Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pigalowda | Hacker News Reader

I’ve been out of medical school for 6 years now, so I’m not that far removed from higher education. Stanford law is apparently very low quality if this is what kind of “professional” it produces.

The administrator kept asking “is the juice worth the squeeze?” Well no, not at all. These students are disgusting.

https://vimeo.com/806801455/16c79baa14

View on HN

My reading of that question was different. She was asking if the free speech juice was with the squeeze. She was proud of what the students were doing and was not questioning them or their actions at all.

We have the same reading, I was answering for Duncan rather than the students. It wasn’t worth his effort to continue imo.

These are future lawyers - they should have come armed with facts and performed an eloquent take down if they disagreed. Instead it’s just childish, disruptive, and completely unprofessional whining condoned by the administrator.

I think he continued precisely because he sees them as future lawyers. If you cannot engage people with such aspirations, we are doomed as a society.

Continued use of the word “safe” and “safety” was strange. What about his appearance was unsafe? Can’t you leave the room if you feel unsafe?

She should know the answer to that. Free speech is the price of a free society. It also means you have to be ready to offer a defense of what you believe with more speech.

This goes doubly so for lawyers whose tools are words. That we're cultivating a generation of people ruled by their emotions rather than their reason is a cause for great concern.

> The administrator kept asking “is the juice worth the squeeze?” Well no, not at all.

If you answer 'no', then they move on to the next thing, and ask again.

If we are judging Stanford by the kind and quality of its graduate effluent, it’s clear that the institution should be red-tagged immediately. Unfortunately as a society we have no collective defenses against toxic private organizations.

As Warren Buffet puts it, "[i]t takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minuted to ruin it. If you think about that you'll do things differently."

As more and more hiring managers put Stanford resumes in the recycle bin, I suspect a confluence of decreasing applicants and pressure from alumni and donors will force Stanford to drastically change its policies.

Why would any hiring manager take a chance on a Stanford grad when there are no clear upsides and virtually infinite downsides?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com