Science for All
Stanford's new approach to teaching science to non-science students ("A New Spin on Science," March/April) is an exciting experiment. As a Hewlett-Packard retiree, I'm especially pleased that it is funded by a grant from the Hewlett Foundation. I hope it will encourage more students to learn at least some science, and I share the concern over the high dropout rate on these courses.
However, I was puzzled to read in "Cardinal Numbers" in the same issue that only nine science course units are required to earn a BA in the Class of 2002, compared with 17 in the Class of 1962. This reminds me of the adage, "Tell me how I'm measured, and I'll tell you how I'll behave." Hasn't it occurred to Stanford that reducing the science requirement might discourage students from even trying this expensive new program?
In any case, isn't it odd that Stanford has reduced its science requirement during this "information age," when a knowledge of science and technology is so fundamental to understanding how the world goes around? And isn't it a safe assumption that any student who gets into Stanford is capable of learning at least the basics of virtually any subject?
Charles A. Eldon, '48, MBA '50
Sierra Vista, Arizona
So Stanford's humanities students still aren't turned on to science. Let's see: the science aficionados have a condescending name for humanities majors, the new labs have no perceptible connection to the course material, and challenging questions are answered with intellectually and rationally incomplete opinions. (If we see only "visible light" because that's all that was available to our water-dwelling ancestors, then shouldn't we have failed to develop lungs because the only oxygen available to those same ancestors was water-borne?) No wonder students find the course so "difficult and confusing" that even gimmicks can't get them interested.
There are lots of solid, real-world science courses -- many of them created by (gasp!) high school teachers -- that rely on understanding our surroundings, not on glitzy cleverness, to generate student interest. For a pleasant surprise, the Stanford faculty might emulate them.
David Rearwin, PhD '73
Menlo Park, California
As much as I enjoyed your article, I was dismayed to see no mention of the innovative Values, Technology, Science and Society series -- led by Jim Adams (engineering), Robert Osserman (math) and Sandy Fetter (physics) -- of which the new Science, Math and Engineering Core is a direct descendant. I and about 70 others each quarter experienced all the benefits of tag-team teaching, holistic approaches to the sciences and the opportunity to get right into meaty scientific principles, skipping all the memorizing of formulas that tends to deter fuzzies like myself. The classes were fun, intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking. I hope that in any follow-up coverage you will credit those who came before, regardless of whether or not they had a required lab.
Alex Hopf, '92
Cincinnati, Ohio
I'm sure the new approach is well-conceived, but other generations have faced this problem and the Science Core will not necessarily produce superior results. Twenty years from now, some future editor of Stanford will no doubt write a column about the new way of teaching science and will joke about how the professors in 1999 tried to teach him probability by having him play craps.
Harrison Klein, MBA '90
San Mateo, California
While I wholeheartedly support the efforts to improve science and math teaching, craps is hardly "the easiest way in the world for [the casino] to take your money," as geophysicist Michael McWilliams is quoted as saying. In fact, the standard pass bet described in the article is one of the best in the casino from the gambler's point of view, with an expected payoff of 98.6 cents per dollar wagered.
Steve Cummer, '91, MS '93, PhD '97
Kensington, Maryland
Michael McWilliams replies: In craps, the average player still loses in the long run; he just loses more slowly than with many of the other casino games. I plead guilty to using a bit of hyperbole -- there are, of course, easier ways to take the students' money. In fact, if Dr. Cummer would send me $1,000, I'll be happy to send him back $986.
Pure Gould
In 1984, I scheduled UC-Irvine's tennis matches with UCLA, USC and Stanford on the center court at the Newport Beach Tennis Club and at the Racquet Club of Irvine. This gave the home team lots of exposure but no booster club. So three of us decided to form one, calling it the Blue Ant Brigade (the anteater was our mascot).
In writing a promotional letter to raise funds for the new group, I wanted to mention some high-profile supporters. I intended to get celebrities, local business owners, tennis players and coaches -- including Dick Gould of Stanford. Everyone said, "You can't get the coach from another college team to support UC-Irvine tennis." Dick not only agreed, but wished us luck and gave us some great tips on fund raising.
Once he signed up, everybody else I called or wrote did too. The Blue Ant Brigade got marching because of Dick Gould's largesse and love of the sport.
Shirley Dalton Schieber, '51
Corona del Mar, California
Supporting Sawislak
Your article on female faculty ("Wanted: Female Faculty," March/April) implies that Dean John Shoven might not have rejected Karen Sawislak's tenure application if Stanford had had an affirmative action policy in place, if Ms. Sawislak had been properly mentored or if there were a greater appreciation for nontraditional scholarship at Stanford. This analysis might lead to the conclusion that Dean Shoven rejected Ms. Sawislak's tenure application on the merits.
However, there is an alternate hypothesis, which is just as plausible: that Dean Shoven made his decision based on a personal anti-female bias. To adequately explore this, it would be useful to know his views and opinions on the controversy, his track record regarding promotion of female faculty, and how female faculty judge his relations with them.
Even though Ms. Sawislak is not the article's main focus, it does her a great disservice to discuss her case in a superficial manner.
Steven M. Katz, '81
Evanston, Illinois
In regard to my tenure case, I would like to point out that the Advisory Board -- an elected, Universitywide panel of senior faculty that reviews every case for hiring and promotion -- found by a 4-2 vote in November 1998 that Dean Shoven's decision to deny my tenure was based on an improper and erroneous evaluation of six different areas of my record. After more than seven months of investigation and deliberation, the Advisory Board majority thus concluded that Dean Shoven's stated reasons for denying my promotion were not reasonably supported by the evidence at hand. The majority therefore recommended that the dean's decision be reversed and that I be awarded tenure. To my great dismay, President Casper rejected this finding and instead concluded that the appropriate remedy was for my tenure review to be redone.
In your article, I do not think it was fair to me to report the dean's negative views of my qualifications and then neglect to report that the Advisory Board later determined that his judgments were unwarranted and incorrect.
Karen Sawislak
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Phonic Decoding
I noted in your article about dyslexia ("Charles Schwab's Secret Struggle," March/April) that Mr. Schwab is able to read by "converting the written code into sounds" and that the abandonment of phonics is thought by some to be a factor in the problems of dyslexic students. When I was in junior high, I moved to a new school district and was appalled by the inability of my classmates -- who had not been taught phonics -- to decode unfamiliar words by sounding them out.
In the same issue, I was also impressed by "A New Spin on Science" and "Wanted: Female Faculty." In fact, these stories prompted me to arrange for a copy of the magazine to be sent to the dean of faculty at my own alma mater, Bates College.
Marilyn Gildea
Incline Village, Nevada
Admission Stunts
Your article on Tyler MacNiven ("They'll Try Anything," March/April) was inappropriate. Students at my school who read it were concerned about the possibility that the confidentiality of the admissions process was being compromised for the sake of a news story. Highlighting an eager candidate's antics goes against everything guidance professionals seek to teach students about presenting themselves honestly and substantially in the admissions process.
Roland M. Allen
Director of College Counseling
The Branson School
Ross, California
Editor's note: Tyler MacNiven was the source of all information regarding his application to Stanford. The Office of Admission provided us no assistance on his case, though current and former officials there did comment on the general phenomenon of would-be Stanford students engaging in publicity stunts in the hope of improving their chances of admission.
Ethnic Arithmetic
Aimée Dorr (Letters, March/April) tried to count African Americans in her senior class by looking at pictures in the yearbook. But were they African American, South Pacific Islanders, people from India or possibly people who claimed to be Hispanic or something else?
Even published statistics on how many people in an organization or class are African American, Hispanic, Asian American or of some other ethnic group are usually based solely on what people claim to be. If a person is one-eighth of some ethnic group -- that is, with one great-grandparent out of eight -- he or she can claim to be from that group. Theoretically, a person could choose from eight different groups. So how good are the statistics?
Most of us have somewhat mixed ancestry if we take the time to trace it back. My own family history includes a Kuman chief out of the Asian steppes and a caliph of Damascus. I would classify myself as a light-skinned person of predominantly European origin, as long as one accepts that this includes tribes from unknown origins who conquered parts of Europe, soldiers of fortune, concubines probably picked up on slave raids from various places, and wanderers from who knows where.
Fred E. Camfield, MS '64, PhD '68
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Chaplains: 'Lots or None'
The Stanfords, nominal Protestants in their time, built a Protestant church at their new University. Subsequent administrations, out of inertia, provided chaplains in modestly increasing numbers and sectarian specialization. Our University inherited these programs, rather than gaining them by thoughtful, deliberate planning by committees of trustees or faculty.
If this is not the case, is there some other historical hypothesis that explains the pervasive bias among appointments reported by the chaplain ("We of Many Faiths," September/October) and commented upon with sagacity in A.W. Baxter's recent letter (January/February)?
My own policy suggestion is simple: lots of chaplains or none. Let there be off-campus centers for religious activities, paid for exclusively by doctrinal adherents to the institutions. Let the chapel become an auditorium for weddings, large lectures and musical events. Let Stanford terminate its support to the weakly defined Protestantism of its past and become explicitly secular in its policies and budgets.
Alternatively, broaden the University's financed religious brush. Appoint a Monophysite as chief chaplain; let him or her be assisted by atheists, Syrian Orthodox, Sufi mystics, humanists, Docetists, Copts and espousers of homoousian doctrines. Let shamans and faith healers abound at the Medical School and chiropractors serve at the student clinic. It is wrong, I think, for Stanford to take sides among superstitions. Let them all compete on a level field for the University's very limited resources.
L. Bruce Meyer, '45
Carmel, California
Better than Napping
I recently returned to San Francisco after 2 1/2 years in South America. When I picked up your March/April issue, I was expecting to flip briefly through the glossy pages, check the Class Notes and float into a nostalgic Sunday-afternoon nap. Instead, I read almost all of it, then got up off the couch with that exciting, charged feeling that I used to associate with coffee before I replaced it with an Argentine tea called maté. It's the feeling of being interested and engaged, and that may be exactly what I need to help me deal with the culture shock I've been experiencing.
Congratulations on a well-written and inspiring magazine.
Curtis Draves, '92
San Francisco, California
'A Real Winner'
I saw a CNN program featuring Condoleezza Rice ("Rice Steps Down to Pursue Her Passion," January/February) as the speaker at a big meeting in Los Angeles, and I was overawed by everything about her -- her performance, experience and charm, and especially her rhetorical abilities, which were terrific. Looks like we have a real winner there. I expect her to be considered for the job of University president when Gerhard Casper steps down, or to become senator from California or U.S. vice president -- or president.
Leo Miller, '38, MD '42
La Jolla, California
Editor's note: For a farewell interview with Provost Rice, who leaves Stanford in June to pursue a career in investment banking, see page 30.
Clarification
In "Explaining the, uh, Pauses in Speech" (March/April), we should have noted that Jean Fox Tree, PhD '93, an assistant professor at UC-Santa Cruz, is an alumna.
Address letters to:
Letters to the Editor
Stanford magazine
Arrillaga Alumni Center
326 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6105
Or fax to (650) 725-8676; or send us an email. You may also submit your letter online. Letters may be edited for length, clarity and civility. Please note that your letter may appear in print, online or both.
