Saturday assorted links

1. Do celebrity governors even matter?

2. Joshua M. Kim comments on Stubborn Attachments.

3. Venture capital, education, and creative artists.

4. Are community schools working? (NYT, link fixed)

5. “Our ability to discuss policy is so broken that saying you’re going to raise the top tax rate is the only way progressives will believe you’re going to tax the rich more. In reality, eliminating stepped up basis & reducing exemptions/deductions would increase progressivity more.”  From Betsey Stevenson.

6. Is this simply the “golden age” of higher ed?

7. Matt Stoller unloads on the Dems.


#4 leads to the wrong article

6. I, for one, did not expect this nugget:

"The dedication to social inclusion suggests a path for the future: We are in the midst of debates about whether and how to expand universities’ commitments to first-generation students, as well as to political conservatives. (A recent Pew Research Center survey showed that a majority of Republicans now think colleges do more harm than good.) It is within the capacity of academe to win back the allegiance of those who have felt left out by providing solid skills and perhaps also by drawing them into evidence-based debate and dialogue."

I hope, the optimist in me, that this is a short term selection and signalling effect. Those conservatives are not really permanently down on evidence-based policy. They just have to pretend it, or passive-aggressively ignore it, until the right cycles back to genuine wonks with expertise. Back to long memos aand white papers.

The sooner that happens, the better, but until then universities certainly should not attempt to accommodate anti-intellectual populism.

For those who support disparate impact analysis, the under representation of men in college these days demonstrates the hostile environment for men that colleges have created and allowed to continue. Should we expect progressives to demand equal participation for this obviously under represented group?

Probably the biggest reason men are under represented in college is the conservative zero tolerance and severe punishment policy, aka stop and frisk, lock em up for long time, policies that give mostly males at a minimum arrest records, which result in being denied all forms of welfare, public and private.

Eg, giving an unskilled person a job is private welfare because they can take the job training and go to your competitor - golden handcuffs are stupid private welfare which conservatives demand be renounced after the handcuffs have milked employees of their best work. Thus the end of pensions during my lifetime, based on it being socialism. Pensions benefited working class white men the most.

Are you saying that they are arrested but innocent ? Or are you saying they are arrested and are guilty and you think they should not be punished?

“I kept trying to go to the college, but the stop-and-frisks got in my way!”

“Majority of Republicans think colleges do more harm than good”.
When you get a chance sometime, check a list of things that a majority of Republicans believe.

I won't give you a hard time for not reading the article, which included this link:

Thanks. I may have mis-construed the gist of your comment on 1st read. I may have more patience for this range of topics when it includes the R/W tilt of business, the military and law enforcement. An actual enormous threat.

Also, I’m wary of reasoning that includes anything resembling “once the fever breaks, the conservatives will . . . “.
Some of that cohort may age out, but even there, I’m skeptical. One can hope the young-un’s coming up will be more cosmopolitan and lack the siege mentality, but don’t think we can rely on that alone. The subtitle of Pankaj Mishra’s “Age of Anger” is “A History of the Present” for a reason. And it’s looking like a strong hint about the future.

"universities certainly should not attempt to accommodate anti-intellectual populism."

Isn't that the complaint against universities now?

This is kind of the go to, but don't under count it as a factor:

Most of these I see was Dems at somewhere like 27% for creationism and Reps at 36% Not good for either, but not loopside either. No way either go over 50%.

I think the young earth numbers are the key. With a majority 60% young earth, no evolution, the Republicans as a group are going to have a different relationship to Biology 101 than the Democrats with a 40% minority.

Most Democrats are ready for freshman Bio.

From 2008?

The numbers i see from pew say 39% rep lean rep reject evolution compared to 25% of dem lean dem. Always a lesson in willful suspension of rationality, how any human with a room temperature IQ can reject evolution. Sad all around.

On the other hand, Mormons pay net taxes, help the needy, and don’t commit crimes. So their stupid beliefs don’t affect me in a negative way. Anyways link to not 11 year old pew results below. Sloppy on your part.


Regardless this is just normal trolling for you. We all know why reps are becoming more skeptical of Universities. The ideological makeup of professors has shifted , with a lag effect.

It has nothing to do with evolution. It has nothing to with astrophysics. If there’s an aversion to evidence based and rational assessment it can be neatly summed up in the manifestation of left wing rage against Scott Alexander.

One side is animated by the possibility of banning speech. One side is committing violence in reaction to words. One side riots when confronted with disagreement. The left used to be liberal, and welcome disagreement and debate. That has done a 180 degree turn.

Berkeley Free Speech Movement of 1964, our lonely nation turns its eyes to you....

Thank you. Well said. Now I don't have to reply to the anonymous left wing troll and expert strawman maker.

It get's tedious.

You guys literally cannot read the first graphic on the page.

"God created as is, 10000 years ago" is the one important metric, the one thst refuses all evidence of (a) an earth older than 10000 years, and (b) evolution in the fossil record.

It is a cognitive problem?

Also Gallup updated in 2012, con concluding "Majority of Republicans Are Creationists"

So what is the MR definition of troll? Someone who gives you a true report of a reputable study.

There has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982.

Since that belief has remained constant for decades, it casts doubt on your dumb narrative. What has changed since 1982 are the social sciences and humanities, which have become ever more corrupt and politicized. It's not "anti-intellectual populism" to reject that corruption (unless, of course, you're part of it).

I am trying to think through what it is really like to grow up with this contradiction - your parents and your church and your community tell you from childhood that science and education lie ..

What do you do, go through school, and then perhaps college, playing along? Harboring some internal secret that science and education are lies?

Do you think that really prepares you for citizenship in a modern society?

I do not, and I think it is more likely a fundamental break with objective reality that follows you for the rest of your life.

And it probably does make you comfortable with a president, and now a party, which calls any uncomfortable thing "fake."

This is uniquely sensible. My own take is that these people have authoritarian personality structures. This is just a fact that has to be reckoned with. They certainly won’t be amenable to an “open discussion of ideas”. I know the implications are grim. Nonetheless.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but if truth does not come from free inquiry, it comes from authority instead. Sad indeed.

I suspect when universities stop doing activism and stop trying to provide moral oughts, or smuggle them in through claims that it will boost GDP, then the base of working people (which is a conservative base) will listen to them once again.

Until such a time, it's hard to trust whether they are doing something which is really offering purely technical advice, or to smuggle in a program that they perceive as serving "social justice", and they will tend to be avoided as suspect. Outside of areas involving inanimate objects and abstractions which have no scope for this sort of malarkey.

When “universities stop [. . . ] stop trying to provide moral oughts“? read just a little bit about the history of universities going back a few hundred year, including their founding missions.

Explicitly religious institutions reflecting only the dominant religious thread? No interest in going back to that.

Right. Nor the “scientific” racism & white supremacy that were once part of the core curriculum of the Ivy League. But they seem to have evolved, a bit. This is an argument about *which* moral positions should dominate, covered by talking points about the “marketplace of ideas” & similar rhetoric. It’s bad faith and has become a grift.

SHould've written "moral" positions.

Imagine that. Fundamentalist creationists got an evolutionary biologist out of Evergreen College by rioting and threatening the life of the professor and his wife who resigned when the college couldn't guarantee their safety.

And there were riots at Yale when a professor poo-pooed the concerns of fundamentalist Christians who wanted to rid Halloween of pagan costumes.

And the moral righteous administrators determined to protect the chastity of the impressionable young women entrusted to their care by kicking out immoral young men who would defile them.

Those terrible conservatives ruining colleges and universities. Those things would make any parent hesitate to send their kids to such places at great expense.

+1. College conservatives are kooky today. Like the ones at Notre Dame looking to censor the internet's porn.

5. Carryover basis is tricky because it would affect all taxpayers. Indeed, proposals to repeal the estate tax have been coupled with carryover basis, and while almost all taxpayers pay the income tax (which would go up with carryover basis) only a very few pay the estate tax. Eliminating exemptions/deductions can increase progressivity, but it depends on which exemptions/deductions; and those exemptions/deductions mostly benefiting the wealthy will have an army of lobbyists at the capitol to preserve them. While tax rates are transparent, tax exemptions/deductions are opaque, and lobbyists are expert at the opaque. A benefit of higher top marginal rates is that it is easier to create tax incentives for favored behavior, such as investment in productive capital; indeed, when the marginal rate is low, tax advisors often counsel their clients to just pay the tax. A downside of a low top marginal rate is that upper middle income taxpayers end up paying the same marginal income tax rate as the top income earners; indeed, in many cases the middle earners pay a higher effective tax rate because much if not all of their income is subject to both income tax and payroll tax. It's the combination of the two taxes that greatly penalizes the upper middle taxpayers - it's the great mass of Americans who are well-educated and productive who are subject to the highest effective tax rate. Of course, there's a reason why they are subject to such a high effective tax rate: they represent the bulk of Americans' income and, hence, the biggest source of tax revenues.

What is missed is the keynesian economic theory before Keynes wrote it down of high tax rates and tax loopholes.

Also the theory from mainstream economics opposed to monopoly profits and rent seeking, in favor of capitalism.

The high taxes were on money not paid to workers.

The tax dodges were for paying workers to work.

Milton Friedman was extremely opposed to limited partnerships for drill baby drill in the 70s which converted high tax rate high professional "wage" income,, which was really rent seeking, ie, those restricted jobs where only a limited number of employees are allowed so they can charge high rents: doctors, lawyers, etc, into much lower tax rate capital gains.

Take 70% tax rate income and invest in paying workers to drill too many uneconomic oil and gas wells, with the labor costs driving high losses for the partnership. Then sell the wells as a package to Standard Oil foor 80% of the labor costs, but 5 times the book value which has reduced by 80% of the invested money, which was untaxed losses, and then paying no more than 20% tax rates.

Friedman called the policy of creating incentives for paying workers to work, bad policy. And doing so with taxes ineffficient. Instead the policy should seek to replace paying workers with higher oil imports from dictators which have higher profits, then collecting more tax revenue to pay unemployed US workers money so the workers could keep paying high rents to doctor and lawyers, and pay the high profits to oil companies by continuing tl drive gas guzzlers.

But then, he called for eliminating the welfare, forcing unemplyed workers to drive down rent seeking and high monopoly profits, because they have much less consumer spending forcing down the prices, thus rents and profits.

Friedman saw unemployment, poverty, as the best way to deal with, eliminate, monopoly rents and profits.

At least Friedman understood economics was zero sum. To cut monopoly profits, cut worker spending to worker income. Profits/rents are the money collected from workers not paid as labor costs.

And now *Ann Coulter*, who "always lights up a room when she speaks" (AG candidate in NYS @Manny_Alicandro, 15 Oct 2018) says she agrees with the 70% - 80% marginal rate, but also "make it a wealth tax".
"Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax."
(@AnnCoulter, 8:27 AM - 4 Jan 2019)

6. Overall a good positive piece. I do take the position that with large public funding at the front end, universities should not be taking patent positions at the back end. Extra red tape for implementation. But perhaps in this context that's a quibble.

Overall a piece written by a Subhuman for Subhumans.

#6 - loses style points for not mentioning Allan Bloom's classic "Closing of the American Mind" which is on-topic. Then again, I've read many a "tech expert" talk about innovation without mentioning patents, which is one of the first things the VC asks for on the term sheet when doing due diligence. Those that don't know, teach.

Bonus trivia: Saul Bellow was friends with Allan Bloom. Bloom was a bookwork and Bellow based one of his last novels, Ravelstein, on Bloom. Bellow had four kids, "Adam, Daniel, Gregory (Greg), and Naomi Rose (Rosie). Rosie was born when Bellow was 84 years old. His three sons were all born to different women and never lived together for more than a weekend." Play-a!

Agree with you there. Too much public funding getting privatized returns.

7. Interesting. A self-described personal liberty, regulated competition, open markets guy, blasting the left for not embracing leftist perspective. Being too respectful of Fox News, too forgiving with bankers.

Yeah what a moron. DINOs that pretend to be on the left are useful to his type of politics.

6. If the eminent drivel of Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Thomas Kuhn, Michael Porter, John Rawls, Clifford Geertz, etc. is considered a golden age, then it's long past due to stop "doling out" so much money to support the privilege of the First Estate.

Matt Stoller should be banned from Twitter for not knowing how to use Twitter. Write an actual article for Christ's sake.

Matt Stoller. /yawn.

6. The argument is basically that the vast size of higher education is an indicator of how great it is. By this logic, we have an excellent prison system, too.

Wow, did someone run over Stoller's dog or something? In this age of pundits yelling incessantly, more yelling just puts me off. I started reading the tweets and felt empathy with the basic viewpoint, but then just gave up. There are two "costs" -- IMHO -- to diverting precious attention span to articles or posts or speeches. The net content cost (how long is the article, how difficult the content, versus how important and well-reasoned the content is) and the formal cost (how much crap do I have to wade through, to get to the content; crap including ranting, ad hominem attacks, poor grammar, cheap shots, etc.). Matt, for me at least, your content ain't worth the formal cost.

Clearly, the Stoller thread is not aimed at you. Add that to the net content cost and the formal cost (good points & I agree). Bur it’s part of a discussion to which you are probably not irrelevant. The relevant participants know that going in, implicitly. Stoller’s points are becoming more widely understood. Good to see them adumbrated in what for many readers is a fairly palatable fashion.

for #1, the actual paper and not just an abstract linking to paid version

#6/#3 They have caused harm, they know it, and they know we are figuring it out. The end of government funds for any support of the arts faculty is coming. They can try to whitewash, but the cake is hopefully baked at this point. Good bye!

#7 unhinged, but I like anything that splits up the democrats.

#7...With Nancy Pelosi regaining the speakership, some stories have mentioned one of my favorite politicians, Sam Rayburn.

I have been in politics, and in politics an honest man does not get rich. -Sam Rayburn (whose savings at his death totaled $15,000)” ― Robert Caro

We have not seen his like again.

Since the beginning of language, political elites have handled the complexity, reducing concepts to simple ideas for the general public. As it should be.

Wrong placement, ignore above

"With Nancy Pelosi regaining the speakership, politics an honest man does not get rich. "

Pelosi wasn't rich when she got into politics, but she certainly is now.

"In 2014, CRP reported Pelosi's average net worth in 2014 was $101,273,023"

5. Stupid. 99% of the population does not know what tax basis is, much less a stepped up basis. Obviously the person who authored that is “unable to discuss policy” in a meaningful way, making the point hypocritical.

#7 "but it was a fight in 2008 to convince Democratic staff and members that Fox New wasn't an actual news channel."

Last time the Dems were a little rational? Fox at least has news and opinion separate. You can get actual news and skip Hannity et al. Last of the actual news reports. How long ago was the Princeton paper that found you should watch 1/2 Fox and 1/2 NPR for a balanced view, and ignore the rest?

#1 "our evidence suggests that despite their unique backgrounds and paths to office neither (celebrity) governor had a statistically significant impact on their state’s expenditures or deficits."

Also news flash to most - Congress spends money, not the President.

No reason for Betsey to be so vague about her tax plan. I call on her to lay out her proposals and quantify the revenue gains and the increased progressivity resulting therefrom. She's obviously already done the math or she wouldn't be making claims on Twitter. Per the JCT, the annual revenue to be gained from eliminating the capital gains tax at death (very close to the same as eliminating the step-up) would be about $30 billion per year and not all of that falls on "the rich". Trump went quite some way in eliminating deductions but if Betsey really have an additional impact, she should propose eliminating the exclusion for health care benefits and eliminating the charitable deduction for income, gift and estate tax purposes. I'd like to see progressives run on that platform. Come on Betsey, let's see it!

On 5, regarding the policy debates on taxes.

You have a more serious problem, the progressives want to make taxes progressive and spend the recovered loot. It is the last part that stops all progress. If the progressives said, lets make taxes progressive and pay down dobt so poor people are not trapped forever in a high interest rate environment, then you have real progressives who get the problem.

When government raises rates by over spending, poor people get harmed first, think it through.

Until Congress at least begins to cut spending, they're not serious about any kind of tax/budget/debt concerns.

Federal Revenue per capita in constant dollars is way up over time, we don't need to tax anyone more. If anything, the reverse.

The problem is that Federal Spending per capita in constant dollars is way up even more over time than Revenue is. If they take in another dollar, they somehow manage to always spend $1.25 at the same time.

If someone isn't willing to seriously cut spending, they aren't serious about any kind of improved Federal government financial reform.

You just enjoy private debt and like to expand private debt

6. Actually, higher education is bloated and inefficient and is most adept at providing salaried employment for a certain sort of bourgeois. It's also intellectually and morally corrupt, an organized appetite never sated, and shot through with the hopelessly smug, as can be seen in some of the remarks on this thread. Pointing out it's corruption is called 'anti-intellectual'.

2. On his point about community colleges-I guess he would be arguing that public funding of public higher education-to a level far beyond current levels-would be a pro growth investment and not a trade off.

2. The min wage debate is mostly a red herring. Most governments aren’t really proposing raising the wage that far above the median prevailing wage-so it’s hard to see much of the intended or unintended consequence....Also his argument that he would happily pay higher prices to pay a higher min wage is sort of self defeating...

>>5: "reducing exemptions/deductions would increase progressivity more."

Wow! We've got a Trump fan here. How about that. His tax plan, of course, reduced deductions greatly.... which hurt Dems the most, and caused all Democrat politicians to take a big shit in their pants.

Good on you, Betsy -- vote Trump 2020 just as your heart says!!!

"In 2015, economists at Georgetown University estimated that the average college graduate earned $1 million more than the average high-school graduate over the course of a working life."

This guy thinks that this is an impressive argument? Maybe one of you economists could tell me what, say, $100,000 and the savings from of four years of labor would produce if invested with a safe Fidelity fund for forty years. Wouldn't it approach a million? And also think of forty years free of taxes not imposed in support of education.

I have a nineteen year-old son who is doing fine in calculus. He thinks college is a waste of time. He's averaging about three hundred a night this week at the Barona Casino. He won a tournament there a few weeks ago. He's just getting his feet wet with poker. And, yes, it's legal for him to gamble there--but not to drink--as a minor.

I think the colleges are about to get an education that they are not going to enjoy.

Shouldn't we just be giving 18 year olds IRAs?

#4 'The community school approach represents a sea change, for it rejects the “no child left behind” belief that test scores are all that matter.'

From NYTimes data from last year for the school,

Public School 188 The Island School Manhattan|NULL|NULL|NULL|95

It seems that none of the students there sat for the SHSAT test. Under de Blasio's plan 7% of them will be able to be admitted to the elite8 high schools, replacing the possible up to IQ 147 students from The Christa McAuliffe School, who might be getting scholarships interstates, lost to NYC. The performance profile of NYC public schools (average of school average SAT2013 896/1600) are already not that different or worse from that for Puerto Rico (average SAT2013 898/1600).

My Democratic Congressman has served for 24 years. It's a surprise that he comes off as a little shrill or unpolished or naive on the rare occasions he's on camera nationally, but in person he's warm and kind (my mother-in-law, impressed with his repeatedly remembering her name at intervals of years, guessed that he had some sort of mental system).

And I guess that's why they keep electing him, term after term. Because it's not clear what they're getting - I'm not aware that he's ever sponsored any legislation - and, as we're the blueberry in the Bowl of Red, he's like the kid on the diving board, holding up all the young Dems (well, they're not even so young anymore) below him.

#6 For comparison, - Massive UK data series for the question of grad vs non-grad wages. Male grads earn £2700 more (8%), female grads £6700 (28%) more. Male:female differwnce probably a composite of different career and working trajectory among grad females with similar education edge.

Significant heterogeneity by degree of course (arts grads actually lower than average for men!)

Still, ain't no £1,000,000 over a working lifetime. If tuition fees are about 50k then you're not getting much premium at all.

And this is without adjustment for prior achievement.

Higher education is good for instances where it "gets you in the door" (specific skills: medicine, etc) and let's you slam the door in the face of the smart kids who don't. But general "critical thinking" degrees probably don't pay.

Hmmm.... Checking the full report, they actually *did* control for prior attainment ( Which explains more easily the low premiums for males (which are a composite of some real premiums for subjects under law, medicine, econ, computer science and business, and close to zero premiums for the rest).

Still they don't totally control out for lifestyle variables, so premium might be lower controlling for career effort (hours and responsibility at work, assuming full employment or other like things).

Also only to age 29, not indicated by the article. But on average, graduates have an edge at 29 which is 55% as large as at career max, at 45. So even by 45, the male "pure" HE premium is only likely to be 10% over controlled equal attainment male secondary graduates.

Still pretty far from that promised million, and especially once we consider moves into higher tax brackets, costs of education and the intensification of effort at work that is needed, and the heterogenity between professionals in law, business, econ, med who get a HE premium and those HE attendees who don't.

"At the lower end are subjects such as creative arts, philosophy and English.

Men taking these subjects are likely to get "negative" returns - as on average they will earn less than their male counterparts who did not go to university.

For men taking creative arts, they can expect 14% less than non-graduates."

Not terribly surprising. Essentially the wage premium is large if you desire a high paying occupation, but small or negative if you target a low paying occupation.

IE don't go to college to get a job in the Creative Arts. That being said, it's likely that the person who does so, might make more money as a plumber, but doesn't want to be a plumber.

Rat, kind of almost totally agree.

For why "almost", I'd quibble on "High paying field" for people employed in that field vs how much demand there is in that field and whether your technical skills from university education actually give you a leg up, on average.

For arts degrees, there are clearly some interactions with prior attainment and institution (obvious in the full paper), and there probably just aren't that many high paying slots for your average arts graduate who isn't connected through their institution to whatever the hip crowd is, and there isn't much premium on technical ability in art, today.

I believe there was another link from Cowen before showing pretty huge network effects in the arts e.g. returns mostly not about individual skill at all, but about being part of the right network, being smart and being perceived to be novel and original.

In that case, in a sense they're targeting a high paying field, but there isn't much demand, and an arts education at much outside a few elite colleges and which are very selective isn't very helpful.

I'd guess there are some similar effects for history, and many humanities outside the arts really.

We make a big error of aggregation when looking at 'college grads' vs 'non-college' as if all college grads were a uniform cohort. But the lifetime income of a doctor, lawyer, or engineer is going to be a lot higher than someone who graduates with a degree in English or Sociology. Psychologists make less money than electricians. Social workers make even less. Even associate professors at state colleges make less money than many journeyman working class people.

Then there are the 'studies' departments. Who hires the grads from grievance studies programs? Starbucks, I guess. Are we including them in the income list?

The other factor is that the peopple who graduate from college are on average smarter than non-college grads, and the wage premium may just be that smart people tend to be more successful. Also, the ability to stick to something and finish it over four years may also be a more valuable predictor of income than the actual material colleges are teaching.

My kid is in college now - 3rd year mathematics. His teachers in high school tried like hell to steer him into the social 'sciences' and away from math, physics, and engineering. His counsellor, upon hearing that he wanted to go into physics or math, said "That's disappointing. I thought you might want to do something socially redeeming with your life." Our colleges are bursting with students, but we actually aren't graduating many more people in the serious sciences than we did 30 years ago. The bloat is in watered down humanities degrees and 'studies' programs.

In any event, he wound up in math with a minor in Computing Science, and he's doing great. And he's very happy he chose that path, because the little exposure he's had so far to the humanities has been nothing but frustration and disbelief at what they are teaching.

This isn't the golden age of higher education. It's the end of the gilded, decadent age of higher education, where special people with special connections could get into special schools and take their unearned places in the hierarchy of the 'right' people who run the world, while everyone else goes to state colleges to get useless degrees in watered down subjects laced with progressive ideology.

You can still get excellent math and science educations in the US and Canada. I'm not sure you can get a decent education in history, sociology, psychology or other soft sciences without getting a healthy dose of political indoctrination to go along with it. Economics is on the bubble.

The real golden age of higher education will arrive when it doesn't take boatloads of money or family connections to get a good education. The future of education is online, and we're just seeing the very first baby steps in that direction. And it can't come too soon.

7. Matt Stoller unloads on the Dems.

Yes/No here. In a lot of ways AOC truly does represent the future of the Democratic Party but she has a lot to learn. Most people at 29 have lived in a bubble and her district is vastly different than most of the country. (FYI I live in SoCal so I understand a lot of her district and lived in the Midwest for a period.) That said:

1) AOC has a lot to learn legislating and politics and would be wise to spend time with Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. She is not the first with these battles and Nancy Pelosi and others can teach her a lot.
2) Some of the Democrat does sound a lot like we are the hierarchy of the club.
3) AOC is probably the best woman communicator at her Party base since Sarah Palin. And thinking about Sarah Palin I still say her biggest mistake was going for the big pundit dollars and positions before she was ready.
4) Any good politician should learn what works and spend time understanding what has been effective in Texas and Utah.
5) Social media has given to AOC her position but it can just as easily take away.

#6 - This appears to be an article telling the Higher Ed industry how special and important it is because all the numbers are getting bigger. It seems oblivious to the argument that students keep coming not for the value of the education but because they can't opt out of the free screening system it provides employers.

A potentially massive disruption in higher education could come from AI and big data. If we get to the point where an employer can run an AI to scan your online information and make better judgements about your suitability for the job than can the existence of a degree from a university, the signalling value of a degree will plummet. And I predict there will be a lot of surprising discoveries out of such a system - like the correlation between certain schools or faculties and suitability for the jobs they supposedly prepare you for not being as strong as they'd like - or nonexistent.

Comments for this post are closed