Anonymous wrote:The university obsession with “diversity” does not apply to political diversity.

For 90 percent of applicants, it would be very difficult to tell what their political leanings are.

As for academia and professors, the fact is conservatives and MAGA generally don't study and get PhDs. It's not like there's a big pool of Trump supporters with PhDs being excluded from teaching your kids physics and biology at Princeton. They aren't there to begin with.

MAGA and conservatives don't value deep study and expertise. So it's impossible to get that kind of "political diversity" in universities to begin with since there really aren't a lot of MAGA conservatives with the credentials to teach anything.

I would agree that some of the progressive nonsense on college campuses is nuts and can be oppressive. But again, there is no pool of conservative talent waiting in the wings. Republicans are anti-education and knowledge these days. None of them are getting PhDs. Not because they are excluded, but because they don't want to put in the work to begin with. And also, it's difficult to remain a Trump supporting MAGA when you get a little bit of knowledge and expertise. Republicans are all about the memes. Expertise is for nerds, and Republicans hate nerds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Yale report really fails to contextualize that there’s an anti intellectual movement in the US and that that movement doesn’t need to be tolerated or accepted. I agree in the general truth that college shouldn’t be $100,000/year., but to be frank, conservatives’ gripes against higher ed are half fiction or self reports of their own incompetence (lack of conservative faculty). Grade inflation is a post-covid inflation that really isn’t that important, and broadly is a bigger issue for companies that refuse to train

You’re certainly right about the anti-intellectual movement (often wrong and absurd), but you’re mistaken to cavalierly dismiss criticisms of academia. It has lost the plot in some basic, foundational respects and requires substantial reform.

Such as? It’s really telling that people here are eating up the mission change when all it does is assert that Yale does what a community college could do. They seem a bit hellbent on ruining their brand more than anything. These academics would retreat back to their offices if they heard the idiocy of the public these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale alum here. Yale's problem is that it is located in New Haven--one of the most failed, rotten, post-industrial cities on the East Coast. Yale has tried to address this problem but it won't go away. Compare to Cambridge/Boston, Manhattan, Philly, Princeton--no comparison.

Hope they do consider SF as a satellite location (well not that SF is better but )

The birthplace of Silicon Valley and hub for the worlds tech is just as bad as a post industrial waste city?

Anonymous wrote:The university obsession with “diversity” does not apply to political diversity.

Kind of difficult when Half the population votes for a party that tells its youth not to go to college…

The university obsession with “diversity” does not apply to political diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich coming from Yale, who only accepts legacy donors from our top private.

Not for much longer perhaps. no more legacy. maybe no more feeder privates.

Top students will always come from top private schools. The difference is now they won’t have to also be legacies, top athletes, or big donor families.