At no point did this article address the elephant in the room: that all the example activities that it yearns for are potentially disruptive and damaging to other students on campus who might not want to deal with frat houses doing things like fucking around with bulldozers on campus or setting their house on fire.
This article yearns for the days of the casual alcoholism of playing "beer die" at all hours of the day, but to me it fails to answer the question of "Why?" Why are all these activities considered to be an integral part of developing creativity?
It's equating creativity and free thought to a bunch of really juvenile activities, but because it's Stanford that means it was actually really classy and intellectual, unlike those state schools where setting a couch on fire is just what you do after a football win.
The other vibe I get from this article is that it's written by a former frat boy upset that the next generation of frat boys can't get girls to hang around naked by slapping a "co-op community" label on a frat house.
This article yearns for the days of the casual alcoholism of playing "beer die" at all hours of the day, but to me it fails to answer the question of "Why?" Why are all these activities considered to be an integral part of developing creativity?
It's equating creativity and free thought to a bunch of really juvenile activities, but because it's Stanford that means it was actually really classy and intellectual, unlike those state schools where setting a couch on fire is just what you do after a football win.
The other vibe I get from this article is that it's written by a former frat boy upset that the next generation of frat boys can't get girls to hang around naked by slapping a "co-op community" label on a frat house.