<p>I'm old. I was a law student at Stanford over 25 years ago, and my sister was an undergraduate there at the same time. So -- roughly contemporaneous with this guy.</p>
<p>If any of you have read previous posts of mine, you will know that I can be critical of some aspects of Stanford's undergraduate program during that period, and suspicious that some of the flaws survive to this day (although their importance is much reduced by the fact that the student body is much stronger).</p>
<p>But I can say with confidence that the author of this piece is completely screwed up, and you shouldn't worry about it at all. I knew plenty of undergraduates and recent graduates there. I hung out in the English Department some; I dated a senior woman (who had taken time off and was older than I) for a while; I had classes with undergraduates in them; many of my friends in law school had gone there as undergrads, and of course there was my sister and her friends (and her boyfriend at the time was an engineering student). What I saw at Stanford was, yes, a crummy advising system, and a culture in which students and faculty were not forced to interact with one another much -- and in which many of the students liked it that way. But, as a result, any student who WANTED close relationships with and personal attention from faculty just had to ask nicely. The faculty members I knew were more than happy to mentor undergraduates, they just wanted some effort, respect, and enthusiasm from them, and they wanted to be asked. There was no question that Stanford was a great university at that point, and students who were willing to be a little aggressive and self-starting got all the benefit they wanted out of it.</p>
<p>It's true that the faculty saw themselves as researchers first and teachers second. That is true at every research university. If you want faculty whose primary commitment is to teaching, go to a LAC, a third-tier public, or a community college. The basic proposition about research universities is that good students can learn best from cutting-edge scholars; they don't need to be coddled and catered to all the time. So, yes, your professor has more important, interesting things to do than stroking your ego. But, in return, you get to hang out with people who are doing really important, interesting things. Lots of them. When you figure out how to insert yourself into the flow, it's heady and exciting. If you don't think that sounds exciting, look for some other kind of college.</p>
<p>Same thing with graduate students. Graduate students in strong programs (which most of Stanford's are) can be stunningly great, and they provide a wonderful bridge between undergraduates and the senior faculty. Graduate students understand the mistakes you are making better, because they were making the same mistakes recently. Graduate students help you get up to speed so you can actually understand why this or that professor is so incredibly cool. Graduate TAs I had when I was an undergraduate (at a college equivalent to Stanford, at least) went on to become department chairs at Harvard, Yale, and Michigan, and a famous TV producer/writer. Some of them were doubtless better teachers a decade or so after I knew them, but they were really smart, really interesting, and of course completely accessible people. </p>
<p>Again, if that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then you should be re-examining your interest in an elite research university. Because that's what an elite research university is all about. The whiny author of the OP screed obviously never got that.</p>