NY Times editorial: "Universities Like Yale Need a Reckoning"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how most Americans don't go to college. I really don't. This country has so much opportunity if you are someone who values education and strives for a better life. I think of the fact that public schools encourage reading, that may sound trivial but public schools in the Arab world absolutely do not. And libraries are not commonly used. Just by reading a low income or low middle class child can develop skills to have a better understanding of the world. And through scholarships can get into good schools. Again with the Arab world comparison because that is what I know best--do you think a bright low income kid over there can get into a good school? Very very hard.

Americans don't realize how good they have it. And the American culture of contempt toward educated elites is part of the reason someone like Trump was able to win. I remember reading a Vance interview where he said McDonald's should hire young American men through better wages and I just rolled my eyes. Yeah sure, these hordes of young unemployed white men are dying to work at McDonald's if only they could get 15 bucks an hour. No, they want high-paying jobs being a foreman at a factory or something. And they are angry at their lawyer cousin who was smart to get out of Oklahoma or whatever and make a good life for themselves in DC or NY.

Because they are not getting low paying McDonald's jobs. They are making $100K+/year without college.

Also, even a state school will run you $120K for 4 years and most poeple can't afford that, actually most can't afford to not work for 4 years.

Student loans are available. That is not something easily accessible to young people in other parts of the world. If they are making that kind of money without college then why are they so angry?

They are angry because people like you think they only job they can get is McDonalds and if you look at them your body language shows them you assume they are trash and racist.

No, I don't think they are racist. I think what's contemptible about them is that they are anti-education, and that's what makes them trash. I think they have opportunities unfathomable to most young men around the world and are angry because high paying blue collar jobs are harder to come by than 30 years ago.

Again the assumptions you make about people that go to college is elitist and incorrect.

They are not "anti-education" but they have decided they would rather be educated in a different way. Someone who is a farmer can teach you more about the economy, climate change, pesticides in food, supply chain, etc than any college graduate.

You actually don't understand why they are mad.

That's not right. If they aren't educated, they only have one perspective--the farming perspective. You don't need to have gone to a top-10 university, but the point of higher education is to broader your perspective, to learn how other people do things, to learn how things have been done historically, how they have changed, and why, to learn how different forces (political, religious, historical, cultural, natural) have brought us to where we are today. It's hard to get that perspective if you stay in one place, with the same group of people, doing the same kinds of things your whole life. Even harder if you even refuse to consider certain points of view or examine your own assumptions and biases.

You think farmers sit on their little farm and never read books, use the internet, go to training, get USDA grants, attend USDA education sessions, talk to experienced farmers, go to conferences, connect with Cooperative Extension, attend non-profit events?

Their education is broader than most college educated people.

There isn't anything more political than farming... grants from USDA, paid to not farm, incentive to grow certain crops, tax breaks and incentives.

You have got to sit back and listen instead of talk on this subject.

I'm not saying farmers don't learn about farming (and everything you listed above isn't a broad education, its a deep education in one subject). I'm saying its important to cover the gen ed topics as well. It's hard to understand anyone who is not like you if you literally have never heard anything from that perspective before. People used to read a lot more extensively in high school, we don't even do that anymore (thanks Republicans!).

again, your ignorance... sit down

They probably know the immigration system better than you and have more South American immigrant friends/workers in one season that you do in a lifetime.

Nobody knows everybody perspective, but they have a perspective you also clearly don't understand. They don't live in a cave, they are just as educated as you it's just an organic type of education instead of butt in seat from ignorant professors who would rather be writing a paper.

As someone else said upthread, "farmers" is probably a bad example. Let's discuss your typical non-college educated blue-collar Trump voter who is anti-elite. Who doesn't appear to understand how the federal government works, what the scientific method is, how diversity contributes to communities, why authoritarianism has historically been problematic, why a strong independent media is important to sustaining strong democratic institutions, and so on. The kinds of concepts you learn from study, writing, and discussion of history, literature, economics, political science, social science, and hard science.

Why?

Why must we discuss that?

Why not talk about the educated white men and women living in Montgomery County, Maryland or Fairfax County, VA who voted for Trump.... ones with no diversity in their lives and think their gay son is going to burn in he!! or their gay daughter has been infected by wokism.

You realize there is a large % of people who can't learn in the traditional manner of college. Talking about diversity, how many friends do you have with an IQ of 100 or below?

DP. Do you know your friends' IQs? I don't. I'd have no way to answer this question without making a lot of assumptions about my friends.

If they are college educated it’s above 100.

Possibly, although the average IQ of college graduates is barely above average (102). What about my friends who aren't college educated. Do I assume their IQs are under 100? That's an assumption with a lot of problems.

You can pretend that you don’t know the general IQ of your friends by just talking to them. You can be the reality is you live in a bubble?

The greatest common denominator for Trump voters. It’s not their education level, even though there is a correlation the greatest common denominator is that they’re religious and they believe propaganda..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats need to do is to have all Democrats in red states change their party to Republican.

Then we just need to run Republican candidates and they’re not insane.

Most Republicans are too stupid to even look at the issues. They’re just checking Republican. They have no idea what candidate stands for.

That way, we can at least get non-Maga Republicans in office again who have actual conservative values.

Then we can actually reach across the aisle and do what’s best for America.

Interesting strategy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one concrete step he proposes (and I couldn't agree more).

“We” need to openly recommit to learning and teaching about the whole of our knowledge — our histories, our literature, our sciences, our social structures, as much or more than we stress our racial, ethnic and gendered parts. Those fields of study are important and established for good reasons. But the whole and the parts have to sing together or there is no democracy or broad learning or informed citizenry in the end. We could drown in the habits of our own particularities and favorite ideologies, and lose hold of how humans connect across a multitude of difference. We need answers for our critics who believe we are an ideological monolith, whether they are right or not. We may not like universals anymore, but there are some, like elections, that stun millions into despair or glee.

Maybe I'm obtuse, but what kinds of classes does he want to see taught that aren't being taught?

It’s an issue of how history, literature, etc are framed.

We’ve overcompensated for the fact that these disciplines used to be taught with too much emphasis on white men. Now it’s like if you teach Plato, you’re somehow racist.

The point is to teach all of it, rather than cherry-picking.

The problem with a straw man like this one is that it is so easily refuted.

https://catalog.yale.edu/ycps/subjects-of-instruction/classics/

Agreed. Whenever I see arguments like these I wonder if these are current humanities majors or people whove even looked on current curriculum. Most colleges have expanded offerings but the requirements are still the “greats” that people moan about being dead and persecuted

How those classes are taught is the concern. You can be sure the “greats” are approached from some screwy woke perspective. Shakespeare through the race / class / gender lens, Queering Shakespeare, etc. 🙄

So let's look at the course offerings at Yale. If you are right, I should be unable to find a class about Shakespeare that is not from a "screwy woke perspective" right?

Why don't you click through and tell us what you learned, since you are so certain you know what's on offer:

https://courses.yale.edu/?keyword=shakespeare&srcdb=202501

I did, and there are a bunch of bog standard "Early European Tragedy" and "History of the English Language" type course, and then ONE course that appears to use a specific lens. Honestly, it sounds super fun:

Consideration of the literary, cultural, and political implications of staging race and religion in plays by Christopher Marlowe, William Shakespeare, Elizabeth Cary, Ben Jonson, Thomas Heywood, and others. How sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Londoners derived impressions of the outside world from the theater, particularly exotic strangers in the form of villainous and virtuous Jews, seductive and tyrannical Turks, noble and ignoble Moors, Indian princesses, decadent Catholics, tricksy Venetians, and cross-dressing, gender-bending pirates.

Agreed. The audiences were very interested in "diversity", "racial issues", and "gender issues".

It's well known that Shakespeare's company was all male and the males pretended to be females pretending they were males. That plus what any drama club member (such as me) knows from putting on high school theater shows suggests that "Queering Shakespeare" is pretty mainstream.

https://teach.shakespearesglobe.com/fact-sheet-actors#:~:text=In%20Shakespeare's%20time%20acting%20was,theatres%20in%20England%20until%201660.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link please

Sorry, I thought I shared the gift link. Does this work?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/opinion/yale-ivy-league-liberals-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z04.YREH.jtxZk_xbkZRa&smid=url-share

The author loses all credibility when he refers to VP Kamala Harris as a "brilliant black women". Both Yale and the New York Times should be ashamed for publishing this drivel written by one with so little awareness of reality.

Agreed, it should just be "is brilliant" the other 2 adjectives are not necessary and irresponsible qualifiers.

Aren't you the clever one.

VP Kamala Harris is not brilliant, although she is a black woman.

The VP's handlers knew how weak she was--and is--intellectually so they shielded her from engaging in any real interviews.

Kamala Harris' biggest mistake during her brief 107 day campaign was in being dishonest repeatedly.

Riiiight. Because the guy that got elected is the paragon of truth telling. Give me break. The hypocrisy of this statement is stunning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As hopeful helpful information about Harvard costs, the following is from the school's web site:


Harvard costs what your family can afford. We make sure of that.

If your family's income is less than $85,000, you'll pay nothing.

For families who earn between $85,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and ten percent of your annual income.

Families who earn more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid.

Families at all income levels who have significant assets are asked to pay more than those without assets.

For more than ninety percent of American families, Harvard costs less than a public university.

All students receive the same aid regardless of nationality or citizenship.

To learn more, check out our financial aid fact sheet or see the breakdown of the full cost of attendance. You can also compare Harvard's cost to that of other schools with the MyinTuition Quick College Cost Estimator.

But there's always fine print and for these colleges it's "with typical assets". so family who earn 85-150k, "with typical assets". for Harvard, that's 200k. so for most UMC families who have been saving for our working life, even those of us making 140k, financial aid is limited. certainly not lower than public. but more generous than say a BC or some other private with pockets not quite as deep..

I'm a progressive liberal, but the idea of making these colleges need blind to international students rubs me the wrong way. American tax payers support these schools by NOT taxing their endowments and paving the highways that lead to them. (etc). I think they could be more generous to US kids.

Thanks to Trump their endowments are taxed now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As hopeful helpful information about Harvard costs, the following is from the school's web site:


Harvard costs what your family can afford. We make sure of that.

If your family's income is less than $85,000, you'll pay nothing.

For families who earn between $85,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and ten percent of your annual income.

Families who earn more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid.

Families at all income levels who have significant assets are asked to pay more than those without assets.

For more than ninety percent of American families, Harvard costs less than a public university.

All students receive the same aid regardless of nationality or citizenship.

To learn more, check out our financial aid fact sheet or see the breakdown of the full cost of attendance. You can also compare Harvard's cost to that of other schools with the MyinTuition Quick College Cost Estimator.

But there's always fine print and for these colleges it's "with typical assets". so family who earn 85-150k, "with typical assets". for Harvard, that's 200k. so for most UMC families who have been saving for our working life, even those of us making 140k, financial aid is limited. certainly not lower than public. but more generous than say a BC or some other private with pockets not quite as deep..

I'm a progressive liberal, but the idea of making these colleges need blind to international students rubs me the wrong way. American tax payers support these schools by NOT taxing their endowments and paving the highways that lead to them. (etc). I think they could be more generous to US kids.

Thanks to Trump their endowments are taxed now.

Which isn't fair as churches aren't taxed. Dems missed an opportunity their.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As hopeful helpful information about Harvard costs, the following is from the school's web site:


Harvard costs what your family can afford. We make sure of that.

If your family's income is less than $85,000, you'll pay nothing.

For families who earn between $85,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and ten percent of your annual income.

Families who earn more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid.

Families at all income levels who have significant assets are asked to pay more than those without assets.

For more than ninety percent of American families, Harvard costs less than a public university.

All students receive the same aid regardless of nationality or citizenship.

To learn more, check out our financial aid fact sheet or see the breakdown of the full cost of attendance. You can also compare Harvard's cost to that of other schools with the MyinTuition Quick College Cost Estimator.

But there's always fine print and for these colleges it's "with typical assets". so family who earn 85-150k, "with typical assets". for Harvard, that's 200k. so for most UMC families who have been saving for our working life, even those of us making 140k, financial aid is limited. certainly not lower than public. but more generous than say a BC or some other private with pockets not quite as deep..

I'm a progressive liberal, but the idea of making these colleges need blind to international students rubs me the wrong way. American tax payers support these schools by NOT taxing their endowments and paving the highways that lead to them. (etc). I think they could be more generous to US kids.

Thanks to Trump their endowments are taxed now.

Good bye scholarships.