyelashes
  • Too trusting
  • Never seen doing work but is lowkey always stressed
  • Chill drunk
  • Says “fight me” a lot
  • Wouldn’t win a fight with a toaster
  • Adidas

4. Jaded resignation — sullenly accepts their incapacity to alter the situation.

  • Taking the L
  • Cat person
  • Unironically watches “The Bachelor”
  • Multilingual but mostly just talks shit in front of people’s faces
  • Types really fast
  • Currently investing heavily in the Coffee I.V. market
  • In pain

5. Has literally no opinion on the matter — vaguely nods along with whomever has the most vocal position.

  • Lowkey Backstreet Boys
  • Still thinks Heelys are cool
  • Never knows what time things are happening
  • Has Bigger Things to worry about
  • Doesn’t know much about astronomy but has a lot of passion
  • Says “it’s fine” a lot
  • It’s not fine

 

Tag yourself and contact Maximiliana Bogam at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Five types of people you’ll meet on Valentine’s Day appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/14/five-types-of-people-youll-meet-on-valentines-day/feed/ 0 1122921
The future of science: A conversation with Mark Jacobson https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/08/the-future-of-science/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/08/the-future-of-science/#respond Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:41:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1122155 The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election aggressively covered topics from health care to foreign policy, from economic growth to national security. However, one important topic went largely untouched by either party nominee. The question of the future of science — how it will affect or be affected by major policy decisions. In discussing science and the […]

The post The future of science: A conversation with Mark Jacobson appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The future of science: A conversation with Mark Jacobson
(CATHY YANG/The Stanford Daily)

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election aggressively covered topics from health care to foreign policy, from economic growth to national security. However, one important topic went largely untouched by either party nominee. The question of the future of science — how it will affect or be affected by major policy decisions.

In discussing science and the future, the topic that inevitably dominates the conversation is energy. How to clean it up, conserve it, generate it and secure it. The scientific community has said for years that our current methods of energy production are unsustainable, and yet, the proposed policies for U.S. energy seem to follow the patterns of the past.

Mark Jacobson is the director of Stanford’s Atmosphere and Energy program and a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. For the last 20 years, he has been involved in some of the U.S.’s most important steps in understanding and combating global warming and implementing clean energy solutions. In an interview discussing the relationship between energy solutions and public policy, Jacobson spoke to me about some of his concerns regarding current global-warming countermeasures and the real problems they do and do not address.

Climate change has been identified by 99 percent of the scientific community as an urgent and incontrovertible threat to humanity. NASA has documented rising sea levels, extreme weather patterns and ocean acidification in unprecedented levels within the last few decades. The CDC cites climate change as a major accelerant of such diverse health hazards as asthma, malnutrition, Lyme disease, cholera and cardiovascular failure. In the U.S. alone, dozens of scientific organizations concur that these consequences, evidenced by a growing stockpile of data and research, are undeniably tied to human action.

Clearly, the problem exists and needs to be addressed. Luckily, many climate scientists — including Jacobson — have already laid out possible solutions to the problem. Jacobson’s 50-State Plan is a comprehensive, step-by-step program designed to convert the U.S. to clean energy sources on a tailored, state-by-state basis. It covers required land resources, the predicted contribution percentage of each clean energy source, the savings in medical and energy costs and the approximate time it would take for the plan to return 100 percent of its cost to each state (around 13 to 30 years). In theory, this plan is a financially plausible — and even beneficial — solution to the immense environmental threat of energy- and carbon-related pollution.

But maybe you don’t believe in climate change. Maybe climate change is far off and abstract. Maybe ocean levels and warmer summers aren’t really a big concern for you — there are enough problems to deal with in everyday life after all.

According to Mark Jacobson, you should absolutely want to transform the energy industry anyway. He comments, “You don’t have to believe in global warming to believe in changing energy structure.” His research shows that the benefits of transitioning to 100 percent clean energy are enormous, even if you disregard the benefits to the environment. From a health perspective, a job security point of view and even in the realm of personal finance — clean energy provides solutions.

Reducing carbon and pollution emissions would directly reduce pollution-related health costs substantially. In the U.S. alone, 60,000-65,000 people die every year due to air pollution, and thousands more become ill. Jacobson notes that the cost of caring for those individuals may be as high as $500 billion per year, an astounding 3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

On an economic note, Jacobson estimates that the switch would generate 2 million net jobs in clean energy production and maintenance. It would also lower the direct cost of energy to consumers. Right now, wind and solar energy are the cheapest forms of electric power in the United States. Electric cars save about $20,000 in fuel costs per 15,000 miles.

And yet for some reason, climate change and renewable energy sources just aren’t on the national agenda — not on the scale they by all rights should be. Clean energy is imperative for environmental safety and has the potential to enormously reduce health costs and the cost of energy while simultaneously creating a huge new job market. Even for those who aren’t interested in the environmental benefits, the data shows a huge incentive to make the switch.

So why isn’t the solution to this massive problem the number one priority of both the U.S. and the international community? We know that the problem exists, and we know we have the necessary resources for change, so what’s the hold up? Why do we still view environmental deterioration as a near-insurmountable global problem?

As it turns out, the crux of the energy dilemma lies far more in the “public” and “policy” side than in the “science” side. In 2015, Jacobson commented, “The main barriers are social, political — and getting industries to change.”

The political attitude toward structured energy change has opened up only recently with President Obama, and that window of goodwill might be smaller than we realized. The Trump/Pence platform for energy and science during their campaign season gave much of the scientific community pause. Whether the president and his administration will go through with their proposed plan to “unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil and natural gas reserves plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves,” remains a question that has researchers worried. Jacobson expressed dismay at “such a dangerous plan,” saying that an increase in fossil fuel consumption is an action that “definitely can’t be addressed safely.”

While there is a lot that we just aren’t sure of with our new president, Jacobson — and plenty of other energy professionals — agree that Trump will try to go forward with his plan. His possible success, however, will depend on people. Jacobson emphasizes that the key factor will be “how much resistance” there is and “how much states will acquiesce.” This leads us to the most important and probably most difficult part of the puzzle.

Yes, there’s a problem. But what difference does it make to most people if the oceans level rise? Most of us are never going to see a polar bear anyway — does it matter if it’s because they’re dead instead of just far away? Everybody knows the Big Problems of climate change, but so often those issues become secondary concerns compared to the problems of daily life. The burden of fixing the planet is generally agreed to simply be too much for one person to make a difference.

However, this attitude leads down a very dangerous road. The switch to clean energy is a huge task, but as Jacobson comments, “We have to do it — there’s no other option; the climate problem is so immense and dangerous to humanity that if we don’t have a transition, there will be huge costs and mass mortality and morbidity due to heat stress, heat stroke, more wildfires and air pollution, greater storminess and floods and famine.” As for people who believe immediate change to be too much, too fast, Jacobson says, “If they say it’s daunting, it’s because they don’t understand the scale of the problem.”

And lack of understanding is a huge issue. In a lot of cases, scientific information is either skewed or ignored by the public eye. As Jacobson laments, “There are 7 billion people, and as a scientist you might reach three or four thousand… You just can’t reach that many people very easily.” It is near impossible by current methods to accurately convey the very real and very dangerous effects of our environmental footprint. Without personal investment in knowing the implications of global warming for human health, food and water production, disease control and ecosystem maintenance, it’s easy to brush the energy problem off as a topic for other people to worry about.

But organizations like the Solutions Project are making a brave attempt to make environmental information more accessible and actionable to the general public in an attempt to cultivate a passion for change. The Solutions Project publishes details necessary to large-scale policy change and hits hard on the notion that the a clean energy infrastructure is entirely possible. We just need to reach for it. Given the scale of the problem, public and individual engagement are vital not just in supporting environmentally friendly policies and representatives, but also in making changes on a small, personal scale.

Jacobson stresses that informing and educating people is about “not only the problems, but how straightforward the solutions are.” There are plenty of things that every citizen can do to reduce the U.S. carbon footprint. You can retrofit your home, replace gas stoves with induction cook tops, use LED light bulbs, switch to electric cars. And while all of these changes do have an initial cost, Jacobson estimates the changes could “reduce field costs by a factor of four or five.” The economic and humanitarian value of making responsible environmental choices far outweighs the superficial price tag.

Per Espen Stoknes is a lecturer at BI Norwegian Business School and an author and researcher in foresight psychology. In a 2015 interview with Yale Environment 360 discussing his book, “What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming,” he posed an important question:

“Is humanity up to the task [of combating climate change], or are we inevitably short-term thinkers? Or to put it a bit more constructively, what are the conditions under which humans will begin to think and act for the long term as far as the climate is concerned? Is it possible to pinpoint the mechanisms or functions in the human psyche that would enable us to act for the long term?”

Climate change and global energy security are societal problems — and each member of society is responsible for pursuing a healthier, more sustainable world. Those representatives in power have the ability to enforce new policy, but individuals in their own homes can support, resist and decide what those policies will be. You don’t need high-level scientific knowledge to affect change. Restructuring the energy industry — and our own energy habits — around clean, sustainable sources should be a priority for all. Whether in the interest of personal financial benefit or in wide-scale altruism, we need to change our behavior, and we need to do it soon.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The future of science: A conversation with Mark Jacobson appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/02/08/the-future-of-science/feed/ 0 1122155
A B.S. essay starter kit https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/17/a-b-s-essay-starter-kit/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/17/a-b-s-essay-starter-kit/#respond Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:54:43 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1121442 Often, there are moments or events which must be endured but which, in the great ineffable scheme, serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Redundant, pointless, arbitrary things that we do or that happen to us; things we don’t choose or want but can’t escape. Cursive is meant to teach us this lesson from a very young […]

The post A B.S. essay starter kit appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Often, there are moments or events which must be endured but which, in the great ineffable scheme, serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Redundant, pointless, arbitrary things that we do or that happen to us; things we don’t choose or want but can’t escape. Cursive is meant to teach us this lesson from a very young age, and the whole situation pretty much goes downhill from there.

In the hierarchy of needless suffering, academic bullshit has staked and claimed its own very particular niche. The whole engine of academia pretty much runs on deciding whether we believe the historical and philosophical accounts of Bobicus Romanicus, and who said what 703 years ago and whether or not it was before so-and-so proved them wrong, and the implications if it was versus the consequences if it wasn’t. It’s a universal farce that we (the bitter and jaded community of academic bullshitters) don’t much care for but are now sullenly committed to and have all quietly agreed to perpetuate out of sheer spite, because it takes less immediate effort than generating and implementing curriculum with practical application.

Therefore, in the true spirit of our esteemed global scholastic system, let us now analyze that most essential and respectable denomination of academic bullshittery: the analytical essay.

  1. That one sentence of actual relevance that you shuffle around and cross-apply 17 times until you’ve reached the length requirement

Say your standard analytic assignment has a length requirement of about four to five pages. The first thing you’ll need is a topic that can be fully addressed in approximately two or three sentences. Those sentences will probably contain the only actual content you’ll need for the next four to five pages. The rest is all makeup and hair and ambient lighting.

Students are incredible creatures. They possess a unique hold over the laws of physics by which a single unit of academic bullshit can magically become 10, each with nicely varied grammatical structures to set a pleasing reading pace. The well-practiced student can stretch and rearrange, adapt and configure and mutilate language so that a single idea can become as long or as short as it needs to be.

2. Name-dropping important historical events (topical relevance optional)

Of course, it’s not all slice-and-dice and cut-and-paste; you’ve gotta have sources. You’re just some poor schmuck writing about a lot of other poor schmucks so that you can get a passing grade and finally move on with your life and close your 26 browser tabs.

The problem, of course, is that citing sources is tedious and usually stretches the truth like a sinner on the rack. Far simpler to create the illusion of a well-informed and contextualized essay by dropping a few generally-known but rarely-thought-of historical connections. Did you know that Event X was a direct reaction to the American Revolution? How thrilling. The precedent set by the Greeks paved the way for Event Y, and eventually led to the discovery of the woolly mammoth. Sensational. The turmoil of Artist Z’s time is clearly reflected in the contrasting tones and stark shading that surround the subject, which is an obvious allegory for the oppression of the working class. Well, if you bothered to learn about history, you must be some kind of nerd who knows what they’re talking about.

3. Gaming the deadline (Received at: 11:59 p.m.)

While the hour before a deadline has been proven via decades of practical evidence to be the No. 1 most productive time period of any given student’s week, it is occasionally possible to take procrastination to the next level. Unfortunately for those of us who live in California, midnight here is past-midnight in the rest of the country. But if you didn’t grow up in California, midnight deadlines were never quite as absolute as they seemed. Depending on where the server of a grading website was located, you could milk those precious two hours when it was “midnight” for you, but still 10:00 PST. The possibilities for manic nonsense in a professional tone of text are endless when you can turn an essay in at 2:00 a.m. and still get full credit from your West Coast-based online grader.

4. “Thus”

In the world of physical interaction with real people who aren’t supercilious assholes, there are some words and phrases that do not and, in all likelihood will not, have a place. “Ergo.” “It follows that…” “As such.” But if there’s one real purpose of analytical essays, it’s to prove that you can be a pompous pundit more cleverly than every other pompous pundit who has written on the very same topic as you. When better to aggravate people with unnecessary syntax and subordinate clauses than when also aggravating them with unnecessary opinions? Everybody knows a good analytical essay will include no less than 80 percent polysyllables and 20 percent obscure and honestly obsolete wording. (Also consider words like “urgent,” “unparalleled,” “exponential” and “significant,” to ensure that your reader really understands why your argument matters.)

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan with more essay writing tips at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post A B.S. essay starter kit appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/17/a-b-s-essay-starter-kit/feed/ 0 1121442
A new age restriction https://stanforddaily.com/2016/12/20/a-new-age-restriction/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/12/20/a-new-age-restriction/#respond Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:40:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1120706 When our society — and thus our government — decides who can and can’t vote, the qualifying characteristics for any individual or demographic are whether they will vote in order to better society based on a generally accepted set of values, and whether they can logically select a course of action that they believe best meets […]

The post A new age restriction appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
When our society — and thus our government — decides who can and can’t vote, the qualifying characteristics for any individual or demographic are whether they will vote in order to better society based on a generally accepted set of values, and whether they can logically select a course of action that they believe best meets those values.

Our country long ago decided that there are certain people who simply cannot vote. That used to include people of color, the poor, women, and more. There are people whose votes we collectively decide are too dangerous to allow, whose opinions are too far removed from the realities of what a governed society needs to function justly.

We prevent children from voting because we judge that they will not vote according to a desire to better society, and even if they held that desire (rather than merely self-centered impulses and base needs) we judge that they do not have the intellectual capacity to make reasonable decisions based on that desire. In short, they simply lack the experiences we deem necessary to formulate just opinions. Their prefrontal cortexes — the area of the brain responsible for memory management, and reasoning — are not fully functional, nor fully vetted (yet).

We prevent convicted felons from voting because we judge that their decision to break the law signifies a rejection of societal benefit in favor of personal benefit. This may or may not be true for any given felon, but our country agreed that in order to eliminate this potential danger, it was fair to revoke the constitutional rights of those who met a specific standard of societal disregard.

Therefore, in order to protect our country’s political integrity, I propose that a voting restriction on people over a certain age would be as beneficial to our society as our voting restriction on people under a certain age.

As people age, their behavior changes. The reasons for these changes range from chemical to sociopolitical to medical (like senility, impaired cognitive function, and dementia/Alzheimer’s), but the relative conservatism of older people has been well documented throughout the last century. The older people get, the more they tend to rely on stereotypes and prejudices; their attitudes tend to be harder to change, and they tend to place more on value tradition and conformity. None of these behavioral changes are necessarily logical, and they do not inspire progress in a society — in fact, they inhibit it.

Implicit Prejudice

William von Hippel is a psychology professor at the University of Queensland in Austrailia. He claims that the increased reliance on stereotypes and prejudices that people experience as they age is due to the natural deterioration of frontal lobe function in the brain. This area is responsible for separating irrelevant and inappropriate information from pertinent data. As this part of the brain — the prefrontal cortex mentioned previously — atrophies, disinhibited prejudice is more likely to result in bigoted political expression.

After age 65, the chances of developing Alzheimer’s doubles every five years. It develops exponentially. By 85, up to fifty percent of people will show signs of the disease. One element of our justification for barring youth voting is the fact that the brains of teenagers are not fully developed. They don’t function at total capacity until young adulthood. But this issue is as relevant to people over, say, 65 — a number as superficially arbitrary as 18 or 21, as it is to young people.

Unyielding Attitudes

In the years after young adulthood, we tend to solidify a set of values to believe in, and after this point must be moved by external events to change those values. The older we get, the less malleable our opinions tend to be, and the harder it is to abandon a value. While a wanton disregard for the past is of course dangerous, it is even more dangerous to cling unthinkingly to the values of the past. As current events unfold, the new evidence must be considered, with equal or more than equal weight as past events. Loyalty to an ideal can be admirable, but our perceptions must not be stagnant. Accepting new information and changing our opinions accordingly defines the essence of progress.

Tradition and Conformity

Social psychologist S.H. Schwartz is the author of the Theory of Basic Human Values. His theory categorizes values based on the motivation and goals behind them. Schwartz’s research has found a direct positive correlation between age and what he defines as Conservation values.

These values include security, whose goal is to maximize safety and stability; conformity, which aims to minimize violations of social expectation and maximize restraint; and tradition, which above all seeks respect and acceptance of customs and ideas provided by one’s culture. These values work to protect the status quo, to preserve what institutions are in place, and to maintain whatever style of life exists for any given people. And these things are not bad by themselves.

But Schwartz’s research also showed that, as Conservation values increase, openness to change decreases. And without acceptance and motivation toward independent thought, diversity and novel experience, it is extremely dangerous to advocate for maintaining a status quo that is empirically unjust to all parties.

None of these traits of older people are enough to emphatically say, “Anybody who exhibits these traits should not be allowed to vote.” That policy is not only impossible to implement, but also impossible to justify. However, if we bar people under the age of eighteen from voting because we judge that the group as a whole is likely to act unreasonably, based on socially untenable motives, without due regard to the context and impact of policy, how can we possibly justify their older counterparts who are just as likely to act according to those very same reasons? Why should a given sixteen-year-old be barred from impacting policy that will impact their entire life, for reasons that could as easily bar a given sixty-five-year-old from deciding a policy that will affect them for much less time?

The course of our country’s policies — which will and do affect generations to come after the implementers are dead — should not be chosen based on anything other than reasonable consideration of facts. They should not be decided by race bias, or by sentimental attachment to obsolete legislation. We should not go into the future comfortable in the certainty that things function as they always have. It is illogical — and, in fact, extremely dangerous — to accept situations because they promise to maintain the status quo. In order to progress, we as a society must be willing to constantly question our own assumptions.

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post A new age restriction appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/12/20/a-new-age-restriction/feed/ 0 1120706
The articulation of a well-placed “fuck” https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/15/the-articulation-of-a-well-placed-fuck/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/15/the-articulation-of-a-well-placed-fuck/#respond Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:32:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1119797 Quite often, I am confronted with the idea that swearing somehow mitigates one’s intelligence — or at the very least, one’s ability to eloquently communicate. And to be perfectly honest, that’s a pretty damn arrogant position to take. And I confess, I swear a lot. Like a lot. I would go so far as to […]

The post The articulation of a well-placed “fuck” appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Quite often, I am confronted with the idea that swearing somehow mitigates one’s intelligence — or at the very least, one’s ability to eloquently communicate. And to be perfectly honest, that’s a pretty damn arrogant position to take.

And I confess, I swear a lot. Like a lot. I would go so far as to say that I swear gratuitously and obnoxiously, perhaps immaturely. In high school, it got me into some uncomfortable situations with teachers and headmasters and the like.

I’ve listened to a dozen cases detailing why I should restrain myself. It’s uncouth, it’s offensive, it shocks the old people and it’s absolutely unladylike. And upon acknowledging those premises as acceptable consequences for my behavior, I’m always treated to the most high-minded of appeals: Swearing is a discredit to one’s self, and one’s capability as an articulate speaker.

But why should we perceive expletives as having a direct relationship to a person’s intelligence? Maybe it’s for the same reason that obscenities are unacceptable in formal writing — they’re too vulgar, too uncivilized for sophisticated communication. They belong amongst people with no need to impress anything upon anyone; they belong amongst people who know no better words to express their thoughts. But of course that lays the groundwork for the annoyingly common assumption that all “sophisticated” communication comes in MLA or APA format.

Perhaps it is because we so strongly associate cursing with a loss of higher functions, with deeply emotional outbursts of uncontrollable dimensions. Swearing certainly has a place in such situations. So perhaps choosing not to use expletives is a measure of one’s self-control or self-awareness. If you are really, truly, intellectually in possession of yourself, then you will articulate even the strongest of emotions with a matter of decorum befitting your mental capacity. Why, when we are extremely angry, should it be acceptable to say, “I’m so fucking mad right now”? One could easily say instead: “I am irate,” “I am incensed,” “I am unhinged with wrath.” What exactly is the point of bringing vulgarity into the matter?

The point is, that that’s not what I fucking mean. Don’t sit in an ivory tower of polysyllables and play too pure for profanity. My choice to swear can tell you as much about my frame of mind as a choice not to. Choosing to curse is about exactly what every other form of verbal communication is about — the right word, the right connotation. I am not incensed — I’m not some repressed Victorian maiden. I am not irate or livid, like some 18th century wig-wearing politician.

Swearing is incredibly expressive and nuanced in a way that only colloquial or casual language can be, and moreover it is accessible. It can pinpoint very specific emotions and moods that are sometimes inaccessible via conventional vocabulary. Glibness, sarcasm, irony — these tones which are so easily expressed informally — and yes, explicitly — are too often impossible to decipher in “proper” writing styles.

Expletives can be a more accurate, clear and efficient use of language than any other single category of words. They state directly the thought of a precise moment. They articulate that for which we have no acceptable equivalent, because they indicate those things that we do not accept. Shit, fuck, damn — they exclaim those things that our society has collectively rejected, and transform them into an expression of self-in-a-moment. The fact that these taboos are snobbishly excluded from the lexicon of the prestigious and well mannered does not strip them of their significance, but rather emphasizes it. Not all conversations ought to be genteel.

Eloquent communication is about far more than exacting definitions and well-planned explanations. We so often deride non-intellectual language as vernacular, ordinary or unremarkable. And yet as a platform for the clear expression of ideas or feelings to a broad audience, colloquialism is unparalleled. Swearing is certainly a tool of the “lower” language, but the idea that that lower language has no place in intelligent discussion is absurd.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post The articulation of a well-placed “fuck” appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/15/the-articulation-of-a-well-placed-fuck/feed/ 0 1119797
‘Why are the bees dying’ recap https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/why-are-the-bees-dying-recap/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/why-are-the-bees-dying-recap/#respond Tue, 08 Nov 2016 18:33:45 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1119308 Last Sunday, UNAFF sponsored a screening of Why are the Bees Dying? in Cubberley Auditorium. The German documentary was directed by Christoph Wuerzburger, and focuses on today’s alarming decline in the bee population, particularly in the experience of German beekeepers. Christoff Koch, a beekeeper trained at the Institute for Apiculture in Hohenheim, is one of […]

The post ‘Why are the bees dying’ recap appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Last Sunday, UNAFF sponsored a screening of Why are the Bees Dying? in Cubberley Auditorium. The German documentary was directed by Christoph Wuerzburger, and focuses on today’s alarming decline in the bee population, particularly in the experience of German beekeepers.

Christoff Koch, a beekeeper trained at the Institute for Apiculture in Hohenheim, is one of the central sources in the documentary. His concerns are clear. On average, European bee colonies have been dying off at about twenty percent per year. In Germany, that figure reaches as high as fifty-percent. Koch argues that this mortality rate is unsustainable, and asks us to consider: What would our reaction be if half of all cows were found dead in their sheds?

The narrative goes into detail on the significance of this bee-crisis. Bees are as important to our agricultural industry as traditional livestock, if not infinitely more so. Without bees, a third of the food we eat would be unavailable. Bees pollinate not only most of the fruits and vegetables we enjoy on a daily basis, but also the crops used to feed livestock — another big chunk of the modern diet.

So why is this happening? Between 1945 and 2007, the bee population has fallen from around four and a half million colonies to just two million, and in the U.S., an average of thirty percent of bee colonies die off every year. The drop off in the bee population has long been written off as mysterious, and yet a huge body of research claims that the causes of en masse hive death are not just extremely knowable, but extremely controllable. While there are certainly other factors to consider, most sources agree that the three biggest causes for concern are toxic pesticides, parasites, and environmental dysfunction.

  • Pesticides

The word “neonicotinoids” is pretty meaningless for daily use, but it defines one of the most important causes of death for tens of millions of bees over the last few years. Neonicotinoids are chemical poisons that target nerves, and have a multitude of possible effects. Bees exposed to neonicotinoids have shown damaged sensory reception and memory, impaired immune systems; they consume less food, and in some cases, can’t even fly after exposure.

Researchers from Penn State have found that the pollen collected by any given colony has more than six separate pesticide contaminants. Growth regulators, insecticides (like neonicotinoids), fungicides, chlorine compounds and more are spread across U.S. crops in levels that can be deadly, and up to ninety-five percent of these chemicals ends up in the wider environment. When bees collect pollen from plants with high concentrations of pesticides, they usually die. When they collect from plants with lower concentrations, the effects can range from confusion and chemical intoxication (resulting in an inability to navigate or communicate) to contamination of the entire hive, and eventual abandonment of the nest.

Neonicotinoids and other pesticides are a serious threat, and their dangers extend far beyond insect population. Their impact on bees — and therefore on global food production — mirrors the threat analyzed by Jean-Marc Bonmatin, a member of France’s National Center for Scientific research. He claims, “We are witnessing a threat to the productivity of our natural and farmed environment equivalent to that posed by organophosphates or DDT. From protecting food production, the use of neonicotinoid insecticides is threatening the very infrastructure which enables it.”

  • Parasites

The most destructive parasite for bees is, funnily enough, varroa destructor. It’s a bloodsucker that mainly compromises the bees’ immune systems and is a vector for viruses. While the varroa parasite is deadly in its own right, especially for larvae, one of its most harmful effects is indirect. A bee with a compromised immune system and various viruses will still go to collect pollen. There, it may be exposed to further immune damage from pesticides, and if it can even find its way back to the hive, will continue to spread disease.

  • Environmental Dysfunction

Monoculture plays a huge part in large-scale bee death. Monoculture describes the agricultural practice adopted after World War Two in which farmers produce massive amounts of a single crop, rather than the natural diversified farming bees previously worked in tandem with.

In addition to the 300 percent increase in crop production since the 1950’s, this single-crop system creates a nutrition “desert,” that provides only a small portion of the necessary protein and carbohydrates that bees feed on. Farmers used to bring bees to intentionally pollinate entire fields of diverse crops, but now, 1.5 million hives can only pollinate a single massive crop field. By eliminating “cover crops” (as opposed to the primary crop in a given field), and increasing the distance between diverse possible nutrient sources, farmers have done away with some of the most important food sources for bees such as alfalfa and clover, and replaced them with endless supplies of pesticide-laden crops.

The bee crisis paints a dire picture for our ecosystems, and indeed our entire method of food production. Nerve-targeted pesticides, dwindling natural pollen sources and the prevalence of parasite-related immune damage have all contributed to a bee population half of what it was just a few decades ago. Bees play an instrumental role in global environmental balance, and researchers like Marla Spivak, Eric Mussen, Dave Goulson all insist that we, as a culture, need to turn the tide in any way possible.

So how can you as an individual contribute to bee health?

Marla Spivak emphasizes that the best way to break this cycle is to break up the nutrition deserts that are so detrimental to bee colonies. Planting flowers and crops native to an area helps balance the disproportionate amount of very specific food-crops.

Individuals can ensure the presence of native plants in whatever area they live in (the first step to remedying the “deserts”) and, most importantly, they can ensure that these plants are safe to pollinate.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post ‘Why are the bees dying’ recap appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/why-are-the-bees-dying-recap/feed/ 0 1119308
Why is it so hard to vote? https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/07/why-is-it-so-hard-to-vote/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/07/why-is-it-so-hard-to-vote/#respond Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:29:50 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1118872 Voting in the United States has long been seen as not just a right, but as a civic duty. How can the people hope to create and direct change if they are not willing to use their most potent political tool? How can policy be affected if the voice of the people remains silent – […]

The post Why is it so hard to vote? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Voting in the United States has long been seen as not just a right, but as a civic duty. How can the people hope to create and direct change if they are not willing to use their most potent political tool? How can policy be affected if the voice of the people remains silent – especially silent by choice? Voting isn’t just a mechanical function of government; it is a decision to make an impact in the system we all live in.

This inevitably leads to the question everybody asks every four years: Why do so few young people vote? Why do so few college students vote? One of the most supposedly idealistic demographics of the U.S. population has the lowest voting turnout, for some reason we just never seem able to pinpoint.

There are all kinds of psychological reasons why young people just don’t vote – from feelings of inefficacy to rebellion against the system. But what about systemic reasons? What about things that aren’t necessarily reasons not to vote, but which are reasons why attempting to vote just isn’t worth the time and effort?

Registration and the act of voting itself are both extremely inaccessible, and it impacts a lot more than just students and young people. The National Commission on Voting Rights released a report last year detailing the various ways that voting is a right still barred to some eligible citizens. The report states:

“Voters with disabilities often … find that accessible voting equipment is not functioning properly … Out-of-state college students have been denied regular ballots because their college addresses do not match their driver’s licenses.”

Voting is often lengthy, complicated, and expensive. All of these factors create barriers for the poor, the young (like students), minorities, and the disabled.

Low-income family impact

An article by CNN Money discusses the income gap in voting. The fact is that just registering to vote is an ordeal on its own. For those who have recently moved (individuals below the poverty line are more likely to move at a given time), for those who do not have government-issued IDs, and have to buy them (for up to $60), and for those who can’t afford to miss work to deal with this incredibly complicated system, registering to vote is a hassle that may not be worth the time.

In 2012, almost a third of people with household incomes of less than $20,000 per year (a population disproportionately made up by minorities) didn’t vote because they were “too busy” or encountered “transportation problems.”

Too busy

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration reported that in 2012, some 10 million people waited over half an hour to vote, and evidence shows that voters in precincts with more minorities had longer wait times and fewer resources at voting locations. For those who need every hour of income they can produce, half an hour spent waiting in line is a significant block of time.

Transportation problems

Voting locations and registration offices are sometimes hard to get to. In Santa Clara County, for example, the single registrar’s office is in San Jose and is only open Monday through Thursday, during primary work and class hours.

When voting becomes a question of first taking public transportation for half an hour or more, then navigating from the transit stop to the registrar’s office, then dealing with the bureaucratic process there, and finally timing your return for a reasonable wait time and return home, it’s easy to see why the time commitment is impossible for many people.

Minority impact

Racism in the voting system is alive and well. An article by PBS further explains the report previously mentioned by the National Commission on Voting Rights. It discusses discriminatory policies like new photo ID laws, redrawing districts to dilute minority votes, limiting voting hours and early voting hours. These measures are often presented as acts of objective legislation. But the Washington Post notes the disproportional impact of these laws and requirements to very specific demographics:

In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting … The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

Student impact

Student voting in the United States is a huge issue. Young Americans are often accused of failing in their civic duty. And yet the actual policies of the U.S. directly contradict this supposed wish for youth voting. The New York Times published an article in 2014 commenting on age-based discrimination in U.S. voting requirements. It quotes Marc Elias, a Democratic election lawyer, condemning recent voting legislation as part of an intentional design to restrict youth voting.

Permanent residence

College students are among the most mobile people in the country. The issue of their “permanent residence” is a constant hassle, and it makes an infuriating difference in voting registration. Students are required to show proof of residency in a state to vote there. This causes problems in all forms. For some, the problem arises when their place of residence doesn’t match the residence on their ID. For others, university addresses are simply dismissed as illegitimate “permanent” residences.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to vote absentee. But for those who vote by mail, the process is hardly easier. Nearly half the country requires an excuse in order to obtain an absentee ballot, even if you manage to register absentee – with a deadline long in advance of the regular date.

ID requirements

Gunther Peck, associate professor at Duke University, believes that restrictive ID requirements are designed to target students, because of the high correlation between age and party alignment. He commented, “The Republicans knew exactly how to suppress votes. … They looked carefully at how they lost in 2008 and found the weak links in that coalition. The law has made it much harder for students to get the proper ID, and there’s several steps they have to go through now to secure what is a constitutional right: the right to vote.”

With fewer young people getting driver’s licenses, and student IDs and out-of-state driver’s licenses mostly unacceptable as proof of identification, overly complex ID requirements are a big barrier to young adult voting.

The U.S. functions under a voting system that is geared toward white, middle-to-upper-class people over the age of 30, and some argue that it is due to a Republican-led effort to prevent more liberal demographics of voters from voicing their opinions.

Inaccessibility of voting locations and registrar’s offices, restrictive voting hours, and ID requirements disproportionately impact students, people of color, and the poor. Even the voting methods that people use are subject to discriminatory action – like cutting early voting times and creating complicated and time-consuming ballots for out-of-state and recently moved voters.

So maybe students don’t vote because we millennials are just lazy, entitled narcissists that can’t be bothered to engage in politics. Maybe we do feel disconnected to the community, or that we don’t really know the candidates and their policies – though with the staggering volume of online resources and news sites, that seems a slightly arrogant position to take.

But maybe young people don’t vote because of the sheer logistical ordeal of registration as an out-of-state young person lacking oodles of time and a readily available car. Maybe young people don’t vote because it is entirely possible to not know whether you successfully registered to vote, even though you sent in your registration document to the Santa Clara registrar’s office twice, because each of the thirty times you tried to register online you were told that you had to print and send a physical copy because the California DMV had no record of you.

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Why is it so hard to vote? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/07/why-is-it-so-hard-to-vote/feed/ 0 1118872
Live like you’re dye-ing https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/26/live-like-youre-dye-ing/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/26/live-like-youre-dye-ing/#respond Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:15:37 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1118411 The first time I was ever turned down for a job, I was outraged, and frankly a little alarmed. Somehow, inexplicably, my eleven years in the American secondary education system had not prepared me for this moment. The problem was my hair. Every inch of it was bright, peacock blue. And when I decided to […]

The post Live like you’re dye-ing appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The first time I was ever turned down for a job, I was outraged, and frankly a little alarmed. Somehow, inexplicably, my eleven years in the American secondary education system had not prepared me for this moment.

The problem was my hair. Every inch of it was bright, peacock blue. And when I decided to dye it at the ripe old age of fifteen, it never occurred to me that my hair color could have anything other than a superficial effect on me. Unsurprisingly, my fifteen-year-old self lacked a certain element of foresight.

For someone who spent most of her life as the picture of a studious suburban younger sister, it was bewildering and concerning to suddenly be branded rebellious, trouble making and contemptible, just for the way I looked. I was turned away from jobs; I saw the way that people (even those who knew me) addressed me turn on a dime; I was even mocked by a crotchety old British customs officer. For some reason, people felt that the color of my hair gave them license to give their unsolicited opinions on everything from my appearance to my lifestyle choices.

But after a few weeks of staring and pointing from all directions, the disapproval of strangers suddenly became much less important to me. I knew what my hair looked like, and I’d wanted it that way.

Lessons I learned in my year of blue hair:

  1. How to deal with unexpected consequences

For the first fifteen years of my life, I was pretty good at handling calculated risk. Mostly, I just didn’t take them. I planned meticulously, and most of the time my plans worked out.

That was not my experience with hair dye. I’ll admit, I nearly called off the whole endeavor after my first major hair-dye mistake. I’d fried off a chunk of my hair with bleach, and the minute I pulled off the aluminum I knew it was game over. The hair looked like my mom’s favorite glass noodle dish: gummy and fragile.

I sometimes had weeks of bad-hair day, when I went too far with bleach or dye. There were bumps in the road. Hair was chemically fried off and judgments were made. It was really hard for me to accept — I always like a situation 100% under control.

But it quickly became apparent that, in fact, it’s almost never the end of the world. Hair grows, and, like most things, sorts itself out over time. Those moments of societal failure that seemed all consuming were really just moments. They passed.

 

  1. The value of structured experimentation

For the first time in my life, I really started to appreciate the scientific method as explained by four years of high school science teachers, but that’s beside the point.

I’m usually content to skip over the finicky, burdensome parts of labs — like reading the full instructions and always wearing goggles — but after my first foray into dying my hair, I realized that preparation is key. If you’re dying your hair and you don’t have your gloves, aluminum foil, towel, mixing bowls and brushes within arms reach at all times, there’s no saving yourself, and there’s nobody else to blame.

 

  1. How to take a compliment

Before dying my hair, if I ever received a compliment for anything at all, I would immediately scramble for an appropriate reaction, spluttering and gesticulating, most likely with a horrified semi-smile plastered on my face.

If they complimented my shirt, I had to compliment them for theirs in return. It was ridiculous, but I had to. There was no other option; society just wouldn’t allow for anything else.

But when somebody says, “I love your blue hair,” there’s not a textbook response. So I learned to just say, “Thank you.”

 

  1. How to do what I want to do

What strangers think about you often has very little to do with the reality of who you are. I did what I wanted to do, and I got a lot of flack for it from teachers, strangers and friends. But it helped me realize that, even if it rubs people the wrong way, you can do anything you want as long as you’re willing to deal with the consequences. And that was strangely empowering for me. To know that something as trivial as dying my hair could flip people’s perception of me upside down, but that I could still live and succeed without the luxury of others’ approval.

 

Contact Maximiliana Bogan at ebogan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Live like you’re dye-ing appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/26/live-like-youre-dye-ing/feed/ 0 1118411