Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt is declining before our eyes and it started with the 3 new campuses theyre building. WashU has always been ultra conservative so no surprise there. Shame on Rice for joining them.

Rice started acting like this when they began opening business offerings for the undergraduate students. All these institutions are recognizing is they can amass a ton of power if they increase the amount of students rushing into consulting and IB. Vanderbilt and WUSTL are delusional if they think they're replacing HYP anytime soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Eisgruber (Princeton) that it's dangerous and a folly for universities to capitulate to a sitting president's political agenda (Trump). That's not what democracies should do. It's what happened very quickly in Russia (see the film my Undesirable Friends Part 1, 2024).

I think some of these uni presidents don't have a backbone and also smell an opportunity to take a middling position or play along with Trump.

History will judge this mess. They're all in the crucible now and we'll see and history will tell what they're made of.

Yeah, this is just rank opportunism from Vandy and WashU. They smell an opportunity to get out from the shadow of more elite institutions by accepting the terms of the Rufos of the world. It’s embarrassing, short-term thinking but probably not surprising given the desperation of these schools to get out of the Ivies’ shadow (not to mention their location in deep-red states where I’m sure the fight against authoritarian ideology must be exhausting…but then university presidents are paid a whole lot of money to do this job, so my sympathy does not run very deep).

I also know that at least one non-Ivy top-10 institution was approached to join the Vandy/WashU group and declined. They heard the pitch as purely opportunistic—let’s differentiate ourselves from the Ivies—and didn’t want any part of it. So it’s not just the Ivies who see this as foolish.

Anonymous wrote:I'm Jewish and I know a bunch of Jews who opted out of applying to Ivies (including some major legacies) and instead are at WashU, Vandy, etc.

Most of these families are over-reacting to the claims of anti-semitism at Ivies and are kind of Trumpy. I think there was some anti-semitism at these schools, but I think Trump has dramatically over-reacted and is using this to act like a tough guy, not because he cares about anti-semitism. But like most MAGA people, these families have had a deep drink of the Kool-Aid.

I'm not sure if I want my kid surrounded by these types. I'm also not thrilled with Columbia and Penn. So I'm not sure what the right answer is. I want a school that is in it for the long term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Eisgruber (Princeton) that it's dangerous and a folly for universities to capitulate to a sitting president's political agenda (Trump). That's not what democracies should do. It's what happened very quickly in Russia (see the film my Undesirable Friends Part 1, 2024).

I think some of these uni presidents don't have a backbone and also smell an opportunity to take a middling position or play along with Trump.

History will judge this mess. They're all in the crucible now and we'll see and history will tell what they're made of.

Yeah, this is just rank opportunism from Vandy and WashU. They smell an opportunity to get out from the shadow of more elite institutions by accepting the terms of the Rufos of the world. It’s embarrassing, short-term thinking but probably not surprising given the desperation of these schools to get out of the Ivies’ shadow (not to mention their location in deep-red states where I’m sure the fight against authoritarian ideology must be exhausting…but then university presidents are paid a whole lot of money to do this job, so my sympathy does not run very deep).

I also know that at least one non-Ivy top-10 institution was approached to join the Vandy/WashU group and declined. They heard the pitch as purely opportunistic—let’s differentiate ourselves from the Ivies—and didn’t want any part of it. So it’s not just the Ivies who see this as foolish.

What are the "non-Ivy top 10 institutions?" Duke? MIT? Cal Tech? Stanford? I think that is pretty much the list unless you want to be more loose in your definition of "top 10" and add Chicago, Hopkins, Northwestern? Why not just say what school it is?

Yes, one of those. I was told this in confidence by a senior leader at the school, so I'm not going to be more specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Eisgruber (Princeton) that it's dangerous and a folly for universities to capitulate to a sitting president's political agenda (Trump). That's not what democracies should do. It's what happened very quickly in Russia (see the film my Undesirable Friends Part 1, 2024).

I think some of these uni presidents don't have a backbone and also smell an opportunity to take a middling position or play along with Trump.

History will judge this mess. They're all in the crucible now and we'll see and history will tell what they're made of.

Yeah, this is just rank opportunism from Vandy and WashU. They smell an opportunity to get out from the shadow of more elite institutions by accepting the terms of the Rufos of the world. It’s embarrassing, short-term thinking but probably not surprising given the desperation of these schools to get out of the Ivies’ shadow (not to mention their location in deep-red states where I’m sure the fight against authoritarian ideology must be exhausting…but then university presidents are paid a whole lot of money to do this job, so my sympathy does not run very deep).

I also know that at least one non-Ivy top-10 institution was approached to join the Vandy/WashU group and declined. They heard the pitch as purely opportunistic—let’s differentiate ourselves from the Ivies—and didn’t want any part of it. So it’s not just the Ivies who see this as foolish.

What are the "non-Ivy top 10 institutions?" Duke? MIT? Cal Tech? Stanford? I think that is pretty much the list unless you want to be more loose in your definition of "top 10" and add Chicago, Hopkins, Northwestern? Why not just say what school it is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Eisgruber (Princeton) that it's dangerous and a folly for universities to capitulate to a sitting president's political agenda (Trump). That's not what democracies should do. It's what happened very quickly in Russia (see the film my Undesirable Friends Part 1, 2024).

I think some of these uni presidents don't have a backbone and also smell an opportunity to take a middling position or play along with Trump.

History will judge this mess. They're all in the crucible now and we'll see and history will tell what they're made of.

Yeah, this is just rank opportunism from Vandy and WashU. They smell an opportunity to get out from the shadow of more elite institutions by accepting the terms of the Rufos of the world. It’s embarrassing, short-term thinking but probably not surprising given the desperation of these schools to get out of the Ivies’ shadow (not to mention their location in deep-red states where I’m sure the fight against authoritarian ideology must be exhausting…but then university presidents are paid a whole lot of money to do this job, so my sympathy does not run very deep).

I also know that at least one non-Ivy top-10 institution was approached to join the Vandy/WashU group and declined. They heard the pitch as purely opportunistic—let’s differentiate ourselves from the Ivies—and didn’t want any part of it. So it’s not just the Ivies who see this as foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Vandy and WashU. For too long, too many liberal institutions have suppressed the voices of those who don't agree with their views. Princeton may be all in all DEI but they do not have ideological diversity.

Why can't you just find a good fit for yourself? Go to wash u. Go to vandy. Why do you have to beat on some institution that has a different perspective than your own? You're allowed to be conservative. Other people are allowed to be progressive. It's okay.

I'm not sure you're "allowed" to be openly conservative at many of these institutions, including Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Eisgruber (Princeton) that it's dangerous and a folly for universities to capitulate to a sitting president's political agenda (Trump). That's not what democracies should do. It's what happened very quickly in Russia (see the film my Undesirable Friends Part 1, 2024).

I think some of these uni presidents don't have a backbone and also smell an opportunity to take a middling position or play along with Trump.

History will judge this mess. They're all in the crucible now and we'll see and history will tell what they're made of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Vandy and WashU. For too long, too many liberal institutions have suppressed the voices of those who don't agree with their views. Princeton may be all in all DEI but they do not have ideological diversity.

Why can't you just find a good fit for yourself? Go to wash u. Go to vandy. Why do you have to beat on some institution that has a different perspective than your own? You're allowed to be conservative. Other people are allowed to be progressive. It's okay.

I'm not sure you're "allowed" to be openly conservative at many of these institutions, including Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt is declining before our eyes and it started with the 3 new campuses theyre building. WashU has always been ultra conservative so no surprise there. Shame on Rice for joining them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Vandy and WashU. For too long, too many liberal institutions have suppressed the voices of those who don't agree with their views. Princeton may be all in all DEI but they do not have ideological diversity.

Why can't you just find a good fit for yourself? Go to wash u. Go to vandy. Why do you have to beat on some institution that has a different perspective than your own? You're allowed to be conservative. Other people are allowed to be progressive. It's okay.

I'm not sure you're "allowed" to be openly conservative at many of these institutions, including Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Vandy and WashU. For too long, too many liberal institutions have suppressed the voices of those who don't agree with their views. Princeton may be all in all DEI but they do not have ideological diversity.

Why can't you just find a good fit for yourself? Go to wash u. Go to vandy. Why do you have to beat on some institution that has a different perspective than your own? You're allowed to be conservative. Other people are allowed to be progressive. It's okay.

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Vandy and WashU. For too long, too many liberal institutions have suppressed the voices of those who don't agree with their views. Princeton may be all in all DEI but they do not have ideological diversity.