stanford university case study

Case Studies

• Publications

Mapping the Republic of Letters is made up of a number of rich case studies. The case studies are strategic in geographic range and in time period, and in their breadth and scope. As we develop new case studies at Stanford and establish partnerships with groups developing digital correspondence projects, the number of case studies continues to grow. The wide range of case studies gives us multiple points of intersection with the Republic of Letters. Most every case study is based on a different information source and so each one one presents different problems of data handling as well as unique information visualization challenges.

• Correspondence
• Publication

Voltaire's Publications

Spanish Empire

We have received generous funding from

Ethics, Society, & Technology Case Studies

At the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, we believe that researchers, founders, and technologists—present and future—should be expected to confront and gain a deeper understanding of the ethical, social, and political dimensions of technologies. We aim to prepare the next generation of leaders to take on these challenges by integrating ethical and societal implications into the development, deployment, and governance of technology. 

To support this mission, the Ethics, Society, and Technology Initiatives are creating a high-quality production of open-source ethics, policy, and technology case studies for use in university and industry settings. Through the Ethics, Society, and Technology (EST) Case Study Program a talented team of case writers develop and prototype case studies that address pressing ethical and sociotechnical issues in the technology field by drawing on secondary and primary sources of research materials. 

EST case studies explore written stories that wrestle with business decisions, design and technical implementation, regulatory compliance and limitations, and individual participation in the technology industry and workforce. These stories can range from real-life scenarios to fictionalized ones based on composite experiences and stories. 

Previous and current projects include: 

• Algorithmic Decision-Making and Accountability
• Autonomous Vehicles
• Facial Recognition
• Fizz: Social Media Growth
• Generative AI: Navigating the Technology Industry 
• Juul Labs: A Design & Marketing Case Study
• Private Platforms
• Social Media and Youth Mental Health (coming soon!)
• Vaccine Distribution: A Case Study in Algorithmic Priorities
• Voting Registration: A Case Study in Data Representation

If you use any of these case studies and have feedback on them, please feel free to send the case writing team an email at estinitiatives [at] stanford.edu (estinitiatives[at]stanford[dot]edu) . 

These case studies are made possible in part by Frank McCourt in association with Stanford’s partnership with the  Project Liberty Institute .

Case Studies

CS#4 :  Deploying Corporate Capital as Clean Energy Catalyst: A Case Study of Google’s Impact Roles in Global Energy Transition by Soh Young In, Andrew Peterman, and Ashby Monk. 

CS#3 :  Bridging Institutional Logics to Lead Regional Development: The Case of Khazanah in Iskandar Malaysia  by Caroline Nowacki and Ashby Monk

CS#2 :  In-Kind Infrastructure Investments by Public Pensions: The Queensland Motorways Case Study  by Mike Bennon, Ashby Monk, and YJ Cho

CS#1 :  The Financier State as an Alternative to The Developmental State: A Case Study of Infrastructure Asset Recycling in New South Wales, Australia  by Caroline Nowacki, Ray Levitt, and Ashby Monk

Case Studies

The program’s portfolio of situational case studies presents narratives of real-life events and asks students to identify and analyze the relevant legal, social, business, ethical, and scientific issues involved. Playing the role of protagonist in each case study—such as a private attorney counseling a biotechnology company facing hazardous waste issues, or a federal official seeking to develop an effective fishery management plan—students formulate appropriate strategies for achieving workable solutions to conflicts, then discuss and debate their recommendations in class. This interactive approach to learning bolsters students’ acquisition of skills in critical areas: factual investigation, legal research, counseling, persuasive oral communication, and recognition and resolution of ethical dilemmas, to name a few.

The Stanford Law School Case Studies Collection is an exciting innovation in law school teaching designed to hone students’ problem-solving skills and stimulate creativity. The Collection includes situational case studies and interactive simulations (collectively referred to as “Case Materials”) that place students in the roles of lawyers and policy makers and teach fundamental lawyering skills such as investigating facts, counseling, and resolving ethical dilemmas.

In June of 1997 the  Environmental and Natural Resources Law Policy Program  hired an experienced environmental lawyer to develop “situational” case studies for use in classroom instruction to better prepare students for the practice of law in the real world. Most of the case studies have been field tested in the classroom and evaluated for effectiveness in increasing student mastery of fundamental lawyering skills and increasing student participation in classroom discussion. Feedback from students has been excellent. Stanford Law School plans to unveil case studies collections in the areas of Law and Business in the coming years.

You can use this site to download Case Materials for examination. With prior permission from Stanford Law School, instructors can also obtain copies of Case Materials they want to use in the classroom for free. This Case Studies Collection will be updated regularly as we add new Case Materials and revise existing Materials, so visit the site from time to time for new developments!

As used in our website, the phrase “case materials” refers to case studies and simulations, as well as accompanying exhibits and teaching notes. While both case studies and simulations can be used as tools in the “case study teaching method,” they are different in form and manner of use. A case study is a narrative that recounts the factual history of an event or series of events. It is typically used as the basis for in-class analysis and discussion. A simulation is a set of facts, roles and rules that establishes the framework for an in-class participatory exercise.

Research has shown that existing law school teaching methods and curricula do not adequately teach students the full complement of “lawyering” skills they need to competently practice law. The traditional appellate case method assumes that a problem has reached a point where litigation is the only alternative, and presents students with a scenario in which all relevant issues have been identified, the questions of law narrowly focused, and the questions of fact resolved. Skills-oriented courses and clinical programs (such as law clinics and externships) have made significant contributions to law schools’9 ability to teach lawyering skills. Their reach, however, has been limited by a combination of factors, including their high cost and the relatively few law students who actually take advantage of these programs.

While we do not envision the case study method displacing the appellate case method or clinical programs, we do believe that the case method can be used in conjunction with existing teaching methods to add considerable educational value. Case studies and simulations immerse students in real-world problems and situations, requiring them to grapple with the vagaries and complexities of these problems in a relatively risk-free environment – the classroom.

Incorporation of case studies and simulations into environmental law school curriculums can bolster student skill acquisition in the critical areas listed below. Based on a 1990-1991 American Bar Association questionnaire, the MacCrate Task Force concluded that traditional law school curricula and teaching methods fall short in teaching these fundamental lawyering skills:

• problem solving
• legal research
• factual investigation
• persuasive oral communications
• negotiation
• recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas
• organization and management of legal work

The case study teaching method is adapted from the case method developed and used successfully for many years by the nation’s leading business schools. The method uses a narrative of actual events to teach and hone the skills students need to competently practice law. Students identify for themselves the relevant legal, social, business, and scientific issues presented, and identify appropriate responses regarding those issues. Suggested questions for class discussion are prepared in connection with each case study, itself the product of long, probing interviews of the people involved in the actual events. These narratives, or case studies, may be long or short, and portray emotion, character, setting and dialogue. Students present their thoughts on key issues during class discussion, usually from the viewpoint of the key protagonist in the case study.

Simulations are typically used to reinforce and synthesize concepts, skills and substantive law already covered in a course. The simulations are designed for limited instructor and maximum student involvement during the exercise itself. However, once the exercise has drawn to a close, ample time should be allotted for a debriefing session. During the debriefing, instructors and students can engage in a candid discussion of the relative effectiveness of different approaches used during the simulation, clear up any lingering questions about substantive issues, and probe ethical and/or policy issues raised by the simulation.

Requesting Permission to Copy or to Use Materials

Send your request for permission to use or copy Case Materials to  [email protected] . To assist us in reviewing such requests and tracking the actual use of our Case Materials, please provide a description of the course (of up to 500 words) for which the Case Materials will be used. In addition, please include a brief description of the kind of course for which the Case Materials are intended, including:

• Whether the course is an elective or required course, undergraduate, graduate, or continuing education.
• The nature of the academic program and institution in which the course will be taught, such as law school, business school, Earth Sciences department, public interest law firm, etc.
• The number of times the course has been offered.
• Expected enrollment for the course.
• The history of the course’s development.

• The Experience
• The Programs
• Faculty & Research

The Library will be closed Dec. 21, 2023, through Jan. 3, 2024. Online resources remain available.

• GSB Library

Knowledge Base

• GSB Library Knowledge Base
• 2 Analyst Reports
• 6 Books/eBooks/audiobooks
• 40 Company Info & Financials
• 20 Company Lists
• 7 Consumers & Demographics
• 8 Countries & International Markets
• 42 Database Access Help
• 9 Deals (M&A, IPO)
• 4 Economic Indicators
• 11 ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)
• 20 Financial Markets & Securities
• 12 Frequently Asked Questions
• 13 Industries & Markets
• 11 Journal Articles
• 49 Large Datasets
• 6 Library Use/Policies
• 13 News/Magazine Articles
• 1 Research Impact
• 103 Research Tips
• 18 Statistics
• 8 VC/PE/Startups

Case Study Types and Sources

Case studies for class use.

Case studies are often inspired by true events, although not all details may be accurate. To find these cases used to generate class discussions:

• Learn how to access Harvard Business School Case Studies , which the libraries are unable to purchase.
• Learn how to access Stanford GSB Case Studies .
• Get free and paid cases from many schools around the world at The Case Centre .
• Stanford students, faculty, and staff can also get some cases in ProQuest One Business (this link will take you to a list of cases we have access to)

If you're looking for in-depth information about a company or a event, you can Ask Us for assistance or try some of the following strategies:

• Add the phrase "case study" to your searches. There often aren't more specific ways to search for case studies in particular.
• To find books at Stanford that are or contain case studies, go to SearchWorks and click Advanced Search . In the All Fields box add any keywords (e.g. "social media" or "energy"), in the Subjects box enter exactly "Case studies." (include the punctuation).

Case Studies as Research Methodology

A case study can also refer to a specific research methodology used to study phenomena in-depth, often qualitatively, by focusing on one or a few examples, rather than a large-scale quantitative study.

• ProQuest One Business - includes business-related journals and reports. After doing a search, to the left of the results expand the Document type section and click More . Check the Include box next to Case Study and press Apply .
• PsycINFO - focuses on psychology-related journal articles. After doing a search, to the left of the results expand the Methodology section and click More . Check the Include box next to Nonclinical Case Study and/or Clinical Case Study and press Apply .

Related Library Tips

Related topics.

• Research Tips

Resource Use

Most resources are only available to current Stanford students, faculty, and staff.

Researchers are responsible for using these resources appropriately. See the eResources Usage policy .

Accessibility Support

Ask Us  for accessibility support with library resources.

The  Stanford Graduate School of Education Case Library  is a repository for teaching materials that concern real world situations in education, non-profits, government agencies and their reform efforts. The case materials are presented in a way that allows readers to consider multiple forms of explanation, design, and management, and thereby enhance the learning experience of students. All case materials are open to public reading and review.

A Primer On Case Teaching

One reason to use case teaching is so that students interested in research engage in an exercise of abstraction / reflection AND concretization / application. Most graduate courses at research universities expose students to a variety of interpretive modes that can be used to explain observed phenomenon. A rich understanding of these interpretive approaches can be advanced through their application to particular cases. Read more...

• "Learning Moments" and the Nature of Student Interactions David Diehl, Daniel McFarland
• Implementing a Dual Language Program at PS 12 Alicia Grunow, Daniel McFarland
• Independent Regulators -The Case of the Indian Electricity Regulator Narasimha D. Rao, Daniel McFarland
• Madagascar's Adult Literacy Initiative Nii Addy, Daniel McFarland
• New Teacher Mentoring in New York City Jeannie Myung, Daniel McFarland
• The Alaska Humanities Forum Kenneth C. Kimura, Daniel McFarland
• The Case of Voluntary Busing in Boston, Massachusetts: Christine Tran, Daniel McFarland
• The Commission on Undergraduate Education Chris Pope, Daniel McFarland
• The Creation of Stanford’s Program in Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity Chris Gonzalez Clarke, Daniel McFarland
• The Japanese Question: San Francisco Education in 1906 Aimee Eng, Daniel McFarland
• The Mill Town Case and Small Schools Reform David Diehl, Daniel McFarland
• The Politics of School Vouchers: Analyzing the Milwaukee Parental Choice Plan Rand Quinn, Daniel McFarland
• Where Do The Children Play? The Urban Spaces Project at PS X Rachel Lissy, Daniel McFarland
• Windows on Conversions: Clover Park High School, Lakewood, WA Ash Vasudeva, Linda Darling Hammond, Ray Pecheone
• Windows on Conversions: Noble High School, North Berwick, ME Ash Vasudeva, Linda Darling Hammond, Ray Pecheone

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Case Study: The Stanford University School of Medicine and Its Teaching Hospitals

Pizzo, Philip A. MD

Dr. Pizzo is dean and Carl and Elizabeth Naumann Professor of Pediatrics and of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Pizzo, Office of the Dean, Stanford University School of Medicine, Alway Building, M-121, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5119; telephone: (650) 724-5688; fax: (650) 725-7368; e-mail: ( [email protected] ).

There is wide variation in the governance and organization of academic health centers (AHCs), often prompted by or associated with changes in leadership. Changes at AHCs are influenced by institutional priorities, economic factors, competing needs, and the personality and performance of leaders. No organizational model has uniform applicability, and it is important for each AHC to learn what works or does not on the basis of its experiences. This case study of the Stanford University School of Medicine and its teaching hospitals—which constitute Stanford’s AHC, the Stanford University Medical Center—reflects responses to the consequences of a failed merger of the teaching hospitals and related clinical enterprises with those of the University of California–San Francisco School of Medicine that required a new definition of institutional priorities and directions. These were shaped by a strategic plan that helped define goals and objectives in education, research, patient care, and the necessary financial and administrative underpinnings needed. A governance model was created that made the medical school and its two major affiliated teaching hospitals partners; this arrangement requires collaboration and coordination that is highly dependent on the shared objectives of the institutional leaders involved. The case study provides the background factors and issues that led to these changes, how they were envisioned and implemented, the current status and challenges, and some lessons learned. Although the current model is working, future changes may be needed to respond to internal and external forces and changes in leadership.

In providing a case study about Stanford’s academic health center, the Stanford University Medical Center (hereafter, “Stanford Medicine”), composed of the Stanford University School of Medicine and its major teaching hospitals and clinics, let me first describe some of the common features that underpin academic health centers (AHCs) in general in tandem with the ones that characterized and distinguished Stanford Medicine in the early part of the 21st century.

The face of academic medicine in the United States has evolved significantly since its inception in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the substantive shifts have been changes in the internal organization and configuration of AHCs. These have sometimes been guided by responses to institutional planning and initiatives, but perhaps more frequently they have been the result of accommodations and adjustments to various controllable as well as uncontrollable external changes, pressures, and other phenomena. One of the most notable external factors in recent history was the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs in the mid-1960s that fueled the size of clinical faculty at AHCs. Another was the series of investments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in biomedical research that drove the engine of discovery and innovation; that, in turn, brought enormous strength and quality to AHCs. These changes have been significantly influenced and modulated by local institutional goals and cultures and have led to a spectrum of AHCs that vary in depth and emphasis, such as “research intensive” or “primary care,” sometimes with overlap among these or other areas of focus.

In reality, although each AHC shares a commitment to the tripartite missions of education, research, and patient care, the degrees of emphasis and excellence in these separate but overlapping purposes are determined by institutional commitments and resources, the expectations of the community, sources of support (public versus private), and the vision of faculty and leaders. Thus, it is to be expected, and even desired, that AHCs have differentiated in how they approach the interrelated processes of educating students and trainees, conducting research, and even caring for patients. In many ways, the face of AHCs is really a blending of many different genealogies, phenotypes, and behaviors. Hopefully, this variety is a source of strength and distinction to U.S. medicine.

Stanford Medicine: Then

In many ways, the character of an AHC is significantly influenced by that of its home university or institution. Stanford Medicine has gone through two historical phases, the second shaping its current configuration and organization. The first phase began in 1908 when Stanford University assimilated the Cooper Medical College, which was located in San Francisco. For the subsequent nearly 50 years, Stanford students did their initial preclinical education on the Palo Alto campus and then moved to San Francisco for their clinical training. The emphasis of the school during the first half of the 20th century was largely focused on training excellent clinicians, many of whom practiced in San Francisco or the greater Bay Area. In the mid-1950s, the president and the provost of Stanford University, along with several key faculty leaders, made the bold decision to move the medical school in its entirety to Palo Alto and to locate it on the university campus, where it would be proximate to the school of engineering as well as the schools of biological and physical sciences and other university disciplines. This was a transformative decision that, more than any other single factor, determined the current phenotype of Stanford as a research-intensive medical school.

Three important events occurred with the school’s move in 1959. First, a number of extraordinary basic scientists were recruited to Stanford. Among these were such luminaries as Dr. Arthur Kornberg, who brought his entire department from St. Louis to Stanford to found a new department of biochemistry, and Dr. Joshua Lederberg, who was recruited from Wisconsin to develop a department of genetics. Indeed, virtually every department had a stellar leader who was strongly steeped in research, which quickly became the currency of the school of medicine. The second factor was that, with rare exceptions, most of the other clinical leaders elected to remain in San Francisco, where they had robust clinical practices. The third factor was the establishment, also in 1959, of the Stanford Hospital on the same campus as the new school of medicine, thus forming Stanford’s current AHC, Stanford Medicine.

During the ensuing five decades, Stanford’s AHC has gone through a series of changes. In the first decades after the move to Palo Alto, the focus of the faculty and students was almost singularly on research and education. In the early 1960s, faculty physicians provided care for fewer than a third of the patients admitted to Stanford Hospital, and there was a division of services between the faculty and community doctors. Many of the medical students who attended Stanford School of Medicine in the 1960s took part in the “Five Year Plan,” in which laboratory and research training was integral to the school’s mission. The curriculum was also unique compared with those of peer schools because it required a research experience.

Since those early days of the school of medicine’s move to Palo Alto, the basic science programs have remained strong and vibrant, and they provide a source of unique strength and character to both the medical school and the AHC. At the same time, clinical services have grown, although not in a completely coordinated and uniform manner. Today, faculty care for more than 80% of the patients admitted to Stanford Hospital, and there is a clear commitment to excellence in patient care, although research still remains the currency of the realm.

Stanford Medicine: Now

Important contributing factors.

Several factors have contributed to the current organization and governance of Stanford Medicine. Foremost is the colocation of the medical school and major affiliated teaching hospitals (Stanford Hospital and Clinics [SHC] and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital [LPCH]) on the same campus as the rest of Stanford University. The proximity of the medical school to the school of engineering, the school of humanities and sciences, the graduate school of business, and the schools of education and law is enormously important because this arrangement brings a diverse faculty into many unique and virtually seamless collaborations and interactions. Coupled with this is the “Stanford culture” that has limited the size of faculty growth such that every school has a fixed faculty (or billet) cap—which makes every recruitment precious and which, in turn, forces more horizontal interactions and makes “empire building” anathema.

Although this model of restraint can be successfully embraced for many disciplines, it does pose challenges for clinical science specialties, because with restricted growth, choices have to be made about areas of emphasis and about the depth of the clinical services that can be provided or sustained. That said, faculty and students prefer to be part of a smaller school where the proximity of the basic and clinical sciences, hospitals, and university faculty and students provide a strong source of interaction and collaboration. This ease of interaction has also fostered an entrepreneurial spirit that is consonant with the Stanford culture and the close partnerships with the information technology and biotech communities that characterize the surrounding Silicon Valley and Bay Area. Currently, Stanford has approximately 820 full-time faculty, 472 medical students (which includes the many students completing medical school in five or more years), 574 graduate students, approximately 900 residents, and 1,100 research or clinical postdoctoral fellows.

Impact of a failed merger on organization and governance

The culture of Stanford Medicine changed dramatically in the 1990s because of the impact of managed care. Concerns among institutional leaders about the viability of the clinical programs and the potential effects on the university should their financial performance decline resulted in significant organizational and programmatic changes. The most notable was the attempted merger of the clinical enterprises of Stanford Medicine with those of the University of California–San Francisco School of Medicine (UCSF), an effort that took place at a time when many AHCs across the nation were seeking to enhance their market negotiating power through mergers. The attempted Stanford–UCSF merger was unique in trying to bring together the resources of public and private AHCs that were some 35 miles apart and that had long been regional competitors. The details of the merger attempt are beyond the scope of this case study except to say that it quickly failed, resulting in significant financial losses for both institutions as well as some uncertainty about their missions and goals. It also created some fracture lines at Stanford between basic and clinical science faculty and, equally important, between university and AHC leaders—all of whom were concerned about the potential erosion of university resources as a result of the AHC’s financial losses. Ultimately, this contributed to a general loss of morale and direction.

As the demerger process unfolded, among the activities that occurred at the AHC was an assessment of leadership and governance. Not dissimilar to other AHCs, Stanford’s AHC had gone through various models during the prior decades. But, with both SHC and LPCH incurring significant financial losses after the demerger with UCSF, and with the many other challenges facing the faculty, a decision was made to recruit a new dean of the medical school. Subsequently, when the individual who had served as vice president for medical affairs and previously as dean elected to leave his position, it was decided to create a new governance model in which hospital and school leaders would work collaboratively and in coordination. Specifically, the school of medicine was to be led by the dean, who had been selected through a national search and who reported to the provost and the president, while the two hospitals would be led by chief executive officers (CEOs) reporting to hospital boards of directors. These three leaders were charged to work together in redefining the future of Stanford Medicine. This governance model went against the trend of a more centralized and integrated leadership model that was being put in place at many other AHCs.

Of course, there has been ongoing concern about whether a model of three separately governed entities operating under the umbrella of Stanford Medicine could, in fact, function in a coordinated and even integrated manner. Many other AHCs have elected to have a single leader, and Stanford was clearly going against the conventional wisdom and trend of AHC governance. But, as was noted earlier, each AHC is unique. For instance, at Stanford all the faculty are employed by the school of medicine and the university and report to the dean of the medical school. To facilitate coordination between the school and the hospitals, the two CEOs and dean formed the Medical Center Executive Committee, which meets regularly for medical-center-wide planning. Separate and quite rigorous interactions also occur on many other levels between the school of medicine and SHC and LPCH.

Although such a model has its limitations and challenges, it has worked successfully during the past five years, largely because the key leaders and faculty have worked diligently to make it successful. Although organizational reporting lines can influence and direct institutional behavior and decision making, the relationships between leaders are often the most important factor determining success or failure. However, even though the model at Stanford has largely worked, it must be recognized that it is likely dependent on the individuals in place and will surely need to be reassessed as changes in leadership occur. The governing bodies of the university and affiliated hospitals would determine such a decision.

Stanford Medicine Since 2001

The dean’s perspective.

The current dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine (P.A.P.) assumed that position in April 2001 and was motivated to work on behalf of academic medicine, the future training and education of physician–scientists, the support of basic science research, and to maximize opportunities for translating research into clinical outcomes. These goals established by the dean were based largely on the view that a small, private, research-intensive medical school strategically located on the campus of an outstanding university that was also physically contiguous to its two major affiliated teaching hospitals provided an outstanding environment for interdisciplinary education, training, research, and their translation to improve patient care.

Given the situation at Stanford at the time the dean was appointed (i.e., immediately after a demerger with UCSF, with the attendant fiscal challenges for both hospitals and morale issues for faculty and the university leadership), it was clear that broad institutional planning for the future was critical. There was an immediate need for a redefinition of mission along with tangible goals and objectives that would help the faculty and the institution overcome the demoralization of the prior years of discord and lack of direction. But the delivery of results and evidence of both short-term and long-term success were also needed. Hence, before his official arrival, the newly appointed dean spent the antecedent months meeting with leaders in the school, hospitals, and university trying to better learn the Stanford landscape.

On the basis of those observations and his personal reflections, the dean formulated the outline of a broad strategic plan, which was published online on his first day at Stanford (April 2, 2001) and sent to all faculty, students, trainees, and staff at the medical school (as well as various university leaders) in the first installment of the biweekly “Dean’s Newsletter” ( http://deansnewsletter.stanford.edu ). (This communication vehicle, which the dean personally writes, has become one of the signatures of his deanship at Stanford and serves as a resource to share thoughts, ideas, and events as well as to engage faculty, students, and staff in the future directions of the medical school and its AHC.) The dean realized that consistent and even constant communication is essential in keeping a broad and diverse community informed and invested in a process of change. Although he recognized that plans and objectives require wide vetting and discussion, his leadership style was and continues to be to begin the dialogue by sharing his own thoughts, even when controversial or even unpopular, with the understanding that they will be shaped and improved by critical feedback and input.

The dean spent the first several months of his tenure visiting with institutional leaders (many of whom he had met with before his arrival) to gather their reactions and recommendations for proceeding. By September 2001, he initiated a more formal strategic planning process that engaged some 10 work groups, each composed of faculty, students, and staff, which focused on key missions and enabling resources. Included were groups entitled (1) Undergraduate Medical Education, (2) Graduate Student Education, (3) Post-Graduate Education and Training, (4) Research, (5) Patient Care, (6) the Professoriate and Academic Affairs, (7) Finance and Administration, (8) Communications and Public Affairs, (9) Public Policy and Government Interactions, and (10) Philanthropy. The groups developed plans around each area and then prioritized the specific elements of each that would be addressed and the timeline that would be followed to implement them. Although some would (and did) argue that these were too many topics to focus on at one time, the leadership of the medical school believed that they were quite interlinked and that the solution to one depended on how other initiatives were handled.

Once the work groups had developed their respective vision, goals, objectives, and timelines, the leadership of the school and the AHC gathered in February 2002 at an off-site, two-day strategic planning retreat. In attendance were the senior leadership from the dean’s office, basic and clinical science chairs, hospital CEOs, and representative medical and graduate students, residents, and fellows. Several key university leaders, including the provost, the chairs of the hospital boards of directors, and university trustees were also invited. In contrast to many other strategic planning exercises, an outside consultant was not employed. The dean felt strongly that having the process run by the school leadership rather than an outside consultant would result in greater institutional ownership of both the process itself and its outcomes. Accordingly, the dean served as the chair of the first strategic leadership retreat and helped coordinate and integrate the reports from senior leaders on their work products and recommendations. He has played a similar role in the seven annual leadership retreats that have followed.

The first strategic planning retreat proved to be even more seminal to future progress than anticipated. Perhaps most important, it enabled a highly diverse group of leaders to learn about the complex interactions of an AHC (Stanford Medicine) from many different points of view and perspectives. Although it was assumed that senior members of the AHC had a broad understanding of its missions, goals, members, and constituencies, this was not fully true. Indeed, by the second day of the retreat, there was a veritable hum of recognition by basic and clinical science leaders (who had become somewhat dichotomized during the Stanford–UCSF merger and demerger) of how their goals and missions interacted and how they were different. More specifically, by reviewing in depth the issues, goals, and plans of the 10 working group areas, along with the resources needed to enable and support them, light was shed on the critical factors faced by faculty who, although part of a common community, faced different challenges and had different understandings about the interrelated roles they played in the complex quilt that defines Stanford’s AHC. Equally important, this shared experience helped to bring the communities together—something that has been reinforced with each subsequent annual strategic planning retreat. This institutional recognition and healing, even if at a high level, created a platform for positive institutional change—although deliverables to accompany the words and promissory notes were also required.

On the basis of the reports and discussions of this initial strategic planning process, the 10 work group reports were unified under the umbrella of a schoolwide strategic plan entitled “Translating Discoveries.” To ensure its transparency to the entire community, the strategic plan was published on the school Web site (see http://medstrategicplan.stanford.edu ), including all the slides and materials that had been presented at the retreat. Several town hall meetings were also held. In addition, the dean has continued to communicate updates in the Dean’s Newsletter. Recognizing the need to sustain progress, the Office of Institutional Planning was established to continue strategic planning on an ongoing basis with clearly delineated benchmarks and goals. To provide a reality-based critique of institutional progress, a high-level national advisory council comprising leaders in academic medicine, science, and policy was established. The council visits the school each year to review progress and report its findings to the president and the provost. In addition, the annual leadership retreats have continued to provide a forum for discussing accomplishments, failures, and challenges in meeting defined strategic initiatives and for recalibrating and directing an admittedly organic and evolving planning activity.

Aligning the missions

One of the highest priorities has been to align the missions in education, research, and patient care while still being respectful of their discrete and individual importance. Because Stanford University School of Medicine is a small, research-intensive medical school, it is essential that strategic choices be made about what can be done well and how it can be distinguished from its peer institutions. This was particularly necessary during the postdemerger period when morale was compromised and institutional direction was less defined. It is also imperative to recognize that as strategic choices are being developed, there needs to be awareness and recognition of the institutional culture and other factors that ultimately govern and influence recommendations that come forth—and that define whether they are accepted or rejected by the broader community. As noted earlier in this case study, in the move of the school of medicine to the Stanford University campus nearly 50 years ago, a high value was placed on discovery, innovation, and interdisciplinary education and research. The close proximity of the medical school to its teaching hospitals also created an alignment around teaching, research, and patient care. With this in mind, the strategic plan, Translating Discoveries, sought to rebase and reaffirm the medical school’s core values, missions, and objectives. On the basis of those principles and a coordinated planning process, the following has transpired largely during the past five years and, hopefully, will continue to unfold during the years ahead.

First, between 2001 and 2003, a task force, led by the senior associate dean for medical education, made fundamental changes in the medical student education programs that culminated in the New Stanford Curriculum, which commenced in the fall of 2003. This accomplishment was predicated on basic alterations in the school’s operating budget that redirected considerable general funds to education. This, too, was a major undertaking and was only made possible by the decision to move a number of work group agendas forward simultaneously.

The overarching goal of Stanford medical student education (see http://med.stanford.edu/md ) is to train and develop future leaders and scholars. To accomplish this, medical students are selected on the basis of their academic performance as well as interest and commitment to research and inquiry. The school is fortunate in having more than 6,500 applicants for its 86 incoming medical student places in each incoming year, thus permitting the school to be highly selective. All medical students are now required to complete a “Scholarly Concentration” in tandem with their other medical school requirements, and most students do spend five or more years completing the MD degree. (A Scholarly Concentration includes courses, mentoring, and research in a specific knowledge domain spanning a wider range of opportunities, such as bioethics and the humanities, bioengineering, community health and public service, health policy research, and molecular medicine, to name a few.) Because of Stanford’s financial aid programs, this extended education program does not result in additional debt, and, in fact, Stanford students graduate with among the lowest levels of indebtedness in the nation. During the past decades, approximately a third of Stanford’s medical school graduates have pursued full-time academic careers. The goal of the New Stanford Curriculum is to increase that to at least 50%. In addition, students are encouraged to pursue joint degree programs throughout the university as part of their Scholarly Concentration, and it is anticipated that, over time, the majority of students will leave Stanford with dual degrees. This more defined focus on educating and training physician scholars and scientists has had an effect on the types of students who come to Stanford and has resulted in a better alignment between students and faculty than was present before these major curricula changes and educational objectives were delineated and made apparent.

Stanford enrolls about the same number of PhD students as MD students each year. Given the strength and excellence of the basic science programs, these students are also highly selected. Although all of these students will pursue basic discovery science, and the majority will have careers in academia, there was an interest by nearly a quarter of the incoming PhD students in also educating and training a selected number of these students to pursue translational research. To help facilitate this, in 2006, a professor of neurobiology took the lead in developing a masters in medical science program that exposes a small number of PhD students to the challenges of clinical medicine. This, too, created an additional point of alignment of the school’s graduate and medical education programs.

In addition, the advanced residency program at Stanford (ARTS), led by a professor of radiology who is also the director of the molecular imaging program, has recently been introduced. The ARTS program permits clinical residents or fellows who have become committed to research to do a PhD degree. This program is modeled on the highly successful STAR program at UCLA and, along with other integrating efforts led by the senior associate dean for graduate medical education, also helps connect programs in graduate medical education with the undergraduate emphasis on training physician–scientists, scholars, and leaders.

Thus, a continuum of programs from undergraduate medical education through graduate education and postdoctoral training is focused on training future physician–scholars, scientists, and leaders and is, therefore, very much aligned with the medical school’s core missions in research and patient care—and also very consistent with the medical school’s strategic plan, Translating Discoveries. Importantly, these education and training programs have helped foster more dialogue and communication between basic and clinical science faculty and among those committed to education across the temporal continuum of medical and scientific training.

As noted earlier, Stanford’s medical school, both historically and at the present moment, is largely focused on research, discovery, and innovation. To that regard, it is imperative that planning activities not be allowed inadvertently to have a negative impact on what has truly worked well at Stanford—namely, a commitment to excellence in fundamental, discovery-based research. Perhaps also unique to the institutional environment is the abundance of interdisciplinary collaborations extending across the university—something that is very much part of Stanford’s institutional fabric. Coupled with this is the highly entrepreneurial nature of Stanford’s faculty and their willingness to engage with start-ups and other companies in Silicon Valley, especially in biotechnology and devices. This, too, has shaped the nature of the medical school. During the past seven to eight years, an informal as well as formal interface has been created under the name and umbrella of “Bio-X” to foster interactions and collaborations between and among the physical, engineering, and life sciences, largely through innovation grants and fellowships. From Bio-X has also emerged the new joint department of bioengineering (between the schools of medicine and engineering—a first at Stanford) that is rapidly becoming highly successful, mainly because of its focus on using engineering principles to study biology, and vice versa. This very strong commitment to basic science and interdisciplinary research (including bioengineering) can be viewed as a fundamental foundation for Stanford’s medical school and among its most distinguishing attributes.

Because Stanford’s medical school is a small school and part of a small AHC and cannot “do everything,” one of the most important facets of strategic planning was the selection of those areas that would best further align the school’s missions in education, research, and patient care. Accordingly, in 2002 the dean and the school’s executive committee selected five major disease/discipline themes to be the basis for the Stanford Institutes of Medicine (SIMs), each composed of 150 to 200 faculty members from across the university who engage in collaborative research and education. The SIMs were designed to foster translational discoveries and to create exciting venues for garnering philanthropic support. Specifically, the SIMs are Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine; Cancer; Cardiovascular Institute; Neuroscience; and Immunity-Transplantation-Infection. Each of these institutes was provided a limited number of positions for new recruitments, and each was expected to build its membership from the basic and clinical science faculty in the medical school as well as throughout the university. Importantly, each SIM is also connected to a center of excellence at SHC, LPCH, and the Palo Alto VA Medical Center, which, along with the medical school, form Stanford’s AHC. The SIMs were designed to foster translational discoveries and to create exciting venues for garnering philanthropic support. One of the ongoing challenges is to strike the correct balance between the fundamental role of departments and these new institutes—striving to make them synergistic wherever possible.

To further the research opportunities of the five SIMs, several cross-cutting strategic centers that complement and enhance institutional research efforts have been delineated. These are the Centers for Genomic Medicine, Imaging, Clinical Informatics, and Clinical and Translational Research.

Supporting these mission-based efforts has required significant financial and other resource planning. For example, for the next 10 to 15 years, a major transformation is planned for Stanford’s research and education facilities—as well as for both major teaching hospitals. This necessitates integrated planning not only within the medical school but also collaboratively with both major hospitals and the university. Included in this planning has been a determination of the numbers of recruitments that will be needed to fulfill the missions of the medical school and its AHC, as well as the space and resources required to house and support them, and the sources of funding that need to be employed or created to make these efforts successful.

The challenges

Although it is assumed that thoughtful and integrated planning is the best way to achieve a vision, it is also clear that many internal and external forces can alter or challenge that vision and its success. This reality calls for constant adjustment, consistent communication, and anticipation of events or forces that could thwart otherwise exciting institutional efforts. As noted at the beginning of this case study, Stanford has a blend of characteristics emanating from its size, location, history, resources, and focus. But, like every medical school, it is subject to significant regional and national challenges. Today, those include the decreased funding from the NIH, the changing cycle of payments for clinical care, and the fact that the lack of an organized health care system in the United States makes all medical schools and AHCs subject to serious compromise—financially as well as in their perceived value by the public they seek to serve. That said, the best buffer to such forces is to stay true to one’s institutional mission and uniqueness and to not lose sight of the vision and goals that have been established. In the case of Stanford, that vision is to be a premier research-intensive medical school that improves health through leadership and a collaborative approach to discovery and innovation in patient care, education, and research .

Lessons Learned

• Because AHCs are often highly matrixed by interdependent interactions and relationships between academic and clinical programs, they are also fragile and can be adversely affected when one mission gets off track or dominates the enterprise in an unhealthy way. This was true at Stanford Medicine when the merger with UCSF created distractions, financial losses, and distrust between the faculty in basic and clinical departments and between the AHC and university. To overcome these challenges, a transparent and thoughtfully articulated plan was essential.
• Overcoming a major disruption such as a failed merger requires a redefinition of the mission, goals, and objectives of both the medical school and the AHC. It requires buy-in from multiple constituencies including the basic and clinical science faculty, students, and staff. It also requires healing among communities that had felt disenfranchised or even abandoned by an institutional direction they did not understand or support.
• Communication is a key component of institutional transformation, along with clearly delineated plans that are modified and adjusted to accommodate to the various institutional constituencies and their not infrequently differing perspectives. This requires communication from the leadership that is transparent, engaging, informative, and continuous.
• Institutional progress requires plans and objectives that are not only transparent but also achieved. Institutional ownership of the planning process and its deliverables is essential and should not be delegated to outside consultants or individuals who are not responsible and accountable.
• Transformational planning is a constant process with frequent ebbs and tides. Because of the diversity of talents, interests, and commitments at an AHC, it cannot be expected or anticipated that unanimity of opinion or support will be achieved. Difficult choices need to be made, priorities set, and accountability recognized. That said, progress is more possible when the institutional planning is adjusted to fit the culture, history, and values of the institution.
• Most AHCs have to make choices about their areas of focus and institutional priorities, because few are large enough to do everything. When there are internal or external constraints, forward planning is essential. Even if the plans are not fully achieved, they provide a foundation for future adaptation and modulation. During the past several years, the school’s strategic plan, Translating Discoveries, has served as an anchor by which to align missions in education, research, and patient care.
• Understanding the inherent strengths and distinguishing features of an institution is also essential to successful planning. When Stanford’s medical school began separating its functions and missions from its parent university, it lost the trust of the university faculty and became perceived as a liability rather than as an asset. Efforts to better integrate the medical school with the missions of the university (through the BioX program, the department of bioengineering, and the Institutes of Medicine) have helped to overcome some of the misperceptions and have led to positive interactions that appeal broadly to university leaders and the community.
• Leadership models at AHCs are highly varied, and none are necessarily sustainable over time. Stanford’s separate leadership of its medical school and two major teaching hospitals provides both strengths and weaknesses. Whereas the overall mission has been served because of the positive interaction of current leaders, this model is not necessarily sustainable, and it could be compromised by resource constraints that pit one mission against another or by changes in individuals that alter the dynamics or trust of the institutional leaders.
• Having the trust and authority of the university president, provost, and board of trustees is essential, especially when major changes are contemplated or being implemented. But, this trust is also subject to change and, thus, must be constantly reinforced by evidence of progress. Objective external evaluation of this project on a regular basis serves to validate the plans and the leadership. But, it must be recognized that such external reviews can also result in changes in institutional direction or leadership as well—and, thus, this also must be anticipated.
• AHCs are likely to be especially challenged in the next decade, ironically because of the destabilization likely to occur from some of the forces that brought them into their current structure and function. For example, with the anticipated changes in Medicare and the reduced support for biomedical research from the NIH, the historically highly leveraged success of AHCs will be increasingly compromised. Likely, new models will need to be developed to sustain core missions in research and education as well as patient care. These external forces make ongoing institutional planning essential; without such efforts, inadvertent damage can easily occur. As mentioned earlier, despite their formidable strengths, AHCs are also fragile, and without planning and leadership, they can lose their focus and, potentially, their preeminence.
• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Case Studies in Leading Change for Sustainability (SUST 220)

This course teaches essential leadership orientations and effective approaches for advancing sustainability globally. It examines case studies and examples of leading change in the private sector, and in cross-sector collaborations involving government, business and non-profit organizations. The course teaches students the Connect, Adapt and Innovate (CAN) orientations and other skills which enhance students’ ability to cultivate resilience and well-being in their lives and to lead change in complex systems. Strategies and approaches studied include B Corporations, social entrepreneurship, indigenous community-business collaborations, biomimicry, circular economy, sharing economy, corporate sustainability strategy, the UN sustainable development goals, metrics of progress beyond GDP, and transformative multi-stakeholder partnerships. Through conceptual frameworks, hands-on exercises, class discussion, reflection and interactions with sustainability leaders, students practice decision-making under uncertainty, systems thinking, resilience thinking and transformative leadership. Working in teams, students will apply their learnings in collaborative class projects. To help cultivate a highly engaged course community, please send responses to the following questions to Julia Novy ([email protected]); admitted students will receive a permission code to be used for course enrollment. 1. What is one of the most significant challenges you’ve faced and how did you approach it? 2. What would you like to get out of this course? 3. What will you contribute?

Instructors: Novy , J. (PI)

• Entrepreneurship: Primary Entrepreneurship Focus
• Sustainability: Primary Sustainability Focus
• Eligibility: Graduate Students , GSB Students , Masters Students , PhD Students , Stanford Students , Undergraduate Students
• Objective(s): Enrich
• Resource Type: Courses
• Quarter(s) Available: Winter
• Updated: December 11, 2023

More Ecopreneurship Resources

Browse and filter all resources on the Resource Landscape page »

Stanford Online: The Role of Water and Energy for Circular Economies (XEIET120)

• Entrepreneurship: Light Entrepreneurship Focus
• Eligibility: Not Yet Stanford-Affiliated
• Quarter(s) Available: Fall , Spring , Summer , Winter

Stanford Online: Transforming the Grid: AI, Renewables, Storage, EVs, and Prosumers (XEIET237)

Stanford online: economics of the clean energy transition (xeiet201), mailing list.

Sign up here to receive updates on offerings from Stanford Ecopreneurship Programs.

Support and Feedback

Have questions or feedback about this website or its listed resources? Please fill out the contact form to reach a member of the Ecopreneurship team.

If you are reporting an error, omission, or problem with the website, please include the URL and a brief description of the issue.

Thank you for your message!

Stanford Ecopreneurship

655 Knight Way Stanford, CA 94305 USA

A partnership of:

Established through the Benioff Ecopreneur Fund

AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries

A new study reveals the need for benchmarking and public evaluations of AI tools in law.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the practice of law. Nearly  three quarters of lawyers plan on using generative AI for their work, from sifting through mountains of case law to drafting contracts to reviewing documents to writing legal memoranda. But are these tools reliable enough for real-world use?

Large language models have a documented tendency to “hallucinate,” or make up false information. In one highly-publicized case, a New York lawyer  faced sanctions for citing ChatGPT-invented fictional cases in a legal brief;  many similar cases have since been reported. And our  previous study of general-purpose chatbots found that they hallucinated between 58% and 82% of the time on legal queries, highlighting the risks of incorporating AI into legal practice. In his  2023 annual report on the judiciary , Chief Justice Roberts took note and warned lawyers of hallucinations. 

Across all areas of industry, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is seen and promoted as the solution for reducing hallucinations in domain-specific contexts. Relying on RAG, leading legal research services have released AI-powered legal research products that they claim  “avoid” hallucinations and guarantee  “hallucination-free” legal citations. RAG systems promise to deliver more accurate and trustworthy legal information by integrating a language model with a database of legal documents. Yet providers have not provided hard evidence for such claims or even precisely defined “hallucination,” making it difficult to assess their real-world reliability.

AI-Driven Legal Research Tools Still Hallucinate

In a new  preprint study by  Stanford RegLab and  HAI researchers, we put the claims of two providers, LexisNexis (creator of Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (creator of Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI)), to the test. We show that their tools do reduce errors compared to general-purpose AI models like GPT-4. That is a substantial improvement and we document instances where these tools provide sound and detailed legal research. But even these bespoke legal AI tools still hallucinate an alarming amount of the time: the Lexis+ AI and Ask Practical Law AI systems produced incorrect information more than 17% of the time, while Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research hallucinated more than 34% of the time.

Read the full study, Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools

To conduct our study, we manually constructed a pre-registered dataset of over 200 open-ended legal queries, which we designed to probe various aspects of these systems’ performance.

Broadly, we investigated (1) general research questions (questions about doctrine, case holdings, or the bar exam); (2) jurisdiction or time-specific questions (questions about circuit splits and recent changes in the law); (3) false premise questions (questions that mimic a user having a mistaken understanding of the law); and (4) factual recall questions (questions about simple, objective facts that require no legal interpretation). These questions are designed to reflect a wide range of query types and to constitute a challenging real-world dataset of exactly the kinds of queries where legal research may be needed the most.

Figure 1: Comparison of hallucinated (red) and incomplete (yellow) answers across generative legal research tools.

These systems can hallucinate in one of two ways. First, a response from an AI tool might just be  incorrect —it describes the law incorrectly or makes a factual error. Second, a response might be  misgrounded —the AI tool describes the law correctly, but cites a source which does not in fact support its claims.

Given the critical importance of authoritative sources in legal research and writing, the second type of hallucination may be even more pernicious than the outright invention of legal cases. A citation might be “hallucination-free” in the narrowest sense that the citation  exists , but that is not the only thing that matters. The core promise of legal AI is that it can streamline the time-consuming process of identifying relevant legal sources. If a tool provides sources that  seem authoritative but are in reality irrelevant or contradictory, users could be misled. They may place undue trust in the tool's output, potentially leading to erroneous legal judgments and conclusions.

Figure 2:  Top left: Example of a hallucinated response by Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research product. The system makes up a statement in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that does not exist (and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) held that a closely related bankruptcy deadline provision was not jurisdictional). Top right: Example of a hallucinated response by LexisNexis's Lexis+ AI. Casey and its undue burden standard were overruled by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022); the correct answer is rational basis review. Bottom left: Example of a hallucinated response by Thomson Reuters's Ask Practical Law AI. The system fails to correct the user’s mistaken premise—in reality, Justice Ginsburg joined the Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage—and instead provides additional false information about the case. Bottom right: Example of a hallucinated response from GPT-4, which generates a statutory provision that has not been codified.

RAG Is Not a Panacea

Figure 3: An overview of the retrieval-augmentation generation (RAG) process. Given a user query (left), the typical process consists of two steps: (1) retrieval (middle), where the query is embedded with natural language processing and a retrieval system takes embeddings and retrieves the relevant documents (e.g., Supreme Court cases); and (2) generation (right), where the retrieved texts are fed to the language model to generate the response to the user query. Any of the subsidiary steps may introduce error and hallucinations into the generated response. (Icons are courtesy of FlatIcon.)

Under the hood, these new legal AI tools use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to produce their results, a method that many tout as a potential solution to the hallucination problem. In theory, RAG allows a system to first  retrieve the relevant source material and then use it to  generate the correct response. In practice, however, we show that even RAG systems are not hallucination-free. 

We identify several challenges that are particularly unique to RAG-based legal AI systems, causing hallucinations. 

First, legal retrieval is hard. As any lawyer knows, finding the appropriate (or best) authority can be no easy task. Unlike other domains, the law is not entirely composed of verifiable  facts —instead, law is built up over time by judges writing  opinions . This makes identifying the set of documents that definitively answer a query difficult, and sometimes hallucinations occur for the simple reason that the system’s retrieval mechanism fails.

Second, even when retrieval occurs, the document that is retrieved can be an inapplicable authority. In the American legal system, rules and precedents differ across jurisdictions and time periods; documents that might be relevant on their face due to semantic similarity to a query may actually be inapposite for idiosyncratic reasons that are unique to the law. Thus, we also observe hallucinations occurring when these RAG systems fail to identify the truly binding authority. This is particularly problematic as areas where the law is in flux is precisely where legal research matters the most. One system, for instance, incorrectly recited the “undue burden” standard for abortion restrictions as good law, which was overturned in  Dobbs (see Figure 2). 

Third, sycophancy—the tendency of AI to agree with the user's incorrect assumptions—also poses unique risks in legal settings. One system, for instance, naively agreed with the question’s premise that Justice Ginsburg dissented in  Obergefell , the case establishing a right to same-sex marriage, and answered that she did so based on her views on international copyright. (Justice Ginsburg did not dissent in  Obergefell and, no, the case had nothing to do with copyright.) Notwithstanding that answer, here there are optimistic results. Our tests showed that both systems generally navigated queries based on false premises effectively. But when these systems do agree with erroneous user assertions, the implications can be severe—particularly for those hoping to use these tools to increase access to justice among  pro se and under-resourced litigants.

Responsible Integration of AI Into Law Requires Transparency

Ultimately, our results highlight the need for rigorous and transparent benchmarking of legal AI tools. Unlike other domains, the use of AI in law remains alarmingly opaque: the tools we study provide no systematic access, publish few details about their models, and report no evaluation results at all.

This opacity makes it exceedingly challenging for lawyers to procure and acquire AI products. The large law firm  Paul Weiss spent nearly a year and a half testing a product, and did not develop “hard metrics” because checking the AI system was so involved that it “makes any efficiency gains difficult to measure.” The absence of rigorous evaluation metrics makes responsible adoption difficult, especially for practitioners that are less resourced than Paul Weiss. 

The lack of transparency also threatens lawyers’ ability to comply with ethical and professional responsibility requirements. The bar associations of  California ,  New York , and  Florida have all recently released guidance on lawyers’ duty of supervision over work products created with AI tools. And as of May 2024,  more than 25 federal judges have issued standing orders instructing attorneys to disclose or monitor the use of AI in their courtrooms.

Without access to evaluations of the specific tools and transparency around their design, lawyers may find it impossible to comply with these responsibilities. Alternatively, given the high rate of hallucinations, lawyers may find themselves having to verify each and every proposition and citation provided by these tools, undercutting the stated efficiency gains that legal AI tools are supposed to provide.

Our study is meant in no way to single out LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters. Their products are far from the only legal AI tools that stand in need of transparency—a slew of startups offer similar products and have  made   similar   claims , but they are available on even more restricted bases, making it even more difficult to assess how they function. 

Based on what we know, legal hallucinations have not been solved.The legal profession should turn to public benchmarking and rigorous evaluations of AI tools. 

This story was updated on Thursday, May 30, 2024, to include analysis of a third AI tool, Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research.

Paper authors: Varun Magesh is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Faiz Surani is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Matthew Dahl is a joint JD/PhD student in political science at Yale University and graduate student affiliate of Stanford RegLab. Mirac Suzgun is a joint JD/PhD student in computer science at Stanford University and a graduate student fellow at Stanford RegLab. Christopher D. Manning is Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Machine Learning, Professor of Linguistics and Computer Science, and Senior Fellow at HAI. Daniel E. Ho is the William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science, Professor of Computer Science (by courtesy), Senior Fellow at HAI, Senior Fellow at SIEPR, and Director of the RegLab at Stanford University. 

More News Topics

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

When Jane Willenbring started as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, she wondered why a developed country such as the U.S. relied on blood tests to determine if the environment was contaminated with heavy metals.

Stanford geologist Jane Willenbring and students from the course The Geoscience of Environmental Justice at the East Palo Alto Community Farmers Market. (Image credit: Emily Moskal)

“It just seems so perverse and backward to me that we are not being proactive about figuring out where contamination is before it has contaminated little kids,” said Willenbring, who is now an associate professor of geological sciences at Stanford University. “Communities are the experts in their own environments. And so we are hoping to collaborate with people in those communities in order to solve problems that are really relevant to them.”

Willenbring is the instructor for a new Earth science course, GEOLSCI 20: The Geoscience of Environmental Justice (GeoEJ). Willenbring frames the course through case studies – focusing on particular places where there are contaminants in the environment that negatively impact people.

As part of the course, Willenbring and students have a stand at the East Palo Alto Community Farmers Market where they screen samples on the spot for metal contaminants like lead, cadmium, and arsenic. People can bring in soil from a community garden, compost, debris from their vacuum cleaner, toys, or spices – whatever they are interested in measuring. Spring quarter students were at the stand on the second Wednesday of every month in May and June, but they can continue to accompany Willenbring through October if they so choose.

In addition to testing contaminants that are prevalent in urban environment soils, the class also counsels people on how to mitigate some of the harm from contaminants in their environment.

Case study: East Palo Alto

Willenbring focuses on East Palo Alto because contamination intersects with populations, race, and poverty in this neighborhood.

“Like most places in the United States, minority communities have been shunted,” said Willenbring. “There’s a huge divide between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, in terms of demographics. And when you compare places that are predominantly white, to places that are predominantly minority, there’s a big difference in the environmental contamination.”

Willenbring cites highway traffic and legacy leaded gasoline exhaust as major contributors to the lead found in urban soil. Highways were built through poorer neighborhoods, Willenbring says, because wealthier households did not want them built near their dwellings.

As a result, “we have some environments where our kids are growing up that are toxic,” Willenbring said. “We are not setting people up to succeed because of the harmful impacts to cognitive ability, and just general health.”

Research has indicated that the impacts of even low levels of lead in blood can manifest in behavioral problems, substance abuse, cognitive impairment, and, possibly, crime, noted Willenbring.

X-rays shed light on contamination

Ruby Gates, ’24, an Earth science major at Stanford who took the course in spring joined the class May 11 at the farmers market. Waiting for someone to bring their soil sample by, Gates said that the academic study of environmental injustice is crucial for providing scientific backing to political movements.

“You can ground a lot of your movements within these soil or water contaminants and know that there are paths to solutions, as opposed to just saying, ‘This is an unsolvable problem, or this problem is too vast for us to have solutions for,’ ” said Gates. “I think that Earth science can really attack that and disprove some of those claims.”

As a retired smog technician approaches the stand, a class member pulls out the X-ray scanner. “The gun is sort of like elemental vision,” Willenbring said. The scanner peers through plastic bags. In 120 seconds, the detector reveals heavy metals that are present in the half-pint samples of sediment.

The results aren’t perfect, but they can tell scientists whether a sample is within a range of concern. Willenbring recommends that sample owners with high results send the sample to the Environmental Protection Agency for more accurate results. Then, the class shares mitigation strategies. If someone has soil with high lead levels, they tell them to cover it with compost or create raised beds with new soil for a garden.

Willenbring says a key part of community engagement is voluntary behavior on both sides. Rather than testing the produce being sold at the market, for example, she wants the community to come to her.

Education rooted in community service

The course was born from Willenbring’s ruminations about a recent study of undergraduate STEM majors, specifically undergraduates in the geosciences. The study found that a primary motivation for respondents was choosing a career that mattered to people.

“Altruistic motives were important to undergraduates; less so was this commonly accepted idea that people chose a geoscience major to explore nature and work outside,” said Willenbring. “I wanted to create a course that offered opportunities to work with people and communities on real problems.”

Her course isn’t the only way to get involved. There’s an environmental justice working group at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability that Willenbring recommends. According to her, the new school is creating a new model for how science can be a change maker rather than simply finding out how something works. Stanford also offers other environmental justice courses, as well as a new minor .

“It’s something that’s on the minds of students and a lot of faculty as well,” Willenbring said.

Willenbring said the class is unique because it offers a different approach to science.

“The class will flip the way science has traditionally been done in favor of application-driven motives,” Willenbring said. “By asking how our skills and toolboxes will be used to solve real-world problems that are affecting people, we address environmental injustice.”

We're sorry but you will need to enable Javascript to access all of the features of this site.

Stanford Online

Csi:me case studies in medical errors.

SOM-YCME0029

Stanford School of Medicine

This CME activity aims to improve the practicing physicians’ and other health care providers’ knowledge about the types of medical errors that can occur and different methods of mitigating and/or preventing these events from occurring by utilizing The Joint Commission guidelines and standards pertaining to the National Patient Safety Goals.  The activity is a web-enabled, interactive program that permits the participant to work on medical events by investigating and analyzing root causes and/or contributing factors to comprehend how medical errors can occur. These are the skills that can be utilized on a daily basis by healthcare providers to ensure safe patient care. 

• Integrate NPSG requirements in clinical practice in the areas of patient identification, Universal Protocol, labeling and medication reconciliation.
• Develop practical skills to improve team communication and apply these skills when medical errors occur and to prevent medical errors in the future, i.e. immediate feedback.
• Evaluate root causes and contributing factors that lead to various medical errors.
• Develop skills to apply in practice the appropriate procedures or steps to assure that such events are prevented in the future.

Time to Complete

To obtain cme credits.

• Review the information below and complete the entire activity.
• Complete the CME Post-test, CME Assessment Survey, and CME Activity Completion Statement at the end of the activity.
• You must receive a score of 75% or higher on the post-test in order to receive a certificate. You will have two attempts to answer each multiple-choice question (or one attempt for questions with only two options) to pass the post-test.
• Once you attest to completing the entire online activity and have scored 75% or higher on the post-test, your certificate will be generated automatically and will be available on your  Dashboard page.
• Physicians will be awarded  AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™.  All other participants will receive a Certificate of Participation.

Hardware/Software Requirements

• Computer with Internet connection
• Current version of Chrome, Firefox or Safari browser. You must have javascript enabled.

Accreditation and Designation of Credits

The Stanford University School of Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education ( ACCME ) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

The Stanford University School of Medicine designates this enduring material for a maximum of 1.25  AMA PRA Category 1 Credits ™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

The American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) accepts  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit  TM  from organizations accredited by the ACCME. Please check with your state’s credentialing board for their requirements.

Commercial Support Acknowledgement

Stanford University School of Medicine has received and has used undesignated program funding from Pfizer, Inc. to facilitate the development of innovative CME activities designed to enhance physician competence and performance and to implement advanced technology.  A portion of this funding supports this activity.

Cultural and Linguistic Competency

California Assembly Bill 1195 requires continuing medical education activities with patient care components to include curriculum in the subjects of cultural and linguistic competency. It is the intent of the bill, which went into effect July 1, 2006, to encourage physicians and surgeons, CME providers in the State of California and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to meet the cultural and linguistic concerns of a diverse patient population through appropriate professional development. The planners and speakers of this CME activity have been encouraged to address cultural issues relevant to their topic area. The Stanford University School of Medicine Multicultural Health Portal also contains many useful cultural and linguistic competency tools including culture guides, language access information and pertinent state and federal laws.

You are encouraged to visit the portal: https://laneguides.stanford.edu/multicultural-health

CME Privacy Policy

Click here to review the Stanford Center for CME Privacy Policy

• Engineering
• Computer Science & Security
• Business & Management
• Energy & Sustainability
• Data Science
• Medicine & Health
• Explore All
• Technical Support
• Master’s Application FAQs
• Master’s Student FAQs
• Master's Tuition & Fees
• Grades & Policies
• Graduate Application FAQs
• Graduate Student FAQs
• Graduate Tuition & Fees
• Community Standards Review Process
• Academic Calendar
• Exams & Homework FAQs
• Enrollment FAQs
• Tuition, Fees, & Payments
• Custom & Executive Programs
• Free Online Courses
• Free Content Library
• School of Engineering
• Graduate School of Education
• Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability
• School of Humanities & Sciences
• Stanford Human Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI)
• Graduate School of Business
• Stanford Law School
• School of Medicine
• Learning Collaborations
• Stanford Credentials
• What is a digital credential?
• Grades and Units Information
• Our Community
• Get Course Updates

Case Studies

AIA Headquarters Renovation

After almost fifty years of operation, the American Institute of Architects decided to update their headquarters to meet the AIA 2030 Commitment goals of Net Zero Carbon by 2030. The project included a novel community carbon reduction approach, where the AIA donated PV panels to a local Habitat for Humanity project to offset any unavoidable embodied emissions associated with the renovation.

Exelixis – 1951 HBP

A 220,000 square foot commercial office building located in Alameda, CA. This all-electric building uses energy efficiency to target LEED Gold. With almost 50% of its energy consumption generated by onsite solar, and the remaining energy purchased from carbon-free sources, this building has fully decarbonized operations.

Gundersen Healthcare: Sparta Campus

A 35,000 square foot medical clinic that achieved LEED Gold through the use of energy efficient design. The Sparta Clinic’s energy consumption is offset by 30% with onsite rooftop solar, and the remainder of its electrical demand is purchased from the nearby Xcel Energy community solar garden. These energy sources, combined with the all electric design, make all of its operations 100% carbon free.

Louisiana Office Carbon Retrofit

A 130,000 square foot renovation of a commercial office for a public client in Louisiana. The design team reduced energy use by nearly 70% through the all-electric, energy efficient design. Particular attention was also paid to quantify and minimize embodied carbon by 85% in service of Architecture 2030 goals.

St. Peter’s Residential

A 45,000 square foot, 50-unit multi-family affordable housing building located in New Orleans designed to primarily house veterans, specifically single mothers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. St. Peter’s is a low-cost Zero Net Energy Building that gets 100% of its very low energy demand from onsite solar PV and battery storage, allowing for fully decarbonized operations.

Other Case Studies

We’d be happy to accept teaching materials to the Building Decarbonization Learning Accelerator.

BDLA Monthly Webinar: Boosting Energy Autonomy Through Decarbonization with Hip Hop Caucus

The Stanford Building Decarbonization Learning Accelerator (BDLA) will host a 1-hour webinar with experts from RMI and Stanford University.

BDLA Monthly Webinar: Cooking Up Clarity – Insights on Gas Stoves and their Influence on Indoor Air Quality

BDLA Monthly Webinar: Building Decarbonization Goes Mainstream – How a Quarter of the US Adopted Electrification Policies

The Stanford Building Decarbonization Learning Accelerator (BDLA) will host a 1-hour webinar with experts from the Building Decarbonization Coalition.

BDLA Monthly Webinar: Build Beyond Zero

40% of global emissions come from the built environment, yet we now see a path beyond zero to buildings absorbing gigatons of carbon every year. Bruce King gave a talk about building technologies both new and ancient that can provide all of our needs as well as help heal the climate.

BDLA Monthly Webinar: Accelerating Decarbonization with Equity and the Risks of Not

However, decarbonization has the opportunity to exacerbate existing inequalities in health and income or start to address these inequities. This webinar reviewed the risks of continuing as the industry has over the last decade and how equitable solutions can accelerate decarbonization in residential and commercial properties.

Data sharing

• Requirements and policies
• What to share
• How to share
• When to share
• Where to share: choose a repository

When you publish links to your data online, you want to make sure that information will always be correct. If you publish your data in a place that's not going to be accessible in the future, others may discover that their efforts to find, view, and reuse your data are futile.

For this reason, we strongly recommend that you share your data using a trusted digital repository , instead of sharing data via personal or research group websites. 

The case study below is a perfect example of this.

In 2009, former Stanford researcher Malin Pinsky published an article in the journal  Conservation Biology.  The article linked to his personal web space at Stanford, from which an additional list of sources and a database with citations could be downloaded. 

When Malin left Stanford, his web space at Stanford was permanently disabled. The links in the  Conservation Biology  article no longer directed researchers to the data they were looking for. Instead, they saw only the message above that the page was not found. Contacting the site administrator or HelpSU as suggested would not have gotten anyone the data, because it was no longer there.

Malin's data files were some of the first research deposited in the Stanford Digital Repository. The files are now available on  their own persistent URL (PURL) page , so Malin's data will be accessible for a long time to come, no matter where he heads to next. (We even got the published link redirected to the PURL!)

If you have data that you would like to make easily accessible to others now and in the future,  contact us  about using the Stanford Digital Repository.

* Article reference: Pinsky, M. L., Springmeyer, D. B., Goslin, M. N. and Augerot, X. (2009), Range-Wide Selection of Catchments for Pacific Salmon Conservation. Conservation Biology, 23: 680–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01156.x. Available at  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01156.x

• << Previous: Where to share: choose a repository
• Last Updated: Jan 23, 2024 8:24 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/data-sharing

• Stanford University
• Past Events

2024 Digital Humanities Research Showcase

• Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis (CESTA)

Monday, June 3, 2024 12pm to 7pm PT

Building 160, Wallenberg Hall, 4th Floor, Back Area 450 Jane Stanford Way, Building 160, Stanford, CA 94305 View map

This event is open to: Students Faculty Staff

Request disability accommodations and access info

• Share 2024 Digital Humanities Research Showcase on Facebook
• Share 2024 Digital Humanities Research Showcase on Twitter
• Share 2024 Digital Humanities Research Showcase on LinkedIn

This event is over.

Event details:.

12-12:30 pm  -- Lunch, Welcome Remarks, and Presentation on "A Decade of CESTA Data"

12:30-3:30 pm  -- DH Research Fellows' Showcase

12:30 - 1:50 PM :  The Meaning and Measurement of Place

with presentations from: 

Matt Randolph (PhD Candidate in History):  "Bringing AI to Archibald Grimké's Archive: A Case Study of Artificial Intelligence for Histories of Race and Slavery"

This digital project builds upon two years of research collaborations connecting Stanford's History Department with historians and archivists at Howard University in Washington, D.C. We have reviewed, digitized, and transcribed a corpus of letters from Howard's archives relating to African American intellectual and diplomat Archibald Grimké and his family in Washington, D.C. (particularly his then teenage daughter Angelina) as well as Grimké’s correspondence with Dominican leaders and U.S. State Department officials. Through Google's AI software, Gemini, our team has produced transcriptions of handwritten documents that were photographed in the archives. I will present the opportunities and challenges we navigated in leveraging artificial intelligence tools for archival work and historical research methods. 

Ellis Schriefer (PhD Candidate in Iberian and Latin American Cultures):  "Narratives and Neighborhoods: Unpacking Media Representations of El Raval and Lavapiés with NLP"

In my talk, I will be discussing how I used NLP (specifically topic modeling and word frequency) to better understand how the mainstream Spanish media outlet, El País, has depicted two working-class, immigrant neighborhoods (El Raval in Barcelona and Lavapiés in Madrid) in articles from 1996-2024.  

Kelly Boles (PhD Candidate in Education):  "The Spatiality of Teacher Professional Learning Ecologies"

Geospatial variability is a crucial, yet often omitted, contextual aspect of teaching and learning. In this talk, I illustrate how spatial data science methods reveal important locale- and region-based inequities in STEM teachers' professional learning opportunities. Specifically, I present selected findings that show how teachers' learning opportunities vary in nature and quality across geographic space. I argue that both students and teachers are learners, whose learning opportunities are shaped by the shared communities and contexts in which they work, live, and attend school. Honoring these shared experiences suggests a new approach to the study of teacher quality and evaluation, particularly as applied to practitioners in underserved communities.

2:10 - 3:30 PM:  Categories and Connections in Knowledge Systems  with presentations from: 

Anuj Amin (PhD Candidate in Religious Studies):  "Divine Prisons and Sacred Bindings: Late Ancient Aramaic Incantation Bowls"

During my presentation, which will be recorded over Zoom, I will discuss a general background of my corpus, previous scholarship on the material, how my methodology is unique, the creation of my database, the analytics performed, and future directions. 

Junyi Tao (MS Student in Symbolic Systems):  "Three Layers of the Knowledge Landscape: A Case Study of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

This project takes a deeper look into the widely influential Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and reveals three layers of the philosophy landscape it presents. The first layer is the content of entries, each offering an overview of a philosophical topic or thinker. Beneath this lies a layer of citations that manifest the dialogues among scholars within the community. From this, we start to see more clearly how social power is intertwined with the narrative of intellectual history—for example, whose voices count? The last one is the layer of meta-content assigned by the SEP’s authors and editors, such as links between related entries, which shapes the architecture of this “knowledge system”. At the end of this talk, I would also like to share some methodological reflections.

Elaine Lai (PhD Candidate in Religious Studies): " Intertextual Heatmap of the  Secret Tantra of the Sun: Blazing Luminous Matrix of Samantabhadrī "

The  Tantra of the Sun  was the first Buddhist scripture in the tradition of the Great Perfection to feature an all-female cast. Traditional histories claim that this tantra is a major source text for a textual cycle/tradition that emerged in the 14th century called the  Heart Essence of the Ḍākinī , where the feminine is likewise elevated. In this talk, I share how I built an intertextual heatmap from scratch to visualize how and where the  Tantra of the Sun  is quoted and referenced throughout the  Heart Essence of the Ḍākin ī and its largest commentarial cycle. I share a tutorial of the final heatmap product where the user can toggle between citational matches and see for themselves how they move through either corpus of literature. I end with broader issues of methodology, including how I chose to handle problematic OCR renderings, and the inevitability of having to engage in close readings of textual materials alongside the use of different technologies.

4-6 pm  -- Faculty Research Presentations

with presentations from:

Patricia Alessandrini (Music Department); Bridget Algee-Hewitt (Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity); Mark Algee-Hewitt (English Department); Nora Barakat (History Department); Patricia Blessing (Department of Art and Art History); Joel Cabrita (History Department); Giovanna Ceserani (Classics Department); Robin Chapdelaine (Center for African Studies); Nicole Coleman (Stanford Libraries); Zephyr Frank (History Department); Sarah Levine (School of Education); Lerone Martin (Departments of African and African American Studies, and Religious Studies); Helena Miton (School of Business); Grant Parker (Departments of Classics, and African and African American Studies); Felicia Smith (Stanford Libraries); Richard Roberts (History Department); Alice Staveley (English Department); Elaine Treharne (English Department); Ali Yaycioglu (History Department)

6-7 pm  -- Undergraduate Researchers' Poster Fair and Reception

with 16 Undergraduate Researchers who worked on CESTA projects during 2024 Winter and Spring quarters!

Your browser does not support iframes.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Landscape infrastructure : case studies by SWA

Available online.

• EBSCO Academic Comprehensive Collection

More options

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Reading the recent work of SWA / Charles Waldheim
• Landscape infrastructure: systems of continguency, flexibility, and adaptability / Ying-Yu Hung
• Infrastructural ecologies: fluid, biotic, contingent / Pierre Bélanger
• Second nature: new territories for the exiled / Adriaan Geuze and Matthew Skjonsberg
• Modulating infrastructural flows to create open space / Alexander Robinson
• Buffalo Bayou Promenade + Rosemont Pedestrian Bridge> Houston Texas
• ANning River New South Town> Miyi Country, China
• California Academy of Sciences> San Francisco, California, USA
• Ningbo Eoc-Corridor> Ningbo, China
• Lewis Avenue Corridor> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
• Gubei Pedestrian Promenade> Shanghai, China
• Milton Street Park> Los Angeles, California
• Shunde New City> Shunde, China
• Katy trail> Dallas, Texas, USA
• Beizhi River waterfront> Fuyang, China
• Central Open Space in Mac competition> Chungcheongnam-Do Province, South Korea
• Jeffrey Open Space Trail> Irvine, California, USA
• Master plan for the North Lake Region of Chongming Island> Shanghai, China
• Kyung-Chun closed railway renovation> Seoul, South Africa.

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Education | 13 Stanford students arrested after…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Today's e-Edition

• Latest News
• Environment
• Transportation

Education | 13 arrested after pro-Palestinian students barricade themselves inside Stanford University president’s office

Stanford says suspensions coming and participating seniors won’t graduate.

The protesters, many of them students, said in a statement that they barricaded themselves in protest of the university’s refusal to negotiate with the organizers of a campus encampment dubbed the People’s University for Palestine. Protesters at the camp have demanded that Stanford divest from companies and other entities supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

Those arrested included 12 pro-Palestine activists and a student reporter from the Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper reported , and were detained at the Santa Clara County Jail as of Wednesday afternoon. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s deputies assisted Stanford’s public safety officers in removing the students from the president’s office in the heart of the Stanford campus. The Santa Clara County district attorney’s office said Wednesday that it had not yet received the reports necessary to make charging decisions.

Stanford officials said discipline for occupying students would be severe and will include suspensions.

“We are appalled that our students chose to take this action, and we will work with law enforcement to ensure that they face the full consequences allowed by law,” said Dee Mostofi, a Stanford spokesperson. “All arrested students will be immediately suspended, and in case any of them are seniors, they will not be allowed to graduate.”

Across the Bay Area and beyond, protests about the war in Gaza have roiled college campuses — intensifying in recent weeks. The police response at Stanford follows the arrest of at least 80 pro-Palestine activists from a UC Santa Cruz encampment last week. A spokesperson for the Santa Cruz County district attorney’s office said that police had not yet sent the information needed to bring charges. Last month, at least 12 pro-Palestine demonstrators were arrested at UC Berkeley.

Shortly after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel triggered an intense military response by Israel in Gaza, Stanford students set up their first encampment in White Plaza, a free-speech area, which lasted through February.

The war in Gaza has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Wednesday’s occupation of the university’s executive offices lasted over two hours. The students put up signs “renaming” Stanford University President Richard Saller’s office “Dr. Adnan’s Office,” after a Palestinian physician who died in an Israeli jail. The group called itself an “autonomous group of Stanford University students.”

Protestors entered the office at around 6 a.m. and were cleared out after 8 a.m., according to Mostofi. She said an officer was injured after being shoved by protesters.

The protest group said students have repeatedly unsuccessfully tried to engage the administration. More than 20 rallies have been held since October, and they have included undergraduate and graduate students, alumni and faculty. The group said the university has failed to meet any of their demands.

Another encampment was set up on April 25 at White Plaza, where hundreds of students had been camping out to make the same demands .

But shortly after the arrests at the president’s office, members of the school’s Department of Public Safety and a private security company began dismantling the encampment. They also set up barricades in the area to prevent students from setting up a new encampment.

An officer told students that they would be able to claim their belongings confiscated from the encampment within 90 days.

“This is obviously an act of extreme cowardice. It’s very despicable for us to see the Stanford administration taking down our encampment, our beautiful community space in this way,” said a Stanford student spokesperson for the encampment, who did not want to be identified for fear of sanctions.

The student disowned the graffiti and damage to the president’s office building earlier in the morning, insisting that was a separate group not linked to the encampment.

“That was separate from any student action. It was not planned,” she said. “The messages that we push for in the movement remain united. But that (the graffiti) is not something that students planned.”

By the time law enforcement removed them, the building had “extensive damage to the interior and exterior of the building,” Mostofi said.

“We have consistently emphasized the need for constructive engagement and peaceful protest when there is a disagreement in views,” Mostofi said. “This was not a peaceful protest, and actions such as what occurred this morning have no place at Stanford.”

Mostofi said the building would be closed for the remainder of the day.

On Wednesday afternoon, dozens of people waited outside the Santa Clara County Jail in sweltering heat for those arrested to be processed. Natalie Zahr, an assistant professor of psychiatry, was among the faculty members who came out to support student activists.

“Everyone is very frustrated. We feel like it’s not fair,” said Zahr, a member of the organization Faculty for Justice in Palestine.

She said while they are trying to confirm the possible presence of “outside agitators,” the group is working to support students who were arrested but were peacefully protesting. “For the students who live on campus, where are they going to go? We’re going to do what we can to support them.”

Claudia and Carlos Gonzalez of Santa Cruz County were also waiting outside the jail for their son, who was among the arrested protestors.

“We were worried, but I was not mad,” Claudia said. The couple, who immigrated to the United States from El Salvador, had lived through the Salvadoran Civil War and supported their son’s right to protest.

“He really cares about people,” she said. “He has a really big heart and wishes to change the world.”

• Report an error
• Policies and Standards

More in Education

Education | Judge orders temporary halt to UC academic workers’ strike over war in Gaza

Local News | New library comes to North Sunnyvale, replaces old community pool

Education | Cal State University recommends integrating Cal Maritime, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Crime and Public Safety | Man admits sexual assault of 3rd grader in California elementary school bathroom

MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS

• Law.com Pro
• Law.com Pro Mid-Market
• Global Leaders In Law
• Global Leaders In Law Advisers
• Private Client Global Elite

MEDIA BRANDS

• Law.com Radar
• American Lawyer
• Corporate Counsel
• National Law Journal
• Legal Tech News
• New York Law Journal
• The Legal Intelligencer
• The Recorder
• Connecticut Law Tribune
• Daily Business Review
• Daily Report
• Delaware Business Court Insider
• Delaware Law Weekly

New Jersey Law Journal

• Texas Lawyer
• Supreme Court Brief
• Litigation Daily
• Deals & Transactions
• Law Firm Management
• Legal Practice Management

Legal Technology

• Intellectual Property
• Cybersecurity
• Law Journal Newsletters
• Analyst Reports
• Diversity Scorecard
• Kirkland & Ellis
• Latham & Watkins
• Baker McKenzie
• Verdict Search
• Law.com Compass
• China Law & Practice
• Insurance Coverage Law Center
• Law Journal Press
• Lean Adviser Legal
• Legal Dictionary
• Law Catalog
• Expert Witness Search
• Recruiters Directory
• Editorial Calendar

Legal Newswire

• Lawyer Pages
• Law Schools
• Women in Influence (WIPL)
• GC Profiles
• How I Made It
• Instant Insights
• Special Reports
• Resource Center
• LMA Member Benefits
• Legal Leaders
• Trailblazers
• Expert Perspectives
• Lawjobs.com
• Book Center
• Professional Announcements
• Asset & Logo Licensing

Content Source

Content Type

About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Site Map

Advertise  |  Customer Service  |  Terms of Service

FAQ  |  Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 ALM Global, LLC.

All Rights Reserved.

• Law Topics Litigation Transactional Law Law Firm Management Law Practice Management Legal Technology Intellectual Property Cybersecurity Browse All ›
• LegalTech Event (current)
• LegalWeek Event Perspectives (current)
• All Sections Events Cybersecurity & Privacy Legal Operations Products & Software Cases & Legislation Updates From the Experts Vendor Updates Expert Witness Search Lawjobs.com CLE Center Book Center Law.com Radar Public Notices Sitemap

The Real Issue Beyond the Stanford Study’s Gaffes: Where Are Legal Tech’s Benchmarks?

Stanford’s study assessing gen AI-powered legal research tools received pushback from the industry for flawed methodology. But the real issue may lie within the lack of transparency from legal tech providers into how exactly their tools work.

May 29, 2024 at 06:27 PM

9 minute read

Isha Marathe

Legal Tech Reporter

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing.

A Stanford pre-print research study, “ Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools ,” released last week found that generative AI-powered tools from legal research behemoths Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis hallucinated more than 17% of the time—significantly more often than the vendors let on.

But soon after the paper was released, much of the legal community was quick to reject it, claiming faulty methodology. The tumult highlights mistakes on Stanford’s part, certainly, but also brings to light the smoke and mirrors that have long existed within some of legal’s key vendor practices.

Want to continue reading? Become an ALM Digital Reader for Free!

Benefits of a digital membership.

• Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
• Access to the entire ALM network of websites
• Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
• Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
• Search by a wide range of topics

Register Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

*May exclude premium content

You Might Like

Ontario Bar Association Launches Innovator-in-Residence Initiative to Boost AI Use in Everyday Practice

By Gail J. Cohen

3 Key Things to Know About the New Colorado AI Act

By Isha Marathe

Judges React to 11th Circuit's Gen AI Use: 'Creative,' Occasionally 'Misleading,' and 'Brave'

DoNotPay Reaches Settlement in CA Unlawful Practice of Law Class Action

By Kat Black

Trending Stories

A Famous Big Law Combination, 20 Years Later—And Its Lessons For Today's Merger Market

The American Lawyer

11th Circuit Judge Uses ChatGPT in Deciding Appeal, Encourages Others to Consider It

Legaltech News

Gov. Murphy Signs Controversial OPRA Changes Into Law: I Take 'Corruption and Trust in Our Democracy Extremely Seriously'

Are These Judges Too Slow? New Data and Nuances

Deacons Sexual Harassment Saga Takes a Turn as Judge Lifts Anonymity and Ex-Partner Sues for Defamation

International Edition

• People, Places & Profits, Part III: Are Law Firm Financial Metrics Keeping Pace With Inflationary Growth?
• People, Places & Profits, Part II: A Look at the Geographic Destinations of the Am Law 200
• How Have The Second Hundred Firms Fared Since Outperforming the Am Law 100 Last Year?

Featured Firms

Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates P.C. 75 Ponce De Leon Ave NE Ste 101 Atlanta , GA 30308 (470) 294-1674 www.garymartinhays.com

Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone 2 Oliver St #608 Boston , MA 02109 (857) 444-6468 www.marksalomone.com

Smith & Hassler 1225 N Loop W #525 Houston , TX 77008 (713) 739-1250 www.smithandhassler.com

Presented by BigVoodoo

More From ALM

• Events & Webcasts

The Daily Report is honoring those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.

Consulting Magazine identifies consultants that have the biggest impact on their clients, firms and the profession.

The National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers recognizes U.S.-based law firms performing exemplary work on behalf of plaintiffs.

Health Law Associate CT Shipman is seeking an associate to join our national longstanding health law practice. Candidates must have t...

Shipman & Goodwin LLP is seeking two associates to expand our national commercial real estate lending practice. Candidates should have ...

Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...

Professional Announcement

MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS

Subscribe to Legaltech News

Don't miss the crucial news and insights you need to make informed legal decisions. Join Legaltech News now!

Already have an account? Sign In

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

Stride: The Early Sales Decisions

Stride was founded in April 2016 and offered a software that gathered data from disparate sources and organized such data in one platform with a simple interface, with the goal of enabling marketing teams to more easily develop and launch personalized marketing campaigns. Elise Bergeron, the start-up’s cofounder and Chief Operating Officer, had been confronted with multiple difficult decisions since the early days of the company. Some of the most pivotal of those decisions involved the sales aspect of the business.

First, she and her cofounders needed to figure out what should be the company’s target market. One potential approach involved evaluating the benefits and challenges presented by small, mid-sized and large. It was not uncommon for start-ups to first focus on small customers and gradually seek larger ones, as it expanded its product’s feature sets, but Bergeron and her cofounders were not sure such approach would be the best for Stride. Alternatively, they could choose based on a use case standpoint: marketing teams in B2B and B2C companies had different needs for the product – should Stride focus on one or the other as its target market? Bergeron was not convinced.

As of the second half of 2017, Stride’s sales cycle had finally developed some patterns and its cofounders felt increasingly confident about their sales choices. Unexpectedly, however, an opportunity that could take the incipient business to the next level appeared. But it involved complex negotiations and high levels of uncertainty; it also had the potential to initiate a chain reaction affecting Stride’s entire sales organization. Was it really a unique opportunity or just a time-killing shiny object? Bergeron had to decide, once again.

Learning Objective

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships