It's great to hear that RDI is giving room for great thought to those who are starting out in the world. The context here is American, but I am sure this also applies to elite institutions in Canada and the rest of the world. There is some good logic in upgrading the curriculum of all universities, colleges, and trade schools, heck, even high schools to include meaningful citizenship classes that includes history, philosophy, economics, and political science which will prepare students for life after school. If Yale decides that citizenship is best left to "do your own research", we are left with citizenship by social media and practically speaking, that is what the authors are maintaining is the case today. There is no right/left or right/wrong in citizenship, simply an ongoing awareness of what lessons can be learned from the past and how events happening today can affect our lives and those that come after us. The cool thing about young people is that they can smell BS better than us old farts and if educators go off the rails, they will be advised by the students in the error of their ways.
So two dudes that became (wannabe) killers are from some universities and that makes it a whole systemic university issues? What about all the guys / killers who did not go to elite universities? The ratio elite education/ no education in the killers pool actually warrants that if everyone went to these elite universities, there would be way less killers. This article is not very well thought. Full of specious claims. Isn’t the writer from an elite university? I was expecting better 🤣
The line that landed hardest: students deliberate endlessly on the trolley problem but never learn how or when to pull the lever. That gap between knowing good and doing good is the whole thing, and I think it has a mechanism worth naming.
Character isn't formed by deliberation. It's formed by acting under consequence, by carrying the weight of a decision that was actually yours and living with how it turned out. The modern elite university is exquisitely optimized to remove exactly that: everything is graded, every problem has a gold-star answer, and the stakes are abstract. You can't build judgment in a system engineered to be consequence-light.
Which is why the cold mornings and the ungraded open-ended questions aren't soft extras. They're the curriculum. Humility and service aren't taught in a lecture. They're built by doing hard things for other people, repeatedly, where it costs you something.
We live in a time wherein high educated youngster prefer to take on a bullshit job to make money as fast and as much as possible. They prefer this over meaningful positions to create a better world.
Kennedy’s slogan in 1961 still was: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask for what you can do for your country.’ And a lot of well educated youngsters served in the Peace Corps he installed on March 1, 1961. Those were the days.
We live in a time wherein high educated youngster prefer to take on a bullshit job to make money as fast and as much as possible. They prefer this over meaningful positions to create a better world.
Kennedy’s slogan in 1961 still was: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask for what you can do for your country.’ And a lot of well educated youngsters served in the Peace Corps he installed on March 1, 1961. Those were the days.
Dutch universities still effectively communicate their dual priority: technological superiority and social well-being (https://www.sloganlist.com/).
Nevertheless, also in Europe, where youngsters do not pay as much money for their academic education as in the US, too many youngsters go for the bullshit jobs.
And we need them to create a better world, for me and you and for the human race! We do need them for solving actual great problems like climate change, possible mass extinction of animals (which includes Homo sapiens) and plants, genocidal (civil) wars, introduction of Artificial Intelligence, etc.
Elite universities thrived in the early 2000s by humanizing themselves in pop culture, not by distinguishing themselves as truly elite. Will Hunting resented elitism and demonstrated that pedigree means nothing. In the movie 21, the professor turns out to be the corrupted antagonist, not the casinos. Mark Zuckerberg is portrayed as a royal jerk that stole the ideas of others in The Social Network. The Winklevoss twins also embodied the elitist attitude, expecting their legacies and fancy pedigrees to do all their fighting for them while Zuck was doing all of the execution on their idea.
Societal fascination with these institutions has always been centered around bursting their pomp and knocking them down to our level where they belong. It’s not celebration, it’s mockery. Perhaps the grimmest sign for these institutions is that they no longer can recognize the difference.
This sounds like maga claptrap to me. After you change college curriculum let's have a book burning party to celebrate! Singling out two college graduates to make your point is just lazy and disingenuous. How many Jan 6th rioters "passed through these schools’ hallowed halls"?
Used to be the elite universities got people into an exlcusive club that made it easier to open doors that were closed to others. There was a presumption that the person was rigorously vetted so the degree was all the proof anyone needed. The club factor might still remain but the rest will be a hard claim to backup for many reasons and now AI
Most valuable thing for me from University: Ten (15, 20) Common Fallacies in Phil 101 Intro to Logic. In short form social media, these deceptions loom large. Take them apart!
I think they’ve become pretty worthless. A stand down for about a year to develop new curriculum that would actually benefit a student in the future would be beneficial to the country as well. And yes, some tenured professors who essentially are teaching their hobbies would have to join the workforce. Tsk, tsk.
The key difference I see in the change of Yale's mission statement is dropping two references to the world--the global aspiration is completely gone. This may reflect either a recognition that the university no longer stands out so much as world-class, or most likely, that it recognizes it may be difficult in the America First era to bring in as many international students as it previously did. In either case, it is a major, sad retreat. Get well soon!
Respectfully, the constant navel gazing at their own mission statements is a perfect analogy for their bigger reputational problems.
Why should *anyone* care about the semantics of a silly non-descript mission statement? We can’t seriously believe that the wording of a mission statement is having a material impact on student success at the school, right? That’s preposterous. You’d be hard pressed to find a single student that cares about it. Pure fluff.
Sure, I agree. I'm used to mission statement fixation from my career in corporates, so it doesn't seem strange.
I know that Yale's current mission (better, their objective) is to stay below the radar of Trumpism, which is wise for the institution as a whole, not so much for its brand.
The mission thing is more for the employees than students, to get them to knuckle down.
In your defense, I should add the caveat that when a mission statement does change, it's still a reflection of the current administration's priorities. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to read the tea leaves of that decision and ask what that says about the new direction of the school. It's just that it should be kept in perspective that at the end of the day, it's an aspirational goal-setting statement, not a measure of the university's current culture as it exists today. It's oversimplified and fluffy by necessity.
That's a good point that the mission statement is for the employees though. You're right, but to me though that's an even better argument to make the statement more centered around specific, achievable goals.
It's great to hear that RDI is giving room for great thought to those who are starting out in the world. The context here is American, but I am sure this also applies to elite institutions in Canada and the rest of the world. There is some good logic in upgrading the curriculum of all universities, colleges, and trade schools, heck, even high schools to include meaningful citizenship classes that includes history, philosophy, economics, and political science which will prepare students for life after school. If Yale decides that citizenship is best left to "do your own research", we are left with citizenship by social media and practically speaking, that is what the authors are maintaining is the case today. There is no right/left or right/wrong in citizenship, simply an ongoing awareness of what lessons can be learned from the past and how events happening today can affect our lives and those that come after us. The cool thing about young people is that they can smell BS better than us old farts and if educators go off the rails, they will be advised by the students in the error of their ways.
So two dudes that became (wannabe) killers are from some universities and that makes it a whole systemic university issues? What about all the guys / killers who did not go to elite universities? The ratio elite education/ no education in the killers pool actually warrants that if everyone went to these elite universities, there would be way less killers. This article is not very well thought. Full of specious claims. Isn’t the writer from an elite university? I was expecting better 🤣
Communication interns? Look at your first line. The word of should not follow the word off in good communication, verbal or written.
“Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma.”
In other words, say what you mean and stop hiding behind grammar technicalities. We don’t care. Just tell the truth. You’ll sound smarter that way.
Your grammar isn’t correct either. You failed to put “of” and “off” in quotation marks. Don’t worry. I knew what you meant and it’s ok.
Thank you for your OPINION.
Even if it is somewhat hypocritical ad hominem.
The line that landed hardest: students deliberate endlessly on the trolley problem but never learn how or when to pull the lever. That gap between knowing good and doing good is the whole thing, and I think it has a mechanism worth naming.
Character isn't formed by deliberation. It's formed by acting under consequence, by carrying the weight of a decision that was actually yours and living with how it turned out. The modern elite university is exquisitely optimized to remove exactly that: everything is graded, every problem has a gold-star answer, and the stakes are abstract. You can't build judgment in a system engineered to be consequence-light.
Which is why the cold mornings and the ungraded open-ended questions aren't soft extras. They're the curriculum. Humility and service aren't taught in a lecture. They're built by doing hard things for other people, repeatedly, where it costs you something.
We live in a time wherein high educated youngster prefer to take on a bullshit job to make money as fast and as much as possible. They prefer this over meaningful positions to create a better world.
Kennedy’s slogan in 1961 still was: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask for what you can do for your country.’ And a lot of well educated youngsters served in the Peace Corps he installed on March 1, 1961. Those were the days.
We live in a time wherein high educated youngster prefer to take on a bullshit job to make money as fast and as much as possible. They prefer this over meaningful positions to create a better world.
Kennedy’s slogan in 1961 still was: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask for what you can do for your country.’ And a lot of well educated youngsters served in the Peace Corps he installed on March 1, 1961. Those were the days.
Dutch universities still effectively communicate their dual priority: technological superiority and social well-being (https://www.sloganlist.com/).
Nevertheless, also in Europe, where youngsters do not pay as much money for their academic education as in the US, too many youngsters go for the bullshit jobs.
And we need them to create a better world, for me and you and for the human race! We do need them for solving actual great problems like climate change, possible mass extinction of animals (which includes Homo sapiens) and plants, genocidal (civil) wars, introduction of Artificial Intelligence, etc.
Elite universities thrived in the early 2000s by humanizing themselves in pop culture, not by distinguishing themselves as truly elite. Will Hunting resented elitism and demonstrated that pedigree means nothing. In the movie 21, the professor turns out to be the corrupted antagonist, not the casinos. Mark Zuckerberg is portrayed as a royal jerk that stole the ideas of others in The Social Network. The Winklevoss twins also embodied the elitist attitude, expecting their legacies and fancy pedigrees to do all their fighting for them while Zuck was doing all of the execution on their idea.
Societal fascination with these institutions has always been centered around bursting their pomp and knocking them down to our level where they belong. It’s not celebration, it’s mockery. Perhaps the grimmest sign for these institutions is that they no longer can recognize the difference.
This sounds like maga claptrap to me. After you change college curriculum let's have a book burning party to celebrate! Singling out two college graduates to make your point is just lazy and disingenuous. How many Jan 6th rioters "passed through these schools’ hallowed halls"?
A study at YALE university a couple months ago found that the ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans at 66 to 1.
And scientists are mystified and unable to explain why the ratio is so low.
Used to be the elite universities got people into an exlcusive club that made it easier to open doors that were closed to others. There was a presumption that the person was rigorously vetted so the degree was all the proof anyone needed. The club factor might still remain but the rest will be a hard claim to backup for many reasons and now AI
Most valuable thing for me from University: Ten (15, 20) Common Fallacies in Phil 101 Intro to Logic. In short form social media, these deceptions loom large. Take them apart!
I think they’ve become pretty worthless. A stand down for about a year to develop new curriculum that would actually benefit a student in the future would be beneficial to the country as well. And yes, some tenured professors who essentially are teaching their hobbies would have to join the workforce. Tsk, tsk.
What is the point of Rolex watches?
The 1% has more money than they can spend and need someplace to demonstrate that they're not the rabble 99%.
How _else_ are they going to find mates with which to concentrate their genes/wealth?
Seems like the elite universities are turning out fascist by the dozens
Good one. Hello, are you listening America
The key difference I see in the change of Yale's mission statement is dropping two references to the world--the global aspiration is completely gone. This may reflect either a recognition that the university no longer stands out so much as world-class, or most likely, that it recognizes it may be difficult in the America First era to bring in as many international students as it previously did. In either case, it is a major, sad retreat. Get well soon!
Respectfully, the constant navel gazing at their own mission statements is a perfect analogy for their bigger reputational problems.
Why should *anyone* care about the semantics of a silly non-descript mission statement? We can’t seriously believe that the wording of a mission statement is having a material impact on student success at the school, right? That’s preposterous. You’d be hard pressed to find a single student that cares about it. Pure fluff.
Sure, I agree. I'm used to mission statement fixation from my career in corporates, so it doesn't seem strange.
I know that Yale's current mission (better, their objective) is to stay below the radar of Trumpism, which is wise for the institution as a whole, not so much for its brand.
The mission thing is more for the employees than students, to get them to knuckle down.
In your defense, I should add the caveat that when a mission statement does change, it's still a reflection of the current administration's priorities. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to read the tea leaves of that decision and ask what that says about the new direction of the school. It's just that it should be kept in perspective that at the end of the day, it's an aspirational goal-setting statement, not a measure of the university's current culture as it exists today. It's oversimplified and fluffy by necessity.
That's a good point that the mission statement is for the employees though. You're right, but to me though that's an even better argument to make the statement more centered around specific, achievable goals.