In 2016, SPICE launched its first regional online program in Japan. Today, SPICE works with local partners across Japan to offer programs that engage students in the study of U.S. society and culture, U.S.–Japan relations, and global issues. Students develop their perspectives through discussion and research and present their work at the end of their courses.

In August 2026, SPICE held four award ceremonies at Stanford University. Eighteen honorees from eight regional programs and one school-based program were recognized for their accomplishments during the 2025–26 year, including the quality of their final research projects. SPICE Director Dr. Gary Mukai welcomed guests and delivered closing remarks at each event.

The students’ visits extended beyond the ceremonies. Depending on their itineraries, groups explored San Francisco, toured Stanford’s campus, visited technology companies such as Google, Apple, and Sony, and spent time at the Computer History Museum. These experiences gave students opportunities to learn about the Bay Area and connect what they had studied online with places and people they encountered in person.

Image

The first ceremony was held on August 6, 2026, for students from Stanford e-Kobe and Stanford e-Minamata. Opening remarks were delivered by Consul Asami Chikae, Consul for Science, Technology and Education at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco. Stanford e-Kobe instructor Alison Harsch and Stanford e-Minamata instructor Natalie Montecino also offered opening comments before the honorees gave their presentations. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Kobe

• Sakura Oe; Kobe Municipal Fukiai High School
• Shotaro Take; Kobe Municipal Fukiai High School
   

Stanford e-Minamata

• Rento Hiraishi; Minamata High School
• Asuka Umekawa; Minamata High School
   

Image

In the second ceremony, on August 10, 2026, top students from Stanford e-Fukuoka and Stanford e-Oita were honored. Aya Nakajima, Advisor for Cultural and Educational Affairs at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, delivered opening remarks. Kasumi Yamashita, instructor of both Stanford e-Fukuoka and Stanford e-Oita, also offered opening comments before the honorees presented their work. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Fukuoka

• Konoha Inoyusu; Fukuoka Daichi High School
• Haruki Kenyon; Kurume High School
   

Stanford e-Oita

• Mao Hieida; Nakatsu Minami High School
• Taichi Morikawa; Takada High School
   

Image

During the third ceremony, on August 18, 2026, students from Stanford e-Hiroshima and Stanford e-Yamaguchi were recognized. Consul Mayu Hagiwara, Director of the Japan Information and Culture Center at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, offered opening remarks. Stanford e-Hiroshima instructor Rylan Sekiguchi and Stanford e-Yamaguchi instructor Jonas Edman also gave opening comments before the honorees presented their research. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Hiroshima

• Konatsu Haga; Fukuyama Akenohoshi Girls’ High School
• Momoka Nagayama; Hiroshima Inokuchi High School
   

Stanford e-Yamaguchi

• Misaki Kobayashi; Keishin Senior High School
• Hiroi Tomokawa; Iwakuni Senior High School
   

Image

The fourth ceremony was held on August 20, 2026, for honorees from Stanford e-Kagoshima City, Stanford e-Kawasaki, and Stanford e-Tottori. Daniel Busto, Coordinator of Educational Affairs at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, delivered opening remarks. Stanford e-Kagoshima City instructor Amy Cheng, Stanford e-Kawasaki instructor Maiko Tamagawa Bacha, and Stanford e-Tottori instructor Jonas Edman also offered opening comments before the honorees gave their presentations. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Kagoshima City

• Nayuta Nei; Kagoshima Gyokuryu High School
• Shiori Nishizono; Kagoshima Girls’ High School
   

Stanford e-Kawasaki

• Rio Hojo; Tachibana High School
• Mio Suzuki; Kawasaki High School
   

Stanford e-Tottori

• Una Ishikawa; National Institute of Technology, Yonago College
• Asumi Nishimura; Tottori Nishi High School
   

SPICE congratulates all 18 honorees and thanks the instructors, local partners, and guests who supported and celebrated the students. The ceremonies gave the students an opportunity to share their research with an audience at Stanford and to mark the conclusion of their year of study.

Importantly, SPICE is grateful to the school, municipal, and prefectural representatives who accompanied the students to Stanford. They are Yuki Uchimura (Fukuoka); Noriyo Hayashi (Hiroshima); Takahiko Uchitani and Nanami Nomaguchi (Kagoshima); Fuka Okutani and Tracey Freyre (Kobe); Yasunori Takaki, Masha Boyko, and Kayo Fuchigami (Minamata); Keiichi Takakura and Yuki Matsumoto (Oita); Satoru Hamahashi (Tottori); and Akinobu Tomonari (Yamaguchi).

SPICE also offers online courses to U.S. high school students on Japan (Reischauer Scholars Program), China (China Scholars Program), Korea (Sejong Korea Scholars Program), and entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship U.S.), to Chinese high school students on the United States (Stanford e-China), and to Japanese high school students on U.S. society and U.S.–Japan relations (Stanford e-Japan) and entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan).

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Introduction and Contribution

The United States is frequently described as exceptional among other advanced industrial democracies, especially those of Western Europe. Popular narratives attribute this to the US Constitution, a commitment to individual liberty, and economic opportunity, or the “American dream.” Scholarly accounts, by contrast, have focused on institutional differences, especially the absence of a comprehensive American welfare state. To be sure, these claims must be qualified. Social and economic mobility has declined substantially in the US over recent decades, while Americans derive sizable welfare benefits from tax relief schemes such as retirement savings. In what sense, and relative to which countries, is the US in fact exceptional? 

In “American Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective,” Julieta Casas argues that exceptionalism should be conceptualized in two distinct ways: (1) The US’s lack of convergence with Western European countries, despite similar outcomes (e.g., prosperity and industrialization) and different starting points (limited vs. comprehensive welfare states). (2) The US’s divergence from Latin American countries in terms of outcomes (e.g., development vs. underdevelopment) despite similar starting points (colonization, independence movements seeking Republican government). Put differently, if initial conditions are X and outcomes are Y, the two corresponding questions are “Why Y despite no X?” and “Why X but not Y?” Casas maintains that while much valuable scholarship has focused on (1), especially in the ‘American Political Development’ tradition, an analysis of (2) holds promise to sharpen our explanations of exceptionalism and methodological rigor. 

This reframing of exceptionalism has broader significance beyond academic debates. Indeed, the United States is currently undergoing the most pronounced democratic decline in its history. Similar kinds of declines — particularly those motivated by right-wing, anti-immigrant, populist sentiment — have been observed across Europe and Latin America. Resisting authoritarian leaders and movements in the US requires understanding cases of successful and failed resistance elsewhere. This kind of understanding depends on making appropriate kinds of comparisons.

Two Ways of Thinking About Exceptionalism

Lack of Convergence with Western Europe:

Perceptions of American exceptionalism vis-à-vis Europe date to at least the early nineteenth century. Alexis de Tocqueville saw the US as uniquely equal compared to his native France, owing to its lack of a feudal past and abundance of land, among other factors. Twentieth-century observers highlighted the absence of a strong American socialist party as well as dramatic rises in incarceration rates and income inequality — especially after the late 1970s. However, these accounts have been tempered by those who sought to show how, for example, the early American state was not exceptionally weaker than its European counterparts. Although the US lacked a powerful federal government, other institutions, such as Congress, the judiciary, and political parties, were quite strong.

One significant, less disputed case of exceptionalism is the early American bureaucracy, which was substantially more ‘patrimonial’ than in Western Europe. In other words, US politicians treated bureaucratic privileges — such as jobs — as rewards or ‘patronage’ to be doled out in exchange for political support. This lack of convergence with professionalized European bureaucracies was most famously explained by reference to the ‘sequencing’ of popular suffrage and bureaucratic development. In the US, suffrage came first, which gave politicians incentives to behave as patrons interacting with voters or ‘clients.’ In Europe, by contrast, suffrage came later, which enabled bureaucracies to professionalize without electoral pressures. 

Divergence from Latin America:

Although the United States is often seen as standing apart from other countries in the Americas, they share many starting points. These include similar times of independence from the European colonial powers, presidential and Republican as opposed to parliamentary and monarchical systems, and racialized hierarchies where darker-skinned and indigenous groups were oppressed. Across the Americas, weak federal governments struggled to exercise authority over vast territories. This led to intransigent pockets of authoritarian rule — compare the US South under Jim Crow with the decades-long rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Oaxaca, Mexico. However, the US proved quite exceptional in terms of its prosperity and industrialization; indeed, it surpassed not only Latin America but also its former colonizer.

Social scientists have analyzed divergence by using the US as a comparative case study. This includes asking why the US diverged from Canada in terms of their different healthcare systems. In addition, the question of divergence within Latin America, in terms of different kinds of twentieth-century regimes (e.g., military dictatorship, traditional dictatorship, democracy), has received much scholarly attention. American exceptionalism vis-à-vis Latin America, however, has not. 

One of Casas’ key contributions is to show how comparing the US and Latin America forces a rethinking of the above-mentioned sequencing debate. It is true that the American bureaucracy professionalized much later than in Europe. However, explaining this development in terms of the timing of suffrage runs into a problem: Latin American countries also introduced suffrage before building their bureaucracies, yet in these cases, professionalization was either extremely slow or has yet to occur. In Mexico, it was not until 100 years after the franchise was expanded that civil service reforms were enacted. 

In comparison to Latin America, then, the US looks like a pioneer and success story of bureaucratic development — not a laggard in comparison to Western Europe. Casas thus highlights an important point about reference classes or vantage points. To use a related example, Americans may rightly view the US as more free relative to India or Brazil, yet overlook its distance from more robust democracies such as Canada or Japan. This underscores that exceptionalism is not a fixed property, but rather is defined by the comparisons we make.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

Chinese President Xi Jinping's three-day state visit to Washington, D.C., delivered lavish pageantry and a two-month extension of the U.S.-China trade truce but few tangible breakthroughs, according to Mark Lambert, APARC's China policy fellow. He cautioned, however, against scoring the summit as a win or a loss for either side. 

"Having people talk to each other, particularly the leaders of the two strongest economies on planet Earth, is a good thing," said Lambert, a retired U.S. diplomat who served as one of the State Department’s leading China experts, most recently in the role of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for China and Taiwan and as the Department’s China Coordinator.

Lambert joined APARC Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui on the latest episode of the APARC Briefing video series to assess the outcomes of the Trump-Xi summit and analyze the issues shaping the U.S.-China relationship.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive expert analysis and insights from our scholars and guests >

A Truce Extended, Big Questions Deferred

Lambert described Xi’s state visit as “the third movement in a five-part concert,” following the two leaders’ October 2025 meeting in Busan, South Korea, on the sidelines of the APEC summit, and Trump’s May 2026 visit to Beijing. These engagements spurred talks about a framework to stabilize the tense U.S.-China relations. Looking ahead, Xi has invited Trump to the APEC summit in Shenzhen in November 2026, and Trump hopes to host Xi at the G20 in Florida in December.

Each leader has domestic reasons to keep bilateral tensions low, Lambert pointed out. In the United States, the midterm elections and soaring gas and grocery prices are front and center. In China, high youth unemployment and demographic pressures loom large, and Xi, facing a Party plenum next month, needs to show he has the American relationship in a good place from a Chinese perspective.

"Both leaders have bigger fish to fry right now than antagonizing one another," Lambert explained, noting that the White House did an effective job of keeping expectations from Xi’s state visit modest. Washington and Beijing agreed to extend their trade truce through January 2027, but announced little else beyond that and a commitment to hold further talks, and provided no specificity on the economic and trade aspects of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship.

“It seems like what came out of last week's summit was: ‘Let's carve out a few areas where we can trade, recognizing that the vast majority of sensitive areas are either too delicate or too complex, not ripe right now to deal with,’” Lambert observed, predicting that the likely trend moving forward is more de-risking by both sides. 

Skepticism on AI

The White House announced the U.S. and China have agreed to start a dialogue on AI, with a communications channel to help defuse the technology’s risks. Lambert, however, is doubtful this effort will yield much, noting that a similar commitment emerged from the Biden-Xi 2023 meeting in San Francisco but was never fleshed out.

"I am not convinced that China is all that serious about working on artificial intelligence,” he said. “Every time we've tried to have meetings on AI, they will send diplomats; they will send political-type figures. They don't send real experts on artificial intelligence. And that makes it very difficult to talk about safeguards and protecting ourselves from accidents or other things.”

The American and Chinese summit readouts also describe AI quite differently. While the White House said China had agreed to the term "superintelligence," Lambert emphasized that "not once did the Chinese use the term superintelligence in their readout."

"It's good that they're talking about it," he said, but "I will be very surprised if it leads to real, meaningful discussion about these core issues on artificial intelligence.”

Taiwan, Japan, and U.S. Allies

On Taiwan, according to Lambert, Trump did not give Beijing the language it has long sought: that Washington "opposes," rather than "does not support," Taiwan’s independence. Having put forward the largest arms sales package to Taiwan in U.S. history, the Trump administration has postponed it to avoid jeopardizing the summit with President Xi. With two additional in-person meetings between the two leaders expected this year, Lambert predicts the arms sales deal will be postponed until the new year. 

Asked about Xi's referencing shared U.S.-China history during World War II, when the two nations fought together “against Japanese militarist aggressors,” Lambert replied, "History is history. We don't deny history, but I don't think it's wise to let ourselves become a prisoner of history." He called Japan "the keystone relationship with the United States in the Pacific," arguing the moment was "a missed opportunity for President Trump" to acknowledge the wartime relationship with China while also affirming the alliance with Japan and urging Xi to improve ties with Tokyo. He reiterated long-standing advice to new presidents: talk to allies before going to Beijing.

Iran and China’s leverage

Lambert said that China, "hands down Iran's biggest trading partner," has been reluctant to take on the responsibilities of a global power in international affairs. He pointed to Chinese banks and shipping companies that help Iran circumvent U.S. sanctions. Despite subdued rhetoric from Beijing at the United Nations, "I haven't seen anything to suggest that China is going to lessen its support of Iran." Beijing could help Washington end the unpopular war with Iran, but is unlikely to use that leverage.

Symbolism and what comes next

Lambert called President Trump’s personal welcome of Xi at Joint Base Andrews "really unprecedented" and "overdone," and said Beijing is portraying it as American recognition of China as an equal. Still, he cautioned against writing off the United States as a declining power. “Yes, we make mistakes all the time, and I personally think we're in a pretty difficult time right now. But don't count us out.”

The following is a guest article written by Dr. Jacob Vazquez, Interim Associate Dean of Instruction and Agribusiness Faculty member, and past Fellow of Stanford’s EPIC Community College Faculty Fellowship, one of several teacher professional development programs offered by SPICE.

My interest in agriculture started in high school, through my involvement in Future Farmers of America (FFA). That interest deepened later on, working in agriculture finance at Farm Credit, and eventually leading to my current role teaching Agribusiness at Butte College, where I get to share my passion for agriculture and agribusiness with our students.

My involvement with SPICE began through Stanford Global Studies’ EPIC Community College Leadership Program, where fellows were charged with developing global curricula for use in community college classrooms. Butte College is a rural community college in Northern California, where rice is one of the region’s most valuable commodities. I teach Agricultural Economics, a general education class taken by both agriculture majors and non-majors, and I wanted the curriculum modules to connect the agriculture we grow here in Northern California to something produced elsewhere in the world. 

I built the modules around rice, comparing the industry in Butte and Glenn Counties to the industry in Japan. The two differ significantly in scale and farming method, but the crop carries economic and cultural weight in both places. With SPICE’s support and connections with the U.S. Consulate Fukuoka, part of the modules included Zoom interviews that connected students with Japanese rice farmers, including the owner of an organic farm in Saga Prefecture and a former musician who now farms rice and is developing a rice-based ice cream.

Those connections, particularly with the U.S. Consulate Fukuoka, led me to the Fulbright Specialist Program in collaboration with Kyushu Sangyo University (KSU), where SPICE has an existing program through their Stanford e-KyuSan-U Program. This past June, I traveled to Fukuoka as a Fulbright Specialist for a project titled “Seeds of Change: Empowering Community with Food Education.” Over two weeks, the itinerary included close collaboration with KSU students, faculty, and administration, a tour of a rice cracker manufacturing facility, and a public lecture on agribusiness and sustainability, among other events.

Image

One experience drew on a different part of my background: running a flag football clinic at KSU for local children, drawing on my own experience playing football at Fresno State and coaching at Butte College.

Image

One of the most meaningful moments of the visit was touring Meisho Farm in person, the same farm my students and I had previously engaged with only virtually. Seeing the operation firsthand with and reconnecting with its owner, Akira Shojima, gave me a much fuller picture of how Kyushu’s organic farming model works, something I never thought I would be able to experience when I started the fellowship. 

I also had the chance to visit U.S. Consulate Fukuoka with Principal Officer Virsa Perkins and KSU Professor Kaori Miura; photo below. What began as a simple curriculum project grew into an incredible experience. I feel so grateful to SPICE, the Fulbright Program, and Kyushu Sangyo University for these opportunities, and I look forward to future collaborations connecting agriculture on both sides of the Pacific.

Image

To stay updated on SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

This article was written by Dr. Susan J. Duggan, initial Coordinator of the Western Europe Project at SPICE (1988–1990). In its early years, SPICE comprised several separate area-focused projects. This is the eighth of several articles—focusing on the 50-year history of SPICE—that will be posted this year.

Happy 50th Birthday to SPICE! I am honored to be part of this special group of multi-talented, internationally experienced educators and innovators. 

I came to SPICE in a roundabout way. After studying in France and Italy during my undergraduate years at Stanford, I did my first master’s degree in Political Science (international relations) at Université Laval in Québec in 1980. My thesis was on the political role of educational exchange in Québec’s desire for sovereignty (from Canada). Upon returning to my home in California, I landed a job as the Project Associate at the “Bay Area and the World Project” hosted at the World Affairs Council in San Francisco and sponsored, among others, by Stanford University. In that small, windowless office Dr. Ron Herring discovered me researching the connections between the Bay Area and other countries; and promoting those connections through our publications and conferences with businesses, local governments and educators. He convinced me to come back to Stanford to get my Ph.D. That was the beginning of my SPICE connection, though it would be another six years before I officially worked for SPICE.

Initially, I pursued a second master’s degree in Education at Stanford. That is when I met Dr. David Grossman at the Center for Research in International Studies (CRIS), the predecessor to the Institute for International Studies (IIS), now FSI. I have fond memories of working on a research project looking at young U.S. students’ perceptions of Germany and Germans. David was there in Berlin when I began my field work for my dissertation in 1985. David and Ron encouraged me throughout my pre-SPICE time to explore the role of educational exchange, not only for students, but also for teachers.

Ron recruited me to be the initial coordinator of the newly founded Western Europe Project in 1988. I had just finished my dissertation at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford on the political role of educational exchange between Germany and the United States and was eager to work with the SPICE folks on curriculum development for K–12 students and teachers. Dr. Judy Wooster had just assumed the leadership of SPICE. I had a lot of fun working with this bright group of creative folks! 

Image

In the summer of 1989, Ron asked me to help coordinate and run a study tour of American teachers to Western Europe. SPICE and the California International Studies Project (CISP) sponsored the tour. I had experience having co-founded the “Berlin-California Teachers Exchange” in 1985 with friend, colleague, and teacher Flex Ninow from the Internationale Lehrerkonferenz Berlin. In our 1989 tour (photo above courtesy of Sue Duggan), 12 brave teachers spent 24 intense days in Berlin; southern Germany (Weinstadt); Strasbourg; and on to Zeeland, Amsterdam and North Holland in the Netherlands. 

The participants focused on two main themes for eventual curriculum development: “Communities, Regions, Nations” and “Conflict and Cooperation.” Mind you, this was the summer of 1989. The study tour focused on Western Europe and what would evolve, eventually, into the European Union. They heard, of course, analyses and speculation about Eastern Europe and Soviet aspirations. In retrospect, what an honor it was to hear from so many European teachers, politicians, political scientists, and regular folk about their perceptions of a 1989 version of Western Europe. No one among our many European interlocutors imagined that the Berlin Wall would fall just a few months after our departure creating a huge change in the political, economic and educational landscape of all of Europe.

In the early months of 1990, I felt compelled to return to Berlin to gather fresh insights about the Fall of the Berlin Wall (which had happened on November 9, 1989, just three and a half months after our return from the SPICE Study Tour). I imagined how hearing from real Germans about an actual historical event could inspire American high school students studying German. I pitched the idea to Judy Wooster along the lines of “Where were you when Kennedy was killed?” I wanted to hear from a variety of Berliners—from the East and West—about where they were when they heard the news of the Berlin Wall being taken down. Remember, there were two parallel walls that bisected the city of Berlin. For some, they only knew the existence of a divided city. For others, they had strong memories of the Wall being built, starting on August 13, 1961. I bought a Sony Walkman and a ticket to Berlin. I was able to line up interviews with various people, from politicians, to teachers, to a pub owner, and even a Berliner in her 60s who not only remembered when the Wall was built, but what happened during the Berlin Airlift (1948–1949) in her hometown. I came back to SPICE with precious recordings of remembrances and personal connections to one of the biggest changes in the latter part of 20th century Europe. 

Possibly because of the Study Tour and the inspiration to record the voices of Berlin after the Wall fell, I felt drawn to return to Germany. The Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung (Foundation) created a new program in 1990 called the “Chancellor Scholars” bringing young, professional Americans to Germany to witness the unfolding of a new version of Europe. I was recruited to be in the initial group. I could not turn that down. With reluctance mixed with anticipation to experience a “whole” Germany, I left my position at SPICE in September 1990. I was pleased to leave the Berlin Perspectives curriculum unit in the capable hands of my successor, and even more pleased that that unit still exists today. 

I have always considered myself lucky to have been part of the developing times of CRIS, IIS, and SPICE. I enjoyed smart, fun, creative colleagues who really cared about the world, education, and each other. Dr. Steve Thorpe, formerly the coordinator of the SPICE China Project, and I finished our PhDs around the same time and have stayed in touch all these years. Dr. Ron Herring is “Uncle Ron” to my daughter, Coral. Gosh, even the SPICE folks survived the Loma Prieta Quake together in the basement of Littlefield Center at 5:04 p.m. on October 17, 1989! 

Photo above: Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawai‘i, Dr. Susan Duggan, Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Language Roadmap Initiative, and Senator Daniel Akaka, 2013 | courtesy of Susan Duggan.

I have enjoyed a career mostly in international education. After SPICE and the Humboldt year, I started an international study abroad program in formerly Eastern European countries. I became the Senior Research and Policy Consultant to the National Security Education Program and ended up on the founding team that created the Boren Scholarship Program. Later, as Senior Strategist, I helped shaped The Language Flagship, now comprised of 14 U.S. universities with language and cultural studies in South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Morocco, and Kazakhstan. Toward the end of my career, I had the great pleasure of re-connecting with the K–12 sector as I created and ran many state Language Summits to create Language Roadmaps for those states. At times I have branched into the areas of high tech and agricultural tech innovations, but always with an international connection. I feel my early years at SPICE prepared me well for working with a variety of people in education, business, and government, all with creativity and integrity. 

With gratitude, I wish SPICE—and all those involved with this wonderful program—a very happy 50th anniversary!

To stay updated on SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Looking back at the long list of pages on Canvas, I feel so accomplished about finishing the Design Thinking into Action: Teen Wellbeing course. From the first “Introduce Yourself” video we filmed, edited, and shared with our classmates, to the final prototype presentation, every module showed me a different way to think about teen wellbeing and how our skills could create real, meaningful change. 

What made this course so special was that learning wasn’t restricted to the weekly virtual classes. The resource pages for each module on Canvas created a great balance between theory and practice, input and output. We learned about topics like the teenage brain, managing academic stress, creating a body map, and purpose learning. We didn’t just write essays as in a traditional class. We created prototypes with step-by-step exercises leading up to our final project. My favorite part was the design thinking process: empathizing with a real person, defining a need statement, brainstorming wildly, prototyping, and iterating based on feedback. The prototype I created, called the “Dream Door,” was designed for a friend who feels lonely and disconnected from peers and frustrated by surface-level conversations. The “Dream Door” is a small box with a bell and color-coded prompts to help her start deeper conversations with classmates. While creating the prop for my friend, I also learned to solve my own wellbeing challenges through the same process. When I gifted the finished product to my friend, her excited reaction felt better than any grade. That’s the magic of this design thinking course. When we truly empathize with someone, understand their needs, and listen to their feedback, we can see the physical results our ideas have on them. 

I participated in this course during a particularly challenging time. When the course began, I was overseas for an exchange program. Then I returned to China to prepare for AP exams, which felt like an ever-present gray cloud looming over me. Instead of adding to my stress, this course helped me navigate it more clearly. One of my favorite classes with a Stanford scholar, Dr. Cari Costanzo, combined anthropology with our connection to our bodies through an exercise called body mapping, a creative and reflective piece of art that pushed us to reflect on important aspects of our lives. When I added drawings of the AP exams in the thought bubble above my head on my body map, I realized they were my current, main priority. In this course I also learned that the concept of “failing forward” and pacing ourselves aren’t just nice ideas; they are ways to sustain our busy lives. After the Stanford e-China course ended, as I was taking an exam back in my regular school in China, I wrote about the concept of “failing forward” in my essay. I literally smiled in the middle of the exam because I was so excited to apply what I’d learned. 

I also loved the small, surprising moments, like drawing my body map and realizing I could create a stickman with my arms and legs because I’ve been drawing them since primary school. I also loved writing a reflection of my views on life and education and noticing that my love for roller coasters and seeking thrilling experiences actually drives how I approach learning. 

I left this course with a toolbox I’ll use for life, for studying, for friendships, for future projects. I’m leaving with gratitude. Thank you to Stefanie Orrick, Carey Moncaster, and the whole Stanford e-China team for creating a space where teenagers can be creative, vulnerable, and ambitious all at once. 

Innovating Wellbeing: Human-Centered Design in the AI Era (formerly Design Thinking into Action: Teen Wellbeing) is one of several online courses offered by SPICE.

To stay updated on SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.