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.

+1

They do teach all of it, trolls.

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.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Wait.... who, in your mind, is the messenger? The author? Or you??? Maybe read a little bit about main character syndrome and then take a walk, yea?

The point about endowment hoarding is made by the author. I was explaining to the previous poster what the author’s point was, because he/she asked a question that seemed to misunderstand the point.

Maybe take your own advice and read. If you can, that is.

Err.... somebody wrote something in response to what you wrote. Seems evident that person can read...or are you suggesting they have employed some kind of high tech screen reader and speech-to-text tool? What angle are you actually playing???

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is better than the article.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here is the fact check on that ...

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

Yes, this is required by the Constitution as interpreted by courts.

"under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available to, on a medical necessity basis, to people in the federal prison system. And I think frankly that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, ... stones when you’re living in a glass house."

Trump is in favor too, as he did nothing to stop this federally required health care.

But no one bothered to read past the click bait ad. That is the problem with the average American voter.

Lady, these non-college educated people who voted for Trump do not care about facts or fact checking. I don't understand why you can't grasp this. They watch reality TV and football games and consume right wing media. They literally look at Trump and think, yes this is someone who cares about me and who is fit to lead.

The democratic party needs to understand this if they ever hope to take back power.

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.

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.

Here is the fact check on that ...

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

Yes, this is required by the Constitution as interpreted by courts.

"under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available to, on a medical necessity basis, to people in the federal prison system. And I think frankly that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, ... stones when you’re living in a glass house."

Trump is in favor too, as he did nothing to stop this federally required health care.

But no one bothered to read past the click bait ad. That is the problem with the average American voter.

The Dems we have had in leadership recently were not from Ivy league colleges---Biden, Harris.

I don't think many criticizing have experience at the colleges themselves. My kid is at one currently and it is much more 'mainstream' than our public school system here in NoVa. He also is not afraid to voice any of his opinions. He's not at Yale or Columbia or Harvard, but his school teaches all sides of the coin. It does not have a 'liberal agenda'.

I agree the cost (and we are full pay) is absolutely ridiculous. While their financial aid is fantastic for the poor, it is prohibitive to many MC/UMC families.

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 ...

Exactly. These trolls just long out bullcrap 24x7 and hope the idiots believe them.

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?

That was my thought as well. Why is he under the impression that colleges are not teaching history, literature, science? These are typically core requirements at all but a small handful of colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Wait.... who, in your mind, is the messenger? The author? Or you??? Maybe read a little bit about main character syndrome and then take a walk, yea?

The point about endowment hoarding is made by the author. I was explaining to the previous poster what the author’s point was, because he/she asked a question that seemed to misunderstand the point.

Maybe take your own advice and read. If you can, that is.

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. 🙄

Except we can all see the course list and see that you are full of sht.

GTFO, MAGA troll.

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.

Yup. So many ignorant people.

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. 🙄

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Wait.... who, in your mind, is the messenger? The author? Or you??? Maybe read a little bit about main character syndrome and then take a walk, yea?