I confess, I was hoping that STEP, being elite and all, would be a little more circumspect about its Dewey worship. Admit Day crushed my hopes.

I was, as the above link shows, traumatized by reality. No matter how much I thought I'd prepared for the progressive approach, I ran away screaming when faced with the truth. (Oh, the humanity. The melodrama of it all. In fact, the staff just thought they had a room of true believers and acted accordingly. They actually became much less squishy over the year, and I've wondered if part of that change was their consideration towards me. If so, thanks. By the end of the year I was much more comfortable, and not only because I'd grown calluses.)

I didn't go to Admit Day to cause trouble. I didn't show up at Stanford's Admit day with my little anti-Dewey button:

pinned onto my "SAGE ON STAGE" tee-shirt, howling "PROGRESSIVISM SUCKS" at every lull in the conversation.

After my brief conversations with the math C&I instructor exacerbated my fears, I was planning to leave.

Ironically, the real problem didn't occur with the C&I instructor, but at lunch--after I'd been convinced to stay--during a conversation with a post-doc, the practicum second-in-command. Unlike other conversations, I never documented this conversation at the time, but here's my recollection:

Postdoc: So, are you planning on accepting [the offer of admission]?

Me: I don't know. I didn't realize we'd be at placement all summer, which means I can't work. That chops a good 7-10K off my income for the year, which means I need to borrow more money.

PD, sympathetically: Oh, yes. I understand. You're attending the session on loan forgiveness, aren't you?

Me: Yes. But you know, I'm incredibly old to be taking on all this debt. And the fact is, I'm not totally on board with the ideology taught in ed schools. There's nothing wrong with it, I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm just really worried that I'm taking on a ton of debt for an educational program that I don't always agree with. Maybe it's better to take on less debt to go to UC Santa Cruz and take on less debt for an educational program I don't always agree with.

PD: That's a perfectly valid financial decision. I think it's important that students don't take on too much debt.

Me: Yep. On the other hand, I would dearly love to go to Stanford. I've lived here most of my life and to finish up (god willing) my education at such a great school would make going back to school worthwhile. Plus, teaching has good benefits and retirement so even if all my loans didn't pay off, I would have a pension to keep writing off the debt.

PD (laughs): There's that, too! But do you think you'd have trouble with the beliefs we have here?

Me (suddenly aware that I was talking to a staffer): Trouble? No. It's just hard to swallow the costs, you know? I'll be honest, I'd be happier if I could teach without going back to school. It's frustrating how tough it is to be a teacher and any way I do it, it's a lot of money. But please don't think I'm planning on causing trouble.

PD: Will you keep an open mind as we try to convince you?

Me: Oh, absolutely. Please don't be concerned about that.

Here's what I'm certain of, and what Rachel Lotan confirmed when she brought this discussion up in the meeting: I was very clear that it wasn't STEP I disagreed with, but the entire guiding philosophy behind ed schools, and I said without question that I would keep an open mind.

So if I understood the reality of ed school, the mandate for certain beliefs, and I did, why on earth would I answer frankly about my skepticism?

First and most obviously, I'm a total moron. Or, as softened for Jay Mathew's article, "fatally truthful".

Second, though, context is all. In my head, I wasn't talking about my disagreements with the program. I was talking about money. So I wasn't thinking about the details.

But that was the extent of the conversation, and I didn't pick up any signals from the PD that I'd screwed up. Of course, I was busy worrying about money, so maybe I missed them.

I left Admit Day and spent the next three weeks seriously considering UC Santa Cruz. I asked questions, scheduled a visit, and wondered if I would regret turning down Stanford. Maybe I was exaggerating the problems with student teaching, and maybe in the long run, I would miss the opportunity of attending Stanford more than I'd miss the money.

So in early April, I emailed Rachel asking a few questions about the student teaching schedule. I expected her to email answers, but instead she asked me in for a meeting. I've described the meeting many times.

I often wonder what would have happened if I hadn't gone to Admit Day. I would probably have accepted Stanford. Without that incident, Rachel wouldn't have tried to rescind my admission.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the OMG letter, gold standard proof of animus. I'm not sure if I would have contacted FIRE based solely on the blog issue, and I am reasonably sure that FIRE's letters told Stanford that at some point, this would all go public. Dean Stipek never "found" one way or another on any of my complaints, but would any administrator want to deny me a credential or expel me based on Rachel's assessment given that letter and what it revealed?

That's why I filed the grievance. I was desperately hoping that someone outside the STEP cocoon would see the import of that letter and do damage control. But without that letter, I really wonder: would I have been sent back to Rachel and my supervisor to last out the year? And would I have made it?