"While many of us passionately engage in individual interests and pursuits, we are better known for our general apathy of our surrounding condition, especially when compared with our cross-Bay counterparts."

On what exactly does the editorial board base this cliched assumption? Though the board writes that Stanford students "are known" for apathy, the implication is that the board agrees with this supposed widely held perception. However, just because it has been said many times that Stanford students are generally apathetic doesn't make it so. And what's with the comparison to UC Berkeley? Has anyone on the editorial board visited UC Berkeley lately? I'd hardly call the typical Cal student (if there were such a thing) the picture of agitated concern and political activism. Cal students are a lot like Stanford students, except there are more of them, a smaller percentage live on campus, more are from California and there's a higher percentage of Asian students. Like Stanford students, Cal students are a diverse group with varied interests, and today's UC Berkeley campus environment is a far cry from what it was during the 1960's. I've spent a lot of time at UC Berkeley and, from what I've seen, as a group Cal undergraduates appear no more or less interested in "the clamor of political activism" than Stanford undergrads.

The point is that I'm tired of the Stanford Daily relying on questionable, lazy and cliched assumptions when characterizing the student body, or when comparing us to other schools.

So what exactly is Kimball's theme this year?