NOT CONVINCED
Richard Klein observes a change in human behavior about 45,000 years ago and posits an underlying change in brain structure caused by a mutation (“Suddenly Smarter,” July/August). On the basis of my understanding of complex adaptive systems, I’m not convinced.

The behavior Klein points to is the making and processing of symbols. Working with symbols involves representation, manipulation and translation: we represent some selected input situation that calls for change; we manipulate it into a different representation; and we translate this back into a desired output situation that resolves the need for change. This is highly complex behavior.

My skepticism about a mutation (or a few simultaneous ones) causing this complex behavior to emerge is twofold. First, the neural organization to support such behavior would, I presume, have to be highly structured. It is very unlikely that just the right combination of mutations would occur to produce a structure so precise. Second, Klein ignores an important property of complex systems: a small shift along a continuum of structure can produce a large discontinuity in the behavior of the system. It is a matter of a tipping point, a threshold passed, the butterfly-wing effect.

Symbol-processing capability appears latent in some other species, but it seems to emerge only when stimulated by humans. Certainly this is true for the great apes, and possibly for dogs.

With that in mind, I offer a counter-hypothesis to Klein’s: human neural capability increased gradually as a result of genetic drift in the entire complex of genes that govern intelligence, with selection according to the survival advantage conferred. Symbol-processing was a latent capability that increased along with all the rest. At some point, the latency would become strong enough to begin manifesting when random opportunities occurred. A positive feedback loop would kick in to quickly elevate the behavior from latent to actual on the scale of the community where it happened. Reinforcement would come from the improved survival of individuals who first showed the behavior and of other members of the band who learned from those individuals. The result would be a band that shared a common learned behavior and bestowed leadership status—and perhaps reproductive advantage—on those who demonstrated a special knack.
William H. Cutler, PhD ’65
Chapin, South Carolina

“Suddenly Smarter” reminded me of a most profound question: are humans themselves the result of accidental mutations of genes over the eons, or are we the result of a plan?

Stanford could make a great contribution to human understanding if it would create a group of the best and brightest from the pertinent disciplines to confirm or deny that we resulted from accidental mutations over time—and if not, does this mean that we are the result of a plan, prepared by a planning mind?
B. Wylie Tarwater, MA ’56
Lake San Marcos, California

SWEET SUCCESS
I enjoyed reading “A Season in Savannah” (July/August). Instead of becoming bitter (or, as he describes it, bald, with ulcers and unmarried) over the loss of his major-league baseball career, Paul Carey maintains a positive outlook and focuses his talent on helping other young ballplayers realize their dreams. While so many of us use our prestigious degrees in pursuit of material rewards, Carey reminds us that real success comes from overcoming life’s disappointments and that real happiness is found by helping others and doing what you love.
Kitty Wang, ’95, MS ’96
Lyons, Colorado

Jon Weisman’s article on Savannah Sand Gnats manager Paul Carey was nearly cinematic in its character portrayals and sense of place—sultry Savannah and the historic, pretty (though in a tired way) Grayson Stadium. You showed great timing, too, in bringing to light this very special person in professional baseball during a time of particularly ugly press surrounding the major leagues.

I have a unique perspective—literally—of Carey during every home game played at Grayson Stadium. From my position on the outfield scoreboard (rendered manual by an electrical storm a few seasons ago), I watch every play of every inning in order to hang the numbers of hits, runs and errors. Yes, I get paid to do this, and it’s a sweet job if you love the game as I do. Although it is my responsibility to focus on the ball and watch it move from players’ gloves to bats to gloves, etc., in order to keep the line score accurate for the stadium spectators, I find myself looking at Paul Carey perhaps as often as his players do—for signs—as he coaches from the dugout or on the third base line. Your article confirmed what I had sensed from the outfield: a passion, a dedication, that any team would be lucky to “own” from season to season. Through his stance, his gestures, his coaching voice, there is a presence that can only be described as compelling.

Granted, this season I have posted way too many errors on the scoreboard for the home team, but I must say that despite all the regrettable plays and painful losses I have witnessed, it has been a real privilege to watch Paul Carey manage the Sand Gnats. On behalf of Savannah, thanks for coming back, P.C.
Susan Smits
Savannah, Georgia

Bravo to Paul and Angie Carey, to writer Jon Weisman and to STANFORD for “A Season in Savannah.” Success is relative. I’d like to see more articles about alumni who are following their dreams.
Jerry Franks, ’50
Aptos, California

OUR HOUSE
As a former student fireman (1940-42 and 1946-47), I enjoyed “When Students Fought Fires” (July/August). My first year, Chief Dugan was still active. Then, after the war, Al Hatly was acting chief, followed by John Marston on a permanent basis. We all considered ourselves professionals and had a real pride in our ability.

The house was basically a “jock house.” Frank and Monte Pfyl were baseball players, Dar Seeley and Bob Abrams played football, I came from swimming and water polo, and the other guys came from various other sports. This led us to being pretty good in the intramural leagues. There was nothing we liked better than beating the fraternity types from up on the Row.

Our $20-a-month stipend helped a lot with expenses in those days when tuition was $115 a quarter and most of us were on scholarships of one kind or another. We all hashed for meals as well. I worked at the Union “Cellar” for most of my time there and worked summers at the old Fallen Leaf Lodge, now the Stanford Sierra Camp. With all of that, you could make out okay financially.

We did our studying at desks around the firefighting equipment. When I first arrived, we had a right-hand-drive 1921 Seagrave engine/pumper (a real beast to operate, with straight-cut spur gears, manual spark and choke on the wheel), a ladder truck converted from a 1935 Ford, a 1939 “cab-over” Ford tank truck and a 1927 Buick roadster with a tank in back where the rumble seat used to be. These last two were used for fighting grass fires, which seemed to be our biggest problem. The old Buick was replaced after my first year by a 1941 GMC tank/squad vehicle, and the ’21 Seagrave was replaced after the war by a 1947 V-12 Seagrave.

Thanks for doing the piece. Brought back great memories after all these years.
Frank Lynch, ’43
Corona Del Mar, California

MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE
I am disappointed that STANFORD published the excerpt from H.W. Brands’s book (“The Truth About Liberalism,” July/ August). It impresses me as having an arrogant certitude based on narrow and questionable presumptions at odds with those very often held. The author appears to have a political agenda, to which he certainly is entitled. But he is not entitled to characterize his highly personal interpretations as definitive political truths. His proclamation of “the truth” should have been paired with a balancing view.
Jack Block, PhD ’50
El Cerrito, California

Vietnam killed liberalism? I’m sorry, but this logic does not hold water. Americans may differ over the size of the government and its programs, but the majority still believe government can help people of all parties and economic stature.
Bob Ingolls, MS ’78
Portola Valley, California

Perhaps H.W. Brands has been living in Texas so long that he’s lost perspective. Finding the roots and successes of liberalism in the Cold War seems way off base. Even his definition of liberalism—confidence in the ability of government to accomplish good—raises questions. The roots of the notion that government could benefit a majority of our citizens trace back farther than the Cold War. For example, capitalism was collapsing before Franklin D. Roosevelt came in with active government programs to save it. Despite opposition from the wealthy, F.D.R. established Social Security, the National Labor Relations Board and other New Deal policies that allowed capitalism to survive.

The Cold War may have been initially a liberal idea, but conservatives found their calling in the war and in the military-industrial complex. Look, for example, at Ronald Reagan and his “Star Wars” notions of profligate military spending and military intervention. Even a casual examination of support for the Cold War easily undermines Brands’s hypothesis.

Vietnam eroded the people’s belief in government because the administration boldly lied to the people. Rather than reverting “to their historic distrust of government,” as Brands puts it, perhaps people simply don’t trust the wealthy and powerful who control the political process.

If we consider the public’s rejection of government to solve problems, conservative think tanks seem to have played a powerful role. Industry-supported groups such as the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and right-wing religious organizations mold public opinion to mistrust government, support the rise of the wealthy and promote a conservative agenda. We need a serious study to determine how these groups have hijacked the notion of the public good to create a society devoted to protecting the individual’s right to get rich.
Don Monkerud
Aptos, California

ISSUES TO PONDER
Thank you for the article on Dr. Steve Brown’s work on the White Mountain Apache Reservation (On the Job, July/ August). He sounds like an honest, thoughtful person who is doing meaningful work in a community that needs dedicated professionals.

The Great White Savior narrative, however, is so 19th and 20th century. Two issues for the editors to ponder:

First, there are hundreds of Native American Stanford grads who return to their home communities to do something meaningful. Second, Native communities are filled not only with people who are dirty, drunk or pitiful; the Indian Health Service also serves community members who are clean, sober, etc. You wouldn’t believe it to read Mitchell Leslie’s article.
Angela Parker, ’99
Mandan, Hidatsa and Cree
Hanover, New Hampshire

I was stunned by the casual elitism in the article about Dr. Steve Brown. In writing that “he’d already scotched his chances to enter a top medical school and ended up at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College,” Mitchell Leslie makes the common, careless mistake of confusing fame with quality.

As a 1976 graduate of Albany Medical College and now a practicing pediatrician, I can assure you that the quality of my medical education was superb. The directors of residency programs know that the education received in our nation’s medical schools has very little to do with the prestige of the name. My classmates and I easily landed “top” residencies (I was in Seattle at the Children’s Hospital), and we were indistinguishable from our more prestigiously trained colleagues.

The only reason a student should even think of applying to a “top” medical school is if he or she is planning a career in medical academia. There, as in the rest of the academic world, elitism does rule. However, anyone who just wants a great medical education in preparation for being a “real doctor” should check out the “lesser” schools. There are scores of medical schools in this country that offer an education designed to produce knowledgeable, caring physicians.

I’m sure Steve Brown is grateful for the education he received at Albany Medical College, and I have no doubt it prepared him well for the challenges he faces.
Catherine (Payne) Bartlett, ’69
Northampton, Massachusetts

GROUNDED
Robert L. Strauss (End Note, July/August) writes about his flying experiences in a most flippant manner. As a career Navy carrier pilot, I know only too well that flying is a deadly serious business. Many private pilots and their passengers are killed each year because of attitudes similar to those of Mr. Strauss. Although his prose is excellent, he has no understanding of the seriousness of the incidents he makes light of, and I am thankful he does not fly as a pilot anymore.
Gene Tissot, ’58
Corral de Tierra, California

Were we supposed to think that Robert L. Strauss’s stories about his near-misses as a pilot were cute and amusing? I did not. My daughter was hit and killed by debris from the mid-air collision of two similarly inept pilots of private aircraft. Mr. Strauss could put his experience and writing talents to much better use by advocating stricter regulation of private aviation.
Diane Blum, ’78
Bala-Cynwyd, Pennsylvania

BELTED
Your July/August issue included a letter chastising Jonilson Santos and me for not wearing our seatbelts in the picture of us cruising Palm Drive (1,000 Words, May/ June). I appreciate Mr. McCluskey’s concern. I, too, refuse to move my car until each of my passengers has buckled up.

That said, I would like to clarify one detail. Despite my great respect for seatbelts, I do not feel they are necessary when my car is stopped on the shoulder of Palm Drive with the ignition off while our picture is being taken.
Nicholas Saadah, MS ’02
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

HAVING A BALL
In “Taking a Spin” (Farm Report, July/ August), you mention spinning several Stanford students in a NASA centrifuge at forces of up to 2 G’s. According to the article, they would spend a large part of their time playing Pong on a laptop computer.

What a wasted opportunity.

In our sophomore classical physics course (1955, Schiff), we were given as a homework assignment the problem of calculating the trajectory of a Ping-Pong ball rolling without slipping on a 33-rpm record turntable. The next day Professor Schiff brought a Ping-Pong ball and a turntable to class, and we had a delightful time verifying the Ping-Pong ball motion in a rotating coordinate system.

I would thoroughly enjoy playing Ping-Pong in a centrifuge!
Robert Shafer, ’58
Los Alamos, New Mexico

RACIAL CATEGORIES
“California Trendsetters” (Farm Report, July/August) notes that the Census 2000 form was the first that allowed respondents to write in “some other race.” Actually, a residual “other race” or “some other race” write-in category has been on the census form since 1950, when the category was added to permit persons of mixed racial background (primarily persons of mixed white, black and American Indian ancestry) to identify themselves. In Census 2000, Hispanics made up the overwhelming majority (97 percent) of the 15.4 million persons reporting “some other race” and no other racial category, reflecting the fact that a sizable proportion of the 35.3 million Hispanics did not identify with a racial category. (“Hispanic” is defined as an ethnicity rather than a race for federal statistical purposes.)
Campbell Gibson, ’64
Senior Demographer, U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, D.C.

Editor’s Note: That’s correct. Our article should have indicated that Census 2000 was the first decennial census that allowed respondents to choose more than one race category.

COURSEWORK IN CONTEXT
In the July/August Farm Report is an article about two Stanford psychology professors who co-teach a graduate course (Psychology 215: Mind, Culture and Society) in which “they see their students beginning to understand that human behavior is malleable and is shaped by people’s perceptions and experiences.” One of the two, Professor Steele, declares, “We’re discovering the role of context in shaping the psychology of the person.”

That “discovery” may be a rediscovery.

Forty-four years ago, during my sophomore year, I took an excellent sociology course titled Social Psychology, with a principal text of the same name, written by renowned sociologist Theodore Newcomb. The entire course focused on how human behavior is shaped by people’s perceptions and experiences and how social context shapes behavior. I note that Social Psychology is still being taught as a sociology course, presumably with similar content.

Perhaps it’s time for an interdisciplinary course in social psychology so that one department’s discoveries are not 44 years behind the other’s.
Marshall Brown, ’61, MS ’62
Easton, Maryland

NEED A DATE?
Regarding your May/June article on dating at Stanford: I haven’t been on a date in four years and was glad to learn that this is trendy. However, if any of your readers want a date for next year’s Viennese Ball, I’m available.
Clydia Jean Cuykendall, ’71
Frisco, Texas

GARDNER REMEMBERED
You note that John Gardner (Examined Life, May/June) was both able to reach large audiences and serve as a mentor. I was a young White House aide to Lyndon Johnson in 1965-66, and even though I had minimal direct contact with Gardner, I clearly recall the effect he had on me and others. He was kind and thoughtful, even to those of us without power. He not only had brilliant ideas but also had the skills and sense to get them implemented with a lasting effect.

I am sure that I am part of a large group that strives to act and lead in ways that are daily influenced by John Gardner.
Alan Merten, MS ’64
President, George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia

THOSE WERE THE DAYS
I enjoyed Emily Williams’s “Who’s the Senior Here?” (Student Voice, May/June), and I have no doubt that much is to be gained by mingling undergrads and overgrads. But I was dismayed by Ms. Williams’s description of using her “valuable negotiating skills learned in three years at Stanford” to secure a homework extension, and by her continuing to describe an overgrad’s reaction as “conspiratorial.” Are homework extensions really the best use of Ms. Williams’s newly learned negotiating skills? And should students in a class—any class—be conspiring against the instructor?

Frankly, many of the overgrads in the class may not have understood the concept of negotiating for a homework extension, since in their college days, students simply managed to follow instructions and get their work in on time.
Jennifer Widom
Associate Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Stanford, California

TOO EARLY?
Having just gone through the college application process with my oldest son, I can categorically state that the early-decision program (Farm Report, May/June) is detrimental to high-school-age applicants. It essentially means that students at the close of their junior year in high school must decide where they want to go to college. They’re too young to make that decision, and it deprives them of the exploration and maturation time—as well as the give-and-take with peers, teachers, advisers, high school alumni and parents—that should take place during the senior year, playing an important role in college choice. The senior year is when high school students refine their understanding of who they are and who they want to become; early decision short-circuits that process.

Trust me: most students and their parents would be happy to apply to several colleges rather than experience the horrible tension of the early-decision process. I strongly encourage Stanford to break from the pack and renounce this terrible concept.
Robert M. Smith, ’77
Los Angeles, California

BAD HUMOR
In the May/June Farm Report article on the new Korean studies program, Professor Shin cites a joke by Jay Leno as a reason for Korean “anger and frustration . . . and some anti-American sentiment.”

I lived in South Korea for four years in the mid-’80s. During this time I became aware that a common slang term for Westerners was “ko-chang-yi,” which means “long nose.” In addition, during my numerous visits to the countryside, Korean children greeted my presence with “Hello, Mr. Monkey.” Because they said it in English, I can only surmise that they learned it from adults.

I am neither angry nor frustrated by this; nor do I harbor anti-Korean sentiments. That’s not to say the insults were right or appropriate.

May I suggest that Professor Shin’s teaching will be most effective if he presents his points with balance and from multiple perspectives? Perhaps he might also try to help his fellow Koreans understand their own attitudes as they criticize those of others.
Walter P. Knoepfel, MBA ’71
San Francisco, California

SORDID HISTORY
While growing up in San Francisco, I was taught nothing about the history of Angel Island (“Angel Island: Breaking the Silence,” January/February). I learned about Alcatraz, Mission Dolores and Treasure Island, but the schools somehow never mentioned that Angel Island had been used as a prison to hold Chinese immigrants while the government tried to invent excuses to ship them back to China.

By all means build a memorial to these prisoners—a big one. To ignore the sordid aspects of Angel Island’s history is to endorse the Northern-Europe-only immigration philosophy that infected our country from the 19th to the mid-20th century. And to characterize the Asians who were imprisoned on Angel Island as “uninvited” and “illegal” (Letters, May/June) is equivalent to claiming that the only true Americans are WASPs.
Bob Hayman, ’74
Marysville, Washington

SPORTS STATS
College sports is an emotion-laden subject, and we probably shouldn’t be surprised (or disappointed) when an athletics director like Ted Leland is defensive in reacting to a study that raises serious questions about the “athletic-academic divide” (Farm Report, November/December 2001). But it is more troubling when, confronted with a finding he doesn’t like (that the academic credentials of athletes are very different from the credentials of other students), he misrepresents the evidence.

Thus, Leland is quoted in your article as saying, “There’s no test for statistical significance anywhere in the book . . . .” He must be referring to a book other than the one we wrote, because The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values is careful to report standard errors alongside regression coefficients and to show confidence intervals around point estimates of academic underperformance by athletes. Moreover, when we present simple tabulations showing the percent of male athletes in the high-profile sports of football, basketball and ice hockey with cumulative grade point averages in the bottom third of the class (81 percent at the Division I private universities in the study), we are reporting not a sample statistic but the actual results for all matriculants in the universe in question. In short, we are not looking at results obtained by randomly selecting balls from an urn; rather, we are looking at results obtained by examining the full contents of the urn.

We make these comments in part to correct the record and in part to urge those interested in the debate over the role of intercollegiate athletics to address the facts as they are rather than attempting to wish them away.
James L. Shulman
Executive Director
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
New York, New York
William G. Bowen
President
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
New York, New York

Leland responds: I’m a little embarrassed about the flippant nature of my comments, especially in light of my friendship with the authors and my respect for their work. I do, however, continue to have some concerns about some of the “conclusions” drawn from the data. In the long run, The Game of Life has been great fodder for honest and open discussion about the role of athletics at many schools, including Stanford.

CORRECTION
“Overcoming Organ Rejection” (Farm Report, July/August) misstated the frequency of transplantations performed by assistant professor of surgery Maria Millan. She has transplanted 300 organs (liver and kidney) in the four years since she began her career.

CLARIFICATION
An article about dating in the May/June issue (“Hooking Up, Hanging Out, Making Up, Moving On”) requires some clarification. In characterizing the relationship between freshmen John Paul Schnapper-Casteras and Valicia Saucedo, some passages—including one that referred to the pair as resembling “a married couple”—may have led readers to believe, falsely, that those students had a sexual relationship. We apologize for any embarrassment or distress this may have caused the students or their families.