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.

I mean if you discount the opinions of the 99.99% of people who don’t go to Yale as “sour grapes,” you shouldn’t exactly be surprised that they don’t like you.

We say kids can't write today but reading his writing is painful.

It's rambling, the sentence structure is tortuous to read, it's painfully pointless.

"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.

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.

Agree with the author. The ivy obsession is nauseating and obnoxious

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.

I found that the least compelling part of the piece. Mostly because it presumes that the "solution" to the perception of places like Yale is the other academics stop doing their fields in the way that makes the most sense to them. He can disagree with that approach (if you know his work, you'll see that that emphasis on a unified American story is a big part of it), but ultimately if another historian looks at history and *doesn't* see it that way, they should feel free to work and teach the story that they see.

I found the idea of a "moonshot" for public universities much more compelling. Yale simply isn't that important for most people and it never has been. Investing in the universities that are actually educating most people is a great idea, though.

Most academics don’t want to publish just on these particular issues. They feel pressure to do so because it’s what college students want.

My sister is a professor and is dealing with this. God forbid you teach Wagner; a student will tell you they’re traumatized by it. (That happened to her last year). Heck, students told her they were triggered by Magic Flute.

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?

Towards the top of the article, there's a paragraph about what liberals should do:

1) Fight to save public education

2) Contribute to 250th anniversary of America celebrations in a balanced way to offset Trumpist POV (my interpretation - like the DOGE commission producing a gift for America).

3) Working on an economic plan that benefits lower-income people instead of being academically theoretical.

I agree with 1 and 3. 3 is particularly needed. Elites have received too much of the benefits of the good times over the past 30 years and that includes me and my family. Stock markets do well but small town America and rural America haven't made progress. We have been the lucky "us" and the "them" are mad about it. The political upheaval and stupidity is the revenge for allowing disproportionate benefits to flow to the upper end of the income scale.

Good article OP. Thanks for sharing.

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.

I found that the least compelling part of the piece. Mostly because it presumes that the "solution" to the perception of places like Yale is the other academics stop doing their fields in the way that makes the most sense to them. He can disagree with that approach (if you know his work, you'll see that that emphasis on a unified American story is a big part of it), but ultimately if another historian looks at history and *doesn't* see it that way, they should feel free to work and teach the story that they see.

I found the idea of a "moonshot" for public universities much more compelling. Yale simply isn't that important for most people and it never has been. Investing in the universities that are actually educating most people is a great idea, though.

He has a list of reasons the public hates elite universities at the moment:
* Seemingly uncontrollable tuition costs
* Leftist ideological purity
* Opaque admissions policies
* Professionalized athletics
* Prestige-driven meritocracies that create exclusive bubbles of self-importance
* Endowment hoarding

The essay frames “them” as blue-collar Americans, but I think there’s a large number of highly-educated doughnut hole families on DCUM that concur with many if not all of the items on this list.

One proposal for correcting course would be to reverse some of these items: eg, freeze tuition, make admissions criteria clearer.

He has another proposal, not at all fleshed out: a public education “moonshot” to support public high schools and colleges. I took that as a quiet concession that from his point of view elite universities may be beyond hope.

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.

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

Gift link please

I read this article this morning, and while I agree that elite universities are too expensive and out of touch, I was ultimately unsure about what concrete steps the author was proposing to fix the problem. Any thoughts?

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