It's a fair point. Doing well in my undergrad classes felt like a game, and I've developed many rules of playing the game to score many points. I think it's fai

It's a fair point. Doing well in my undergrad classes felt like a game, and I've developed many rules of playing the game to score many points. I think it's fair to say that good grades are some kind of a measure of combination of ambition, perseverance and determination to be the sheep you're asked to be. The most interesting people I think are those who excel at that game because they realize that it's just the way society functions, but on a side maintain a soul-- interesting extracurricular interests, projects, etc. They use their knowledge not only to pass tests, but attempt to expand on it and apply it in their own creative ways. That's why I think the article's title is not very appropriate. I'd call it "Is Stanford training just (really excellent) sheep?". There are some good arguments to be made for an affirmative answer, and yet that's not who I see when I look around me.