<p>
</p>
<p>Meh…</p>
<p>I scanned the article because I knew once I clicked on your link it wasn’t what I was looking for. It was pure drudgery even scanning that piece you linked. You essentially baited, by stating “quotes obtained under false pretenses,” and then switched by linking an opinion piece that stated essentially the same things as the Chronc article, including persons making the same defense that The List isn’t all mick-related…but the one you linked had a decidedly Stanford bias, to fit your agenda.</p>
<p>I think in particular, you wanted us to note that (approximately) “a lot of intro classes at Stanford are harder than upper-division at other schools” from this writer. </p>
<p>A lot of intro science classes probably tend to be harder than upper division, so I guess what he’s saying would definitely have some truth. This is probably true in CS, Chem, etc. At UCLA the English 10 series is the set of weed out courses for the major, and once one gains upperclassman standing the classes supposedly get “easier.” Yeah, we know about the geniuses that attend classes at Stanford would make any class seem easy, which I’m sure you pointed out so many times before in your 50K posts.</p>
<p>I’m not clicking on your links anymore. Lesson learned. Besides your idea of significance in academia is probably most people’s cure for insomnia.</p>