The Unofficial Stanford Blogtag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://12009-11-22T04:30:42ZMovable Type 3.34Late Interception Saves Cal as Stanford Falls Short in Big Gametag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.15012009-11-22T04:03:41Z2009-11-22T04:30:42ZThe axe will remain in Berkeley for another year--underdog Cal (how strange does that sound?) defeated the Cardinal 34-28 in the 112th annual Big Game. After a fast start and two early touchdowns by Toby Gerhart, Stanford's defense struggled. Cal...JoshThe axe will remain in Berkeley for another year--underdog Cal (how strange does that sound?) defeated the Cardinal 34-28 in the 112th annual Big Game.
After a fast start and two early touchdowns by Toby Gerhart, Stanford's defense struggled. Cal controlled most of the game, led by substitute running back Shane Vereen and quarterback Kevin Riley. But Gerhart and redshirt freshman quarterback Andrew Luck fought back in the fourth quarter, bringing Stanford to within 3 points with possession of ball with about 5 minutes to go. After failing to gain much yardage, Jim Harbaugh decided to go for it on 4th and long--but Luck's pass was deflected incomplete, giving the ball back to the Golden Bears near Stanford's end zone.
Cal played conservatively and settled for a field goal--crowned by an interesting decision by Cal coach Jeff Tedford to take a knee on third down--giving Stanford one last chance to score a touchdown with just over two minutes to play.
A short kick gave Stanford good field position near our own 40 yard line, and Luck took control, running for a first down and then passing for another. Facing some pressure from the Cal defensive line, Luck threw a short pass to Gerhart down the sideline, who bulldozed his way to the Cal 13 yard line. But two plays later, Luck threw a pass across the middle intended for tight end Coby Fleener, but Cal linebacker Mike Mohamed intercepted the ball before it got to the end zone, ending Stanford's chances at winning Big Game and likely going to the Rose Bowl.
Despite the loss, though, Gerhart kept his Heisman hopes alive by scoring all of Stanford's points on 4 touchdowns and tallying 136 yards on 20 carries.]]>
Beat Cal!tag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14992009-11-21T07:26:16Z2009-11-21T07:35:12Z A student helms the Birdcage booth Banners hang from Green library...lwuA student helms the Birdcage boothBanners hang from Green library]]>
Signage at the Intersection of Death roundabout]]>
Free Dumpster Water: Source Discovered!tag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14972009-11-20T19:30:32Z2009-11-20T20:14:58ZAccording to a representative from Student Housing: "The emergency water and food ration bars in the dumpster are Student Housing emergency supplies that have in fact expired. I did consult with Julie Muir our fantastic Recycling Program Manager at Peninsula...Elaine
as previously determined)
2) Other food you find in the dumpster is a little more eat-at-your-own-risk
Props to housing for reaching out to PSSI (that's the recycling center on campus) to try to dispose of this stuff responsibly. And props to the universe for not cursing us with a disaster. But as pointed out above, it would be awful nice if all this stuff didn't have to go to waste. I guess that's up to the dumpster divers to solve.
]]>
Free water in the dumpster between Bob and Theta Delttag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14952009-11-20T08:14:05Z2009-11-20T08:25:33ZAccording to an anonymous source, word on the street is that at this very moment "there's an entire enormous dumpster full of packaged water that was thrown out earlier this week between bob and theta Delt...The water seems to be...Elaine
expire?"
Obviously to attempt to solve the mystery of this supposed 'expiration' I jump to my BFF, http://www.chacha.com/. The answer to my query? As follows:
"The FDA states that bottled water that has been bottled and stored properly does not expire."
"FDA states that it has no limit on shelf life if stored properly. Some laws and retailers require and insist on an exp. date."
Aha! It does not expire! And so my bottled-water drinking friends, I bestow upon you this knowledge of free packaged water in the dumpster between Bob and Theta Delt. Drink up.
]]>
Stanford in the NYTimes: Heisman, Handlebars, and Hard Timestag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14932009-11-20T00:45:37Z2009-11-20T01:36:06ZThe New York Times has been giving a whole slew of attention to Stanford recently--and for those who have given up reading newspapers in favor of problem sets and papers, here's a recap: The Times profiled Stanford running back Toby...Josh
likely contender for the Heisman trophy.
The Times' editorial observer writes about the diversity of bicyclists and their equally varied transportation devices on Stanford's campus.
As mentioned earlier on TUSB, Stanford and Google have teamed up to move the dissertation-publishing process online.
While not directly related to Stanford itself, the paper reports very big news from secondary education in California: the California Board of Regents has decided to raise tuition at UC schools by 32% to help keep the UC system afloat.
Other Stanford appearances in major news media? Comment or email it to blogforstanford@gmail.com.]]>
BEAT CAL - International Styletag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14912009-11-19T15:58:11Z2009-11-19T17:20:01ZFollowing in the great footsteps of overseas trips before us... including this awesome trick that apparently got students in trouble with the Italian police several years ago: ...A couple of Overseas Programs decided to celebrate Big Game week with a...Nicole
this awesome trick that apparently got students in trouble with the Italian police several years ago:
...A couple of Overseas Programs decided to celebrate Big Game week with a little international flavour:
Florence:
Ponte Vecchio
Oxford:
Radcliffe Camera
Stanford House
Australia:
GO CARD!
Props to Alexis Arnold, Shruti Tibrewala and Joyce Truong for the pictures!]]>
The Best Big Game Competition In Existencetag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14892009-11-19T10:28:04Z2009-11-19T10:39:08ZBig Game week at Stanford (and Cal) features plenty of Cardinal-Golden Bear showdowns, even outside of the football game itself. There is the Big Game Blood Drive (who can donate more), the Big Drive (canned food collecting), and there is...Josh
showdowns, even outside of the football game itself. There is the Big Game Blood Drive (who can donate more), the Big Drive (canned food collecting), and there is the most unique--and by far the most interesting--Stanford-Cal competition of all: The Big Wheel, a 5v5 unicycle basketball game.
That's right--during halftime of the Stanford women's basketball game today (11/19 vs. Pepperdine), rival unheralded unicycle basketball players will face off to determine who gets to hold the bragging rights as the better one-wheeled hoopsters. For those who care more about circuses and less about football, this game might be the one to watch this week.
]]>
Why Gaieties Could Be So Much Bettertag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14872009-11-19T02:00:08Z2009-11-19T03:22:26Z This year's Big Game Gaieties, Stanford's pre-Big Game comedy musical extravaganza, premieres tonight in Memorial Auditorium. And, as in years past, it will make fun of campus groups, feature plenty of nudity, and more than enough scatological humor to...Josh
This year's Big Game Gaieties, Stanford's pre-Big Game comedy musical extravaganza, premieres tonight in Memorial Auditorium. And, as in years past, it will make fun of campus groups, feature plenty of nudity, and more than enough scatological humor to appease even the most lewd Stanford students. As such, this year's show is the epitome of what the modern Gaieties has become: the perfect example of why Gaieties could be, and should be, so much better than it is right now.
I say this from the point of view of someone who has been a member of the writing staff for the past two years. The actors, directors, and producers perform the marvelous feat of completing the show in a mere two months, and for this they deserve major credit. The fault, then, does not lie in the performance of Gaieties--it is in the writing of the show, which has pushed the play into a spectacle that is not even close to being the best show Stanford students can create.]]>
Football Follies in 1911 and has occurred almost every year since then in the week preceding the big showdown with rival Cal. Dating back to as far as the archives go--the late 80s--the basic structure of the show has remained essentially unchanged: it centers around some ridiculous plot, features plenty of Stanford and Cal jokes, and a clever title parodying some famous movie. Whether or not the crudity and crassness has increased in recent years (the 1996 script, for example, featured zero instances of the word 'fuck' and only one of the word 'shit'), Gaieties as it is now is, for the most part, risque just for the sake of being risque--and as a consequence, the show is neither clever nor intelligent, and it is certainly not as funny as it could be.
I am personally a fan of "lowbrow" humor, as are many college-age students. But humor that is lowbrow and not something more than that--say, perhaps, witty or satirical--feels stale and forced, and Gaieties has resorted to that and cannot seem to break out of this mold. Making fun of the typical Stanford stereotypes is funny up to a point, but laughing at the sororities for being stupid and/or slutty or a capella groups for making music that is enjoyable to nobody has become thoroughly unexciting, particularly for nearly two hours. Gaieties does not have to be the same stupid-joke cocktail served every year with an absurd plot and characters that are either awkward geeky boys or horny, overly sexual girls--it can be something better; perhaps, for example, an actual play--but Gaieties seems afraid to go in this direction.
In fact, the best moments in Gaieties are those that break the stereotypes that weigh down the show: for example, in last year's play, the existence of a complex-yet-understandable political plot involving Donald Rumsfeld, the OSA, and student rights made the play actually feel like a coherent theater performance for the first time in years. And the year prior, the one comic moment that unanimously stood out above all the rest was a perfect send-up of popular culture: at the point of most tension, everyone on stage stopped as the iconic dramatic music from the popular television series The O.C. blared throughout MemAud. At no other point in the play did the show manage to find a moment so funny or so different from the typical humor that Gaieties repeats year after year.
So why does Gaieties continue to be mired in its not-that-funny, purposelessly over-the-top mediocrity? From a writer's perspective, the existence of some sort of fabricated Gaieties tradition--one that dictates a certain minimal level of stupid student group jokes and gratuitous usage of the word 'cock'--seems to pervade the creation of the play. Yet this tradition has little backing: the play has always been over-the-top, but being over-the-top and making a play representative of the cleverness, wit, and intellect of Stanford are not mutually exclusive. The climactic scene in this year's play, for example, had so much potential to be a funny, meta scene that incorporated many elements of Gaieties and turned them on their head; instead, however, the scene is devoid of any dramatic tension and just involves characters cursing and threatening to kill each other. There was so much potential, but Gaieties once again resorted to stupidity and shock value instead of irreverence and wit to try and make the audience laugh.
Unfortunately, Gaieties will likely not realize its flaws any time soon, since a large majority of those who have worked with the show and are interested in creating a better Gaieties are all disillusioned after this year's production. In fact, a significant portion of those who helped write this year's show are embarrassed by what the final script looks like. We can only hope that Gaieties will soon realize that it is possible to create an over-the-top, edgy, irreverent, hilarious campus-wide musical that is indicative of Stanford students: smart, observant, clever, and willing to push the envelope for the sake of humor or criticism, not just for its own sake.]]>
TUSGraph: Graphematicstag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14852009-11-17T07:39:20Z2009-11-17T07:51:33Z This week on TUSGraph, I've prepared a lesson in sports history. The graph shows the points for (black) and against (red) USC over the past three years. That red line only occasionally peaks above the black one, but I've...Charlie
This week on TUSGraph, I've prepared a lesson in sports history. The graph shows the points for (black) and against (red) USC over the past three years. That red line only occasionally peaks above the black one, but I've marked the only times anyone ever cares about USC at Stanford. I was hoping a visual representation might highlight two things:
1. How amazing our victory was in 2007
2. How amazing our victory was in 2009
Still not getting it? Pretend Stanford football is the guy, and USC is the watermelon.
Now for some predictions. Based on highly scientific math, we can predict the score of Big Game.
In 2007, we beat USC by 1 point, and Cal by 7.
In 2009, we beat USC by 34 points, and....
Well, it doesn't take a non-fuzzy to show that we're going to beat Cal by 238 points this year (34 * (7/1)). Thanks for following Graphematics!
BEAT CAL!]]>
Dissertations Going Onlinetag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14832009-11-17T04:53:38Z2009-11-17T05:08:23ZThe paperless trend has taken another leap forward at Stanford: doctoral dissertations, the lengthy piles of paper that culminate the work of Stanford PhD students, will now be published online. Unsurprisingly, Stanford mega-start-up Google is behind the new idea, which...
will now be published online.
Unsurprisingly, Stanford mega-start-up Google is behind the new idea, which makes Stanford "the first university to take the whole dissertation approval and publishing process electronic." The new paperless plan also saves money (printing and distribution costs), space (our library is only so big), and makes it much simpler to view and read published dissertations.
The only problem: nobody really wants to read dissertations.]]>
Harbaugh is a Great Football Coach, but His New Contract is Ludicrous and Repugnanttag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14812009-11-16T07:59:11Z2009-11-16T08:55:46Z Jim Harbaugh might be the best thing that has ever happened to Stanford football. Since he became head coach, he has engineered a complete turnaround of the team--the culmination of which was yesterday's resounding defeat of USC. And while...Josh
Jim Harbaugh might be the best thing that has ever happened to Stanford football. Since he became head coach, he has engineered a complete turnaround of the team--the culmination of which was yesterday's resounding defeat of USC. And while his ability and success would normally dictate a salary raise, I stand firm in my conviction that giving Jim Harbaugh an enormously lucrative new contract right now--as is about to happen--is reprehensible and shows that Stanford's priorities are extraordinarily misguided.
I don't even dislike Harbaugh--I might even have a touch of the wildly contagious Jim Harbaugh fever, which seems to be the newest incarnation of swine flu. But in the midst of an economic recession that has ravaged the athletics department, to increase Harbaugh's base salary to around 1.25 million dollars per year is ridiculous.]]>
http://stanfordreview.org/article/all-the-president%E2%80%99s-cash">appeared in the Stanford Review, and at that time Harbaugh agreed that he should not get a raise given the economy.
What has changed? The economy has not improved significantly enough to warrant this change being made. The only difference is that Harbaugh has made enough waves with his coaching to be heavily recruited by NFL teams and other universities, which means that to keep Harbaugh the university is reneging on its idea that economic stability is more important than padding Harbaugh's coffers, even in spite of Harbaugh's formal and informal claims that he wants to stay at Stanford no matter what.
If we analyze this raise on a deeper level, it shows that Stanford believes that some of its student-athletes are more worthy than others--an idea that is as unfair and crazy as it sounds.
One of the consequences of the budget shortfalls has been the possible elimination of fencing at Stanford. Fencing is certainly not as lucrative a sport as football is, but it is a sport that is as important to fencers as football is to the Cardinal's football stars. And, according to the Daily article about the possible cuts, the funds needed to save fencing are 250,000 dollars--half of what is going to be added onto Harbaugh's current salary (which resides around $750,000).
Are fencers less deserving athletes than football players? While it is true that football revenue helps pay for many other sports (including fencing), cutting fencing to pay a football coach more than a million dollars per year--when he is already being paid substantially more than the university president--is a grotesque affirmation of the Athletic department's unequal attitude towards student-athletes.
The budget cuts affect everyone, ranging from student activities to all departments to the sports teams. In the words of President Hennessy, "Throughout the university every unit set to work to help conserve our financial resources." Is raising Coach Harbaugh's salary in the wake of the university's financial struggles conserving our resources?
If you think so, try telling that to all of the Stanford employees who lost job, all of the professors denied tenure, all of the prospective professors hurt by the hiring freezes, all of the researchers who lost funding, all of the students who have seen their favorite classes get axed, and everyone else at Stanford who has sacrificed for and adapted to the budget cuts in whatever fashion has been required.
And most of all, tell the students walking around campus with swords who used to be varsity fencers--they are the direct consequence of beefing up Harbaugh's already-bloated contract.]]>
Stanford Football Crushes USCtag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14792009-11-14T23:43:13Z2009-11-15T00:02:27Z Two years ago, Stanford's football team needed a 4th and 10 one-handed catch in the endzone to defeat perennial football powerhouse USC. This year, the team not only upset USC again, but did it in style--winning by an improbably...JoshTwo years ago, Stanford's football team needed a 4th and 10 one-handed catch in the endzone to defeat perennial football powerhouse USC. This year, the team not only upset USC again, but did it in style--winning by an improbably large 55-21 margin.
Granted, this win is slightly less heroic since Stanford (now 7-3) is actually a good team this year with an impressive record, and USC (now also 7-3) seems to be slowly fading from the heights they reached with Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, and Carson Palmer. But USC football is still USC football, and Stanford football is still Stanford football, so any victory over the Trojans is impressive nonetheless.]]>
possible consideration for the Heisman trophy, added to his resume 178 yards and 3 touchdowns. Gerhart had help from quarterback Andrew Luck, who threw for another two touchdowns.
This win not only propels Stanford further up the Pac-10 echelon but also ensures that Stanford will be bowl-bound for the first time in recent memory. Stanford? Bowl-bound? Something sounds strange here, but with two routs of top 25 teams in a row, this year the football team might actually have the ability to win a bowl game as well.]]>
Aural Fixation: Meet supergroup Them Crooked Vulturestag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14772009-11-13T21:47:02Z2009-11-17T04:48:33ZWelcome to the first installment of Aural Fixation, the Unofficial way to stay abreast of musical goings-on in the Bay Area and beyond. Them Crooked Vultures is what you get when you combine the bassist from Led Zeppelin, the drummer...ian
Welcome to the first installment of Aural Fixation, the Unofficial way to stay abreast of musical goings-on in the Bay Area and beyond.
Them Crooked Vultures is what you get when you combine the bassist from Led Zeppelin, the drummer from Nirvana, and the guitarist from Queens of the Stone Age. If you enjoy bluesy and soul-crushing rock music, then this convergence should be a serious cause for celebration. John Paul Jones (bass), Dave Grohl (drums), and Josh Homme (guitar) aren't doing anything revolutionary, but they're laying down some heavy music and doing it quite well.
Their self-titled debut album is due out November 17th, but they've generously allowed the album to be streamed in its entirety in advance of the official album release. Them Crooked Vultures will be also landing in the Bay Area next Thursday the 19th for a show at Oakland's Fox Theater. Check out the album at themcrookedvultures.com.
Keep your ears to the ground,
Ian
Hennessy Can't Get No Lovetag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14732009-11-13T07:57:46Z2009-11-13T08:34:52Z From rankings, at least. While Stanford has an on-again-off-again attitude towards college rankings such as the U.S. News and World Report's annual statistics related to our continued appearance in the top 5 best colleges, Stanford's president, John Hennessy, didn't...Josh
From rankings, at least. While Stanford has an on-again-off-again attitude towards college rankings such as the U.S. News and World Report's annual statistics related to our continued appearance in the top 5 best colleges, Stanford's president, John Hennessy, didn't manage to make a similar list--Time Magazine's top 10 University Presidents.
In fact, none of the presidents of the "powerhouse schools"--schools such as Stanford, the techstitutions (MIT/Caltech), or the Ivy League--were to be found on this list, which instead favored presidents of bigger public schools (Ohio State, Michigan) and unknown schools (UT Brownsville, Miami Dade College). Heading the list, though, is Ohio State's E. Gordon Gee, who also happens to be the country's highest paid president of a public school with a salary of about 1.3 million dollars per year.]]>
(after pay cut), which puts him directly in the middle of his peers: average salaries for presidents of private research universities such as Stanford recently rose to around 628,000 dollars per year. Even though, I would argue that Hennessy is paid too much--as outlined in an article I wrote earlier this year.
Still, President Hennessy probably deserves credit for bringing in an absurd amount of private donation money over the last few years, even if its not enough to save us from the massive budget cuts he is championing. Oh well--at least somebody thinks he's doing a great job.]]>
Unfulfillment and SMIFtag:tusb.stanford.edu,2009://1.14712009-11-12T07:19:11Z2009-11-20T23:32:11ZTwo emails have been making the circuits lately, and both highlight interesting aspects of the Stanford community/experience. The first is an invitation to an event with that intends to address the 1 in 4 depression rate at Stanford by "just...Chris
SMIF Blog
(Read more below the jump)]]>
The email:
"Why don't I feel fulfilled?
Why don't I feel motivated?
I'm at Stanford! Why don't I feel happier?
I've been a part of a pretty big, increasing trend of people feeling like not everything's hunkey-dorey in their Stanford world. In general, we don't watch TV, we do volunteer activities, we get outside, and we exercise, but we've still got a 1-in-4 depression rate. What gives? Is it just midterms, cold weather, or picking the wrong major? Are we not challenged in the right way? Are we not contributing to the world?
Come cuss and discuss this Thursday, at 9:00 pm, in Room 216C of Old Union. I don't have the answers, and want to find them. Through a casual dialogue with each other, let's help each other and come up with our own.
No panels. No speakers. Not on behalf of any organization. Just good old venting and problem-solving.
If there's enough interest, I'll bring snacks.
Send any questions or comments to sophomore Robin Thomas at robthom@stanford.edu.
P.S. If you think you're too busy to make the meeting, that might be a reason why you're feeling like this in the first place.
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY."
We've all had times here where we've gone through bouts of self-doubt, unfulfillment, and plain feeling lost, and I think it's great that a handful of students are taking initiative to figure out their own solution to the problem. It seems that merely in being proactive, they are confronting the problem. But I wonder if the problem can be solved so simply. These feelings are incredibly debilitating, I've felt them often. Is this something inherent to being in the world of Stanford? Is it something anyone in their late teens early twenties faces? Can it be fixed? I wish the cussin' discussion all the luck in the world, as it is so refreshing to see something very important like this arise organically to address a long-overlooked problem.
As for SMIF, this one's a no-brainer. Aside from the fact that "smif" is just fun to say (and reminds me, for whatever reason, of scratch 'n' sniff stickers), the blog is racking up some pretty funny posts, such as: "Today, I didn't wipe. SMIF". Kudos to the people behind this, perhaps it is the start of something deeply culturally educational on the risks of a luxurious lifestyle...?
The axe will remain in Berkeley for another year--underdog Cal (how strange does that sound?) defeated the Cardinal 34-28 in the 112th annual Big Game.
After a fast start and two early touchdowns by Toby Gerhart, Stanford's defense struggled. Cal controlled most of the game, led by substitute running back Shane Vereen and quarterback Kevin Riley. But Gerhart and redshirt freshman quarterback Andrew Luck fought back in the fourth quarter, bringing Stanford to within 3 points with possession of ball with about 5 minutes to go. After failing to gain much yardage, Jim Harbaugh decided to go for it on 4th and long--but Luck's pass was deflected incomplete, giving the ball back to the Golden Bears near Stanford's end zone.
Cal played conservatively and settled for a field goal--crowned by an interesting decision by Cal coach Jeff Tedford to take a knee on third down--giving Stanford one last chance to score a touchdown with just over two minutes to play.
A short kick gave Stanford good field position near our own 40 yard line, and Luck took control, running for a first down and then passing for another. Facing some pressure from the Cal defensive line, Luck threw a short pass to Gerhart down the sideline, who bulldozed his way to the Cal 13 yard line. But two plays later, Luck threw a pass across the middle intended for tight end Coby Fleener, but Cal linebacker Mike Mohamed intercepted the ball before it got to the end zone, ending Stanford's chances at winning Big Game and likely going to the Rose Bowl.
Despite the loss, though, Gerhart kept his Heisman hopes alive by scoring all of Stanford's points on 4 touchdowns and tallying 136 yards on 20 carries.]]>
A student helms the Birdcage booth
Signage at the Intersection of Death roundabout]]>
This year's Big Game Gaieties, Stanford's pre-Big Game comedy musical extravaganza, premieres tonight in Memorial Auditorium. And, as in years past, it will make fun of campus groups, feature plenty of nudity, and more than enough scatological humor to appease even the most lewd Stanford students. As such, this year's show is the epitome of what the modern Gaieties has become: the perfect example of why Gaieties could be, and should be, so much better than it is right now.
I say this from the point of view of someone who has been a member of the writing staff for the past two years. The actors, directors, and producers perform the marvelous feat of completing the show in a mere two months, and for this they deserve major credit. The fault, then, does not lie in the performance of Gaieties--it is in the writing of the show, which has pushed the play into a spectacle that is not even close to being the best show Stanford students can create.]]>
Football Follies in 1911 and has occurred almost every year since then in the week preceding the big showdown with rival Cal. Dating back to as far as the archives go--the late 80s--the basic structure of the show has remained essentially unchanged: it centers around some ridiculous plot, features plenty of Stanford and Cal jokes, and a clever title parodying some famous movie. Whether or not the crudity and crassness has increased in recent years (the 1996 script, for example, featured zero instances of the word 'fuck' and only one of the word 'shit'), Gaieties as it is now is, for the most part, risque just for the sake of being risque--and as a consequence, the show is neither clever nor intelligent, and it is certainly not as funny as it could be.
I am personally a fan of "lowbrow" humor, as are many college-age students. But humor that is lowbrow and not something more than that--say, perhaps, witty or satirical--feels stale and forced, and Gaieties has resorted to that and cannot seem to break out of this mold. Making fun of the typical Stanford stereotypes is funny up to a point, but laughing at the sororities for being stupid and/or slutty or a capella groups for making music that is enjoyable to nobody has become thoroughly unexciting, particularly for nearly two hours. Gaieties does not have to be the same stupid-joke cocktail served every year with an absurd plot and characters that are either awkward geeky boys or horny, overly sexual girls--it can be something better; perhaps, for example, an actual play--but Gaieties seems afraid to go in this direction.
In fact, the best moments in Gaieties are those that break the stereotypes that weigh down the show: for example, in last year's play, the existence of a complex-yet-understandable political plot involving Donald Rumsfeld, the OSA, and student rights made the play actually feel like a coherent theater performance for the first time in years. And the year prior, the one comic moment that unanimously stood out above all the rest was a perfect send-up of popular culture: at the point of most tension, everyone on stage stopped as the iconic dramatic music from the popular television series The O.C. blared throughout MemAud. At no other point in the play did the show manage to find a moment so funny or so different from the typical humor that Gaieties repeats year after year.
So why does Gaieties continue to be mired in its not-that-funny, purposelessly over-the-top mediocrity? From a writer's perspective, the existence of some sort of fabricated Gaieties tradition--one that dictates a certain minimal level of stupid student group jokes and gratuitous usage of the word 'cock'--seems to pervade the creation of the play. Yet this tradition has little backing: the play has always been over-the-top, but being over-the-top and making a play representative of the cleverness, wit, and intellect of Stanford are not mutually exclusive. The climactic scene in this year's play, for example, had so much potential to be a funny, meta scene that incorporated many elements of Gaieties and turned them on their head; instead, however, the scene is devoid of any dramatic tension and just involves characters cursing and threatening to kill each other. There was so much potential, but Gaieties once again resorted to stupidity and shock value instead of irreverence and wit to try and make the audience laugh.
Unfortunately, Gaieties will likely not realize its flaws any time soon, since a large majority of those who have worked with the show and are interested in creating a better Gaieties are all disillusioned after this year's production. In fact, a significant portion of those who helped write this year's show are embarrassed by what the final script looks like. We can only hope that Gaieties will soon realize that it is possible to create an over-the-top, edgy, irreverent, hilarious campus-wide musical that is indicative of Stanford students: smart, observant, clever, and willing to push the envelope for the sake of humor or criticism, not just for its own sake.]]>
Jim Harbaugh might be the best thing that has ever happened to Stanford football. Since he became head coach, he has engineered a complete turnaround of the team--the culmination of which was yesterday's resounding defeat of USC. And while his ability and success would normally dictate a salary raise, I stand firm in my conviction that giving Jim Harbaugh an enormously lucrative new contract right now--as is about to happen--is reprehensible and shows that Stanford's priorities are extraordinarily misguided.
I don't even dislike Harbaugh--I might even have a touch of the wildly contagious Jim Harbaugh fever, which seems to be the newest incarnation of swine flu. But in the midst of an economic recession that has ravaged the athletics department, to increase Harbaugh's base salary to around 1.25 million dollars per year is ridiculous.]]>
http://stanfordreview.org/article/all-the-president%E2%80%99s-cash">appeared in the Stanford Review, and at that time Harbaugh agreed that he should not get a raise given the economy.
What has changed? The economy has not improved significantly enough to warrant this change being made. The only difference is that Harbaugh has made enough waves with his coaching to be heavily recruited by NFL teams and other universities, which means that to keep Harbaugh the university is reneging on its idea that economic stability is more important than padding Harbaugh's coffers, even in spite of Harbaugh's formal and informal claims that he wants to stay at Stanford no matter what.
If we analyze this raise on a deeper level, it shows that Stanford believes that some of its student-athletes are more worthy than others--an idea that is as unfair and crazy as it sounds.
One of the consequences of the budget shortfalls has been the possible elimination of fencing at Stanford. Fencing is certainly not as lucrative a sport as football is, but it is a sport that is as important to fencers as football is to the Cardinal's football stars. And, according to the Daily article about the possible cuts, the funds needed to save fencing are 250,000 dollars--half of what is going to be added onto Harbaugh's current salary (which resides around $750,000).
Are fencers less deserving athletes than football players? While it is true that football revenue helps pay for many other sports (including fencing), cutting fencing to pay a football coach more than a million dollars per year--when he is already being paid substantially more than the university president--is a grotesque affirmation of the Athletic department's unequal attitude towards student-athletes.
The budget cuts affect everyone, ranging from student activities to all departments to the sports teams. In the words of President Hennessy, "Throughout the university every unit set to work to help conserve our financial resources." Is raising Coach Harbaugh's salary in the wake of the university's financial struggles conserving our resources?
If you think so, try telling that to all of the Stanford employees who lost job, all of the professors denied tenure, all of the prospective professors hurt by the hiring freezes, all of the researchers who lost funding, all of the students who have seen their favorite classes get axed, and everyone else at Stanford who has sacrificed for and adapted to the budget cuts in whatever fashion has been required.
And most of all, tell the students walking around campus with swords who used to be varsity fencers--they are the direct consequence of beefing up Harbaugh's already-bloated contract.]]>
Two years ago, Stanford's football team needed a 4th and 10 one-handed catch in the endzone to defeat perennial football powerhouse USC. This year, the team not only upset USC again, but did it in style--winning by an improbably large 55-21 margin.
Granted, this win is slightly less heroic since Stanford (now 7-3) is actually a good team this year with an impressive record, and USC (now also 7-3) seems to be slowly fading from the heights they reached with Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, and Carson Palmer. But USC football is still USC football, and Stanford football is still Stanford football, so any victory over the Trojans is impressive nonetheless.]]>
possible consideration for the Heisman trophy, added to his resume 178 yards and 3 touchdowns. Gerhart had help from quarterback Andrew Luck, who threw for another two touchdowns.
This win not only propels Stanford further up the Pac-10 echelon but also ensures that Stanford will be bowl-bound for the first time in recent memory. Stanford? Bowl-bound? Something sounds strange here, but with two routs of top 25 teams in a row, this year the football team might actually have the ability to win a bowl game as well.]]>
From rankings, at least. While Stanford has an on-again-off-again attitude towards college rankings such as the U.S. News and World Report's annual statistics related to our continued appearance in the top 5 best colleges, Stanford's president, John Hennessy, didn't manage to make a similar list--Time Magazine's top 10 University Presidents.
In fact, none of the presidents of the "powerhouse schools"--schools such as Stanford, the techstitutions (MIT/Caltech), or the Ivy League--were to be found on this list, which instead favored presidents of bigger public schools (Ohio State, Michigan) and unknown schools (UT Brownsville, Miami Dade College). Heading the list, though, is Ohio State's E. Gordon Gee, who also happens to be the country's highest paid president of a public school with a salary of about 1.3 million dollars per year.]]>
(after pay cut), which puts him directly in the middle of his peers: average salaries for presidents of private research universities such as Stanford recently rose to around 628,000 dollars per year. Even though, I would argue that Hennessy is paid too much--as outlined in an article I wrote earlier this year.
Still, President Hennessy probably deserves credit for bringing in an absurd amount of private donation money over the last few years, even if its not enough to save us from the massive budget cuts he is championing. Oh well--at least somebody thinks he's doing a great job.]]>