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

[Anonymous]

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.

They may expect to make 100k, but the percentage of people without degrees making 100k is very low.

What is that %? and what is the % of college educated people making 100K?

DP but was curious so I asked chatGPT.

“The percentage of people making more than $100,000 per year varies significantly depending on educational attainment. Generally:

1. With a college degree: Studies have shown that individuals with at least a bachelor’s degree are far more likely to earn $100,000 or more annually. Recent data indicates that around 30-40% of people with a bachelor’s degree or higher earn over $100,000. This percentage increases for those with advanced degrees, such as a master’s or professional degree.

2. Without a college degree: The percentage of people without a college degree making over $100,000 is considerably lower. For those with only a high school diploma, typically 5-10% reach this income level. However, factors like industry, years of experience, and geographic location can also play significant roles in earnings at this level.

These percentages can vary somewhat year by year and by geographic region. The gap reflects both the earning potential associated with higher education and the career paths accessible to those with and without degrees.”

Exactly so 70% of people go to college spend >$100K and don't even make $100K a year. That's proof enough college is not a great return on investment.

The majority of people attend cheap local public colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is that even college graduates don't necessarily make $100,000 per year (e.g., teachers, social workers). The ROI (which most people have to consider) isn't there for many. While an educated society is important, we need to really think about which jobs require a college education and which jobs can be taught with experience. (I'm not suggesting that teachers shouldn't have a BA). Making a BA a barrier for entry at the same time that college is so expensive, it a real problem.

And to the PP who said that student loans are available -- there is a significant limit on the loans that a student can take out for undergrad; most of the loans are parent loans that not every parent is willing to take.

I think this is something people who have not gone through the process don't understand. A student can only take out $5000/year student loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Endowment hording" is leveled at universities so wealthy they can't be punished or controlled by the public purse strings.

I agree to some degree with other bullet points. But the people who want to knock these schools off of their high horse's should drop the sour grapes arguments.

Is there a proposed solution to endowment hoarding? Big endowments will be confiscated and distributed to all other colleges in the name of equity?

I think this point is less about schools with larger vs smaller/no endowments and more that schools with substantial endowments should have higher withdrawal rates and use the money productively to address the identified problems (admit more students, reach people outside of the university, etc).

Harvard has been in business for 388 years. Pretty sure they've figured out how to manage their priorities and portfolio without your help. 🤡

[Anonymous]

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.

They may expect to make 100k, but the percentage of people without degrees making 100k is very low.

What is that %? and what is the % of college educated people making 100K?

DP but was curious so I asked chatGPT.

“The percentage of people making more than $100,000 per year varies significantly depending on educational attainment. Generally:

1. With a college degree: Studies have shown that individuals with at least a bachelor’s degree are far more likely to earn $100,000 or more annually. Recent data indicates that around 30-40% of people with a bachelor’s degree or higher earn over $100,000. This percentage increases for those with advanced degrees, such as a master’s or professional degree.

2. Without a college degree: The percentage of people without a college degree making over $100,000 is considerably lower. For those with only a high school diploma, typically 5-10% reach this income level. However, factors like industry, years of experience, and geographic location can also play significant roles in earnings at this level.

These percentages can vary somewhat year by year and by geographic region. The gap reflects both the earning potential associated with higher education and the career paths accessible to those with and without degrees.”

Exactly so 70% of people go to college spend >$100K and don't even make $100K a year. That's proof enough college is not a great return on investment.

The majority of people attend cheap local public colleges

How much is that? Salisbury is $30K/year so that is $120K/degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She is actually brilliant, she has taken many tests along the way and passed them, so she is measurably brilliant.

As for losing, I mean 2M people in NC voted for a Republican (Robinson) who Republicans didn't even back who is a black nazi (he said), denies the holocaust and thinks 9/11 is probably a lie. So, I'm not sure what Dems are to do for those 2M people (and their ilk). Don't lay that at the feet of Dems.

I think she lied once in the fact checks and she corrected herself. Believe me, being honest is not something Rep care about.

I don't understand why Democrats continue to believe they need to prop Kamala Harris up. She lost in the primaries and then got destroyed in the general. Go back and listen to her long form interview with Axelrod from 2019 when she was running in the primary (and lost). It is an hour of word salad, unintelligible arguments, and vapid slogans. Axe is obviously not impressed. That interview is why she refused to do long-form this cycle--she can't. We need to stop running bad candidates because they check boxes and start running the best available. Oh, and then we did it AGAIN when we picked that numbskull Walz over Shapiro--further cementing in Jews' minds that Dems are low-key antisemitic. Self owns, again and again and again.

I don't understand why people can's see she destroyed T in the debate and she is extremely intelligent. Did somebody eat your pet?

[Anonymous]

Kamala is a lightweight and should never have been selected for VP. The clip of her stupid answer to a 2019 interview about inmate trans care is evidence enough about her judgment. The ad the Trump campaign made out of that clip was part of the reason they won.

[Anonymous]

Not a very well written article. Took me a few paragraphs to understand what it was about or where the article was going.

Here are the last few paragraphs which summarize the conclusion:

----------
Perhaps “we” need above all a moonshot for public schools, secondary and higher (not going to happen under Republicans, but we must keep the long view), founded on an aggressive, positive assertion of the values and faiths that such an education represents. The American university is a profoundly important reinvention of an ancient idea, remade in medieval times in Italy, Germany and Britain, and then recreated again in colonial America. Among Americans’ most treasured values, embedded in the modern university, is that a higher education can remake one’s life. As endangered as such an idea may seem, who does not want to believe in that gospel if it is available? Our herculean task is to make it work again.

“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.

Election outcomes, if nothing else can, should make us aware that substantial parts of our society may like to know why history or science or art themselves even matter in their daily lives. “We” know they do, but “they” are scared by the price of milk, and tuition, and by hurricanes. Universities like the one at which I am privileged to teach, need their own reckonings that can make us look outward, to get outside of ourselves and do what we do best — create knowledge and teach about and to the whole world, not merely to those within our own gates in language only we can hope to understand.

Trumpism is a dire threat to all that universities believe in, but let us not forget that democracies tend to die from within, not by conquest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kamala is a lightweight and should never have been selected for VP. The clip of her stupid answer to a 2019 interview about inmate trans care is evidence enough about her judgment. The ad the Trump campaign made out of that clip was part of the reason they won.

Here is the fact check on that ...

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/10/harris-position-on-health-care-for-transgender-prisoners-and-detainees/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kamala is a lightweight and should never have been selected for VP. The clip of her stupid answer to a 2019 interview about inmate trans care is evidence enough about her judgment. The ad the Trump campaign made out of that clip was part of the reason they won.

Excuse me? You can fixate about soundbites from 5 years ago or compare her to who she was running against. Watch any of Trump's rallies and or speeches or podcasts from 2024. He makes zero sense. He goes on long rants about wind killing birds, Hannibal Lector being a great leader, mixes up names and decades and candidates, whines about enemies, praises autocrats and just sounds unhinged on the regular. Is this your king? Is this your intellectual heavyweight?

And now that he was voted in, his leadership team will include: Matt Gaetz for AG (who has active sex trafficking and ethics investigation against him), Tulsi Gabbard for national intelligence director (defends Putin, did a PR trip shilling for Assad in Syria, grew up in fraudulent cult), Ash Patel for CIA or FBI, the list of actually incompetent people goes on ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have "a reckoning?" They are a beacon.

Agree! I get tired of naval gazing and faux outrage over " the elites".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala is a lightweight and should never have been selected for VP. The clip of her stupid answer to a 2019 interview about inmate trans care is evidence enough about her judgment. The ad the Trump campaign made out of that clip was part of the reason they won.

Excuse me? You can fixate about soundbites from 5 years ago or compare her to who she was running against. Watch any of Trump's rallies and or speeches or podcasts from 2024. He makes zero sense. He goes on long rants about wind killing birds, Hannibal Lector being a great leader, mixes up names and decades and candidates, whines about enemies, praises autocrats and just sounds unhinged on the regular. Is this your king? Is this your intellectual heavyweight?

And now that he was voted in, his leadership team will include: Matt Gaetz for AG (who has active sex trafficking and ethics investigation against him), Tulsi Gabbard for national intelligence director (defends Putin, did a PR trip shilling for Assad in Syria, grew up in fraudulent cult), Ash Patel for CIA or FBI, the list of actually incompetent people goes on ...

DP

And yet she managed to lose in a near landslide to President-elect Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Endowment hording" is leveled at universities so wealthy they can't be punished or controlled by the public purse strings.

I agree to some degree with other bullet points. But the people who want to knock these schools off of their high horse's should drop the sour grapes arguments.

Is there a proposed solution to endowment hoarding? Big endowments will be confiscated and distributed to all other colleges in the name of equity?

I think this point is less about schools with larger vs smaller/no endowments and more that schools with substantial endowments should have higher withdrawal rates and use the money productively to address the identified problems (admit more students, reach people outside of the university, etc).

Harvard has been in business for 388 years. Pretty sure they've figured out how to manage their priorities and portfolio without your help. 🤡

I’m explaining what the author’s point was but definitely shoot the messenger. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author lost me at paragraph 3 by calling Kamala “brilliant.” When will people admit she is a dud intellectually? Just holding certain jobs does not make one smart.

Actually, she is.

And way smarter than you.

She took the same 5 word memory test as Trump: Person, woman, man, camera, TV. Brilliant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala is a lightweight and should never have been selected for VP. The clip of her stupid answer to a 2019 interview about inmate trans care is evidence enough about her judgment. The ad the Trump campaign made out of that clip was part of the reason they won.

Excuse me? You can fixate about soundbites from 5 years ago or compare her to who she was running against. Watch any of Trump's rallies and or speeches or podcasts from 2024. He makes zero sense. He goes on long rants about wind killing birds, Hannibal Lector being a great leader, mixes up names and decades and candidates, whines about enemies, praises autocrats and just sounds unhinged on the regular. Is this your king? Is this your intellectual heavyweight?

And now that he was voted in, his leadership team will include: Matt Gaetz for AG (who has active sex trafficking and ethics investigation against him), Tulsi Gabbard for national intelligence director (defends Putin, did a PR trip shilling for Assad in Syria, grew up in fraudulent cult), Ash Patel for CIA or FBI, the list of actually incompetent people goes on ...

Absolutely not comparing her to Trump, who will destroy this country. I'm very angry at Dems for her being VP pick in 2020 and for her nomination this year. She is not a good candidate, she's just not smart enough to be able to do long interviews and obviously did a bad job running her campaign--the stupid Liz Cheney move for example.

[Anonymous]

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