Again, I’m of the belief that limiting self-segregation limits expression. Putting athletes together means they can live in an environment that better respects their early sleep schedules. Diluting minorities like Native Americans across all the dorms means that some of them will lack a residential environment that can fully understand and relate to their culture. Obviously, some of these minorities prefer to live with others like them, so I don’t see how limiting this self-segregation is anything but at the expense of the minorities. </p>
<p>Listen, I’m not for forced segregation, but self-segregation can be mutually beneficial in some cases, and in other cases it can be very beneficial on one side without having much effect on the other. At Stanford, students have the option. And it’s not like the “black dorm” is 100% black- in fact, it’s one of the most racially diverse residences on campus. </p>
<p>
In theory, that’s a great ideal. In practice, though, it falls apart. Stanford students are some of the most welcoming and respectful I know. But some students still prefer to live in environments with people like themselves. Why should someone who despises drug and alcohol consumption be prevented from living in a substance free dorm? Tell that student he can’t live there, because he needs to learn how to live with people who do drugs and drink. Maybe his mother died of substance abuse the past year. Tough luck. </p>
<p>
It’s not like this. It’s that there are a bunch of my fellow students who I am better off living with. I’m more than fine living with drug users, music haters, and dull people. But I’m better off living with students whose social scene doesn’t revolve around drugs, because I don’t do drugs. I’m better off living with people who love music, as music is a huge part of my life. I’m better off living with people who are intellectually passionate, as we can have ideological debates. Luckily for me, it’s easy to find intellectual and musical non-drug users here.</p>
<p>It’s not really self-segregation. Half of each of the ethnic-themed houses are students who are not that ethnicity. While I agree that a mixing of the various subpopulations of a student body is ideal, the point of these themed houses is to give students the opportunity to experience an intensification of that theme. In the general population, that’s more ‘muffled’ and may get ‘lost in the sea.’ So, for example, Stanford has a dorm themed toward human biology, for those who want a more intense experience focusing on humbio (of course, only half the students are part of that theme, again mixing students but maintaining a greater focus than you’d find in non-themed dorms). The ethnic-themed dorms are the same: focusing more on a specific culture, to the benefit of everyone living there. It’s not a one-way learning experience for those who aren’t that ethnicity. </p>
<p>I agree with Senior0991 that it’s mutually beneficial and that a degree of self-segregation (if that’s what it is) along certain planes - academic interests, social interests, cultural interests, etc. - isn’t a bad thing. It’s good and would happen naturally anyway, and indeed does happen everywhere. The housing system at Stanford just helps it along and satisfies student demand. But it’s only to a certain extent, which is why Stanford limits the themed dorms with half-half scheme.</p>
<p>You aren’t alone in your attitude though - many Stanford students would agree with you. IMO they and you aren’t quite understanding the value that these dorms offer.</p>
<p>I’ll add that there are 4 ethnic-themed houses out of the 80 houses at Stanford (5%). It’s just a niche living situation for those who want it, but the majority live in other environments. I don’t see any reason to prevent such a small number of students from living in a niche environment that they want to live in. Few live in the ethnic-themed houses multiple years (mostly because there is other more desirable housing on campus with nicer facilities, better dining, more singles, etc.).</p>
<p>Is OP an international? Do you care about gender balance at a subpopulation level? I think these schools maintain a balanced gender ratio overall, but not sure that extends to subgroups.</p>
<p>Thank you again for all your help! How would you compare the party scenes at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford? From what I heard from current students on my visits, it seemed like a lot of larger parties at Yale happen at frats, while smaller ones happen in the different suites, and at Harvard most parties are at Final Clubs. Is that true? What about at Stanford?</p>
<p>Like Yale, a number of the parties at Harvard also happen in suites, esp. the party suits such as the 10 man or the bell tower in the houses. Some of the organizations with their own buildings (besides the final clubs) such as The Crimson or The Advocate or Lampoon will also host parties, though the ‘feel’ will be very different.</p>
<p>Nope not remotely. You can have a lovely four years here, whatever your gender, without stepping foot in one. There are a lot of House suite parties (i.e. upperclass dorms)–usually 1-5 per House (of which there are 12) per House per weekend. There are also organization parties/athletics/private parties of which I don’t have such a good idea of numbers. Depends very much on social scene. Mock Trial gets all incestuous over one another all the time, e.g., while other clubs don’t form such an exclusive social outlet for their members. Finals clubs, too, (and a couple frats) but not “most” by any means.</p>
<p>Stanford party scene freshman year, for the most part, is pre-gaming in dorms and then going to frats or houses that have all-campus parties. In later years, partying revolves more around the residences (progressives, special dinners), organizations (club parties), smaller house parties, and Greek mixers (which are exclusive to Greek community). Party nights are Wednesday through Saturday, with Wednesday and Thursday generally being more chill stuff with mostly upperclassmen (wine and cheese, beer and pretzels, and so forth…). </p>
<p>Generally, if you want to avoid drinking, loud music, and parties, you can choose to live in 4-class dorms your freshman year, which are generally more subdued. After that, you can live anywhere from frat houses to quiet apartment-style housing.</p>
<p>At Stanford, most parties are at the fraternities and non-Greek houses, but the dorms hold some as well, and there are some special-event parties/traditions (e.g. Mausoleum Party, Full Moon on the Quad). Stanford has a rating scale for parties - level-1 is an in-room party, 2 is invite-only, 3 is all-campus, forget what 4 is, and 5 is open to off-campus people (each level except for 1 requires registration, has different requirements for security, etc.). Each weekend, usually starting on Thursday, there are 1s galore, tons of 2s as Senior0991 describes, and several level-3s as well. On rare weekends there aren’t any level-3s, e.g. sometimes during midterms.</p>
Definitely Harvard or Yale given your interests. Harvard and Yale are very intellectual places as well, though I’m biased and would give the nod to Harvard.</p>
<p>Stanford is very different in that students are genuinely not intellectual. I know intellectualism takes on different forms but I did not see any of these forms in Stanford students when I visited. When the students I met there tried to strike up intellectual discussions, their analysis seemed shallow, dogmatic and quite frankly, forced. Intellectualism is just not their style, and that’s okay.</p>
<p>Intelligence and Intellectualism are not the same thing; they overlap at some points for sure, but are not analogous. Intellectualism can be a pretense (both good and bad)–it’s often a very conscious act, and why not? To parse things deeply requires conscious, and often intense engagement. </p>
<p>Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by ‘dogmatic and forced’? Maybe some examples if you can come up with some? I’d be really interested.</p>
<p>I’ve lived most of my life on the right coast, so know more college grads from the New England/mid-Atlantic schools. I wonder how much of this perceived lack of ‘intellectualism’ has to do with the differences in coastal cultures? For even in Stanford’s atmosphere—i.e. if the same students switched places (Harvard’s moved to Stanford and vice versa), this perceived difference will still be in place? </p>
<p>In a way, Stanford is an upstart, has a more pragmatic and utilitarian culture and outlook (by way of Silicon Valley and the Stanford’s tech legacy), and is less concerned with upholding or maintaining tradition. Harvard and Yale (and east coast schools with longer histories)–for all their involvement in inventiveness and innovation, are also backwards looking in many ways. Witness the importance of institutions at the schools. </p>
<p>This will seem stereotypical, but someone once said that the ibanking job (institutional) will get you props at Harvard while at Stanford, to get the same nod, you need to found the next Google. One maintains, while the other breaks and disrupts. [Ironically, Goldman Sachs cannot survive without new, paradigm shifting companies, while new companies are always very reliant on the services provided by established firms like GS and law firms and accounting firms and so on…]</p>
<p>bcg2015 is a ■■■■■ (look at his previous posts). </p>
<p>For the disciplines the OP listed:
Linguistics: Stanford > Harvard > Yale
International studies: Stanford = Harvard > Yale
Anthropology: Stanford = Harvard > Yale
Comp lit: Stanford = Yale > Harvard</p>
<p>In general, Stanford and Harvard dominate in humanities and social sciences, with an edge to Stanford (as shown by various rankings - NRC, USNWR, ARWU, THE, QS, etc.).</p>
<p>Re: intellectualism, here’s what someone and I recently posted about this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As hackneyed as it sounds, the “passion” that Stanford probes for in its application (e.g. in the intellectual vitality essay) really comes through on campus. Students are truly engaged in things they love, and they’ll work themselves to the bone for these things. They’ll talk about their passions at length with anyone who will listen. The culture is vibrant/intellectual as a result, but it also puts pressure on you - if you aren’t getting out there and doing something you love, you will feel left out and even inferior to your peers. But it does inspire you to find something you’re passionate about and follow through with it. Nearly all students do, and that’s what makes Stanford’s culture great. No posturing, no BS, no pretending to like something you don’t - just pure energy on something that engages you.</p>