Before listening, I'll put in my key college reform:
Congress should define "non-partisan" as having at least 30% Dems & 30% Reps. As professors, administrators, & trustees.
Partisan orgs (those that fail 30% Reps or Dems, registered as of 2024) should not get govt tax exemptions.
I don't like this BUT it's clear, fast, and nothing is better, certainly not “open inquiry with clear, rational, thinking” -- as judged by current Dems who've been discriminating against Reps for decades.
Tho Open Inquiry is a great goal, having a group of Dems & Reps agree on who is most open might be helpful, AFTER the 30% threshold is reached.
Too bad there is no transcript, despite so many ai tools that promise to do so, including substack directly. (Med. low quality, with no human editing, is far better than no transcript at all.)
Great talk! You're almost certainly right about Ed being mostly signaling.
On the rapid rise of the Dem monoculture, it's like a bio S curve. First look at the difference (Dems-Reps) where it could be 0 if even50-50, but since WW II it's been positive at most schools, like 5 - 10 over the 60s, 15-40 in the 70s-90s, ~50 in the 90s (Dems 75-Reps 25) where it's been slowly increasing and then there's a threshold turning point (2001 Bushitler BDS?) where it very rapidly increases to a much higher plateau. Today at Princeton there's exactly 1 of ~800 professors who's a Rep, Robbie George (visited Bratislava a couple years ago and revealed this, tho I'm not sure he's a registered Rep), with maybe 2223 leaners in the closet. Probably non-registered Reps. So at 90-99 or even 100, with some colleges probably having no, 0, nada, not a single registered Republican professor.
Those places ain't non-partisan, and don't deserve govt cash nor tax benefits.
And of course, if they almost all fail, that will be a huge drop in govt subsidies to these illegally partisan colleges who claim, falsely according to the evidence, that they are non-partisan.
I haven't gotten to this yet, but I will, I'm sure it's good.
I believe there is too little thinking about *goals* in education, and too much work put into signaling. I remember thinking this in HS, it was even more true in college, and also, interestingly enough, in the Police Academy.
There's not enough thought into, "What is the finished product?" It's easy in the 'hard' sciences; everyone understands why in physics a successful student can get the right answers so the bridge or office doesn't collapse of it's own weight.
But somehow if it gets even a little more abstract it all falls apart. And I think the police is one example where, maybe because of public scrutiny, it *actually* improved in this regard. Certainly, *way* more work was done for police training than for higher education.
For example. There is a strict emphasis placed on role playing scenarios, where you are placed in realistic scenarios and expected to make rational decisions under pressure, with all the equipment and actors playing oppositional roles. A lot of Departments even have mock apartment buildings and public streets. So the 'finished product' is someone capable, and tested, in performing under stress similar to what they would expect in real life.
Contrast this to colleges. Has any university adapted to 21st century technology and society to significantly improve the lives of graduates? To help them determine positive values? To think about and identify values that will lead to successful lives *at all*?
I don't know exactly how it got to the point we all just expect to spend a life-times worth of income on literally decades worth of completely worthless "education". Even *worse* than worthless, because it churns out graduates who actually are opposed to values which build a healthy society, and *for* destructive utopian visions, that even a casual student of history should be able to easily debunk.
Wow a video transcript would be amazing…
Thanks for putting this up, Brian. And thank you, Dr. Bailey, for the YouTube video. Can't wait to dig in...here I go!
That was AMAZING. Bryan you need at least 2 hours to go through more subject matters.
This is one of the best interviews of Bryan I've ever seen. And that's a HIGH bar.
Before listening, I'll put in my key college reform:
Congress should define "non-partisan" as having at least 30% Dems & 30% Reps. As professors, administrators, & trustees.
Partisan orgs (those that fail 30% Reps or Dems, registered as of 2024) should not get govt tax exemptions.
I don't like this BUT it's clear, fast, and nothing is better, certainly not “open inquiry with clear, rational, thinking” -- as judged by current Dems who've been discriminating against Reps for decades.
Tho Open Inquiry is a great goal, having a group of Dems & Reps agree on who is most open might be helpful, AFTER the 30% threshold is reached.
Too bad there is no transcript, despite so many ai tools that promise to do so, including substack directly. (Med. low quality, with no human editing, is far better than no transcript at all.)
Great talk! You're almost certainly right about Ed being mostly signaling.
On the rapid rise of the Dem monoculture, it's like a bio S curve. First look at the difference (Dems-Reps) where it could be 0 if even50-50, but since WW II it's been positive at most schools, like 5 - 10 over the 60s, 15-40 in the 70s-90s, ~50 in the 90s (Dems 75-Reps 25) where it's been slowly increasing and then there's a threshold turning point (2001 Bushitler BDS?) where it very rapidly increases to a much higher plateau. Today at Princeton there's exactly 1 of ~800 professors who's a Rep, Robbie George (visited Bratislava a couple years ago and revealed this, tho I'm not sure he's a registered Rep), with maybe 2223 leaners in the closet. Probably non-registered Reps. So at 90-99 or even 100, with some colleges probably having no, 0, nada, not a single registered Republican professor.
Those places ain't non-partisan, and don't deserve govt cash nor tax benefits.
And of course, if they almost all fail, that will be a huge drop in govt subsidies to these illegally partisan colleges who claim, falsely according to the evidence, that they are non-partisan.
I haven't gotten to this yet, but I will, I'm sure it's good.
I believe there is too little thinking about *goals* in education, and too much work put into signaling. I remember thinking this in HS, it was even more true in college, and also, interestingly enough, in the Police Academy.
There's not enough thought into, "What is the finished product?" It's easy in the 'hard' sciences; everyone understands why in physics a successful student can get the right answers so the bridge or office doesn't collapse of it's own weight.
But somehow if it gets even a little more abstract it all falls apart. And I think the police is one example where, maybe because of public scrutiny, it *actually* improved in this regard. Certainly, *way* more work was done for police training than for higher education.
For example. There is a strict emphasis placed on role playing scenarios, where you are placed in realistic scenarios and expected to make rational decisions under pressure, with all the equipment and actors playing oppositional roles. A lot of Departments even have mock apartment buildings and public streets. So the 'finished product' is someone capable, and tested, in performing under stress similar to what they would expect in real life.
Contrast this to colleges. Has any university adapted to 21st century technology and society to significantly improve the lives of graduates? To help them determine positive values? To think about and identify values that will lead to successful lives *at all*?
I don't know exactly how it got to the point we all just expect to spend a life-times worth of income on literally decades worth of completely worthless "education". Even *worse* than worthless, because it churns out graduates who actually are opposed to values which build a healthy society, and *for* destructive utopian visions, that even a casual student of history should be able to easily debunk.