#College

Imagine a bookstore that only accepted 5% of customers. If you want to buy a book, you need to fill out an application showing how well-read you are and how likely you are to use the knowledge from the book to advance your career. Every bookstore implements this system, and they become more popular the more people they turn away. Furthermore, bookstores have no reason to build additional locations even when they are filled to capacity, because they only want the most intelligent, well-read people to buy from them. No top-tier bookstore can deviate from this system, because it would cause their rankings (which are inverse to acceptance rates) to plummet. Many bookstores reinvent the wheel, investing in effectively equivalent resources and then limiting access so that no one but a small few can pay to access it.

This is bad for the bookstore, because they don't make a lot of money and have to charge more to each customer. This is bad for customers, because most of them don't get the chance to read, and when they do, the price is extremely high. In this case, much of the curriculum is an artificially scarce resource, because it could hypothetically be offered to everyone online without raising expenses significantly. Yet all the best authors and best publishers work for bookstores with the lowest acceptance rates, since those have the most money. Only the bookstores with low acceptance rates have money, because they have the best authors and publishers.

This is how college works in the United States. While not everyone can have the prestige that currently comes with attending a top-tier university, it's hypothetically possible for everyone to receive a Harvard-quality education via the internet. So what if every university were forced, by law, to offer certifications (online or in-person) to everyone who applied? (Not for free, of course.) Not everyone must attend in-person classes, but all lectures must be recorded, and everyone must be allowed to get some form of degree. And if a government decree is too much, then universities that don't comply receive a harsh tax penalty.

If universities are given some time to comply, with increasing tax incentives by year, what would happen? With many times more customers and relatively stable expenses, I expect prices would become very low at top universities. Colleges would need to be ranked somehow, but with acceptance rates out the window, this would have to be based on how much students improve over the course of their studies at the university. Students would need to be ranked too, but with everyone allowed to attend any university they want, this would need to be based on performance, or some third-party offering standardized exams.

The point is this: everyone can have access to the top professors and best lectures in the country for much cheaper. The best colleges can collect money from more people and invest in more resources. Instead of 1,000 different colleges giving the same lecture, we'd have about a dozen giving different lectures at a much lower price for each student. And as for ranking colleges and students? The market will find a way as it usually does.

If this is the most efficient way, why hasn't the market forced the top colleges to do this? Prestige, ill-executed non-profit ventures, and so-far ineffective government intervention. Get rid of the obsession with status, and we'll have a more educated populace.

This is a great interview with an impressive, talented Harvard professor who had a very promising career early on but refused to simply toe the line when it came to the prevailing narrative at Harvard:

This is from a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility glossary from California Community Colleges:

“Merit: A concept that at face value appears to be a neutral measure of academic achievement and qualifications; however, merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality. Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards (I.e., the use of standardized tests that are biased against racial minorities) and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces. Merit implies that White people are deemed better qualified and more worthy but are denied opportunities due to race-conscious policies. However this understanding of merit and worthiness fails to recognize systemic oppression, racism, and generational privilege afforded to Whites.”

So, does anyone stand by this definition, or is it civilization crushing inanity, or somewhere in between, and why?

Some people are far more likely to be violent than others, at least according to a recent 2023 study commissioned by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), but conducted by College Pulse. The sample size was enormous at roughly 45,000.

Some of the results will surprise you!

One of the most explosive findings was that Agender people, in response to this prompt: "How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker? Using violence to stop a campus speech," the results showed that roughly 64% of them said it was at least "rarely" acceptable FuS_QjOXgAIuJZO (1176×870) (twimg.com) , whilst 38% of them said it was at least "sometimes" acceptable, and 8% saying always -- scary! FtEWsUoaUAAU65t (911×611) (twimg.com) . This places them a top of any group as being the most prone to violence over a campus speech. 

Queer/Gender fluid is the next worst category for gender having splits (at least "rarely" 49%, at least "sometimes" 22%, and "always" 4%). Non-binary and unsure gender results were only fractionally better with their splits. It should be noted that sample sizes for these groups were: 1,249 for nonbinary, 810 were genderqueer, and 411 agender.

Both males and females were the gender group least likely to cause violence over a speech, with neither group getting at least a "rarely" response more than 20% of the time, females 3% for "sometimes" and 1% for "always", whilst males were 4% and 2% respectively.

In regards to race, a surprising finding was that Native Hawaiians (at least "rarely" 36% - at least "sometimes"15% - "always" 5%) were the most likely to get violent over a campus speech, with only Middle Easterners being marginally better (35%-15%-4%). Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Mixed races were all roughly the same and significantly less than the previous two, whilst Whites were the least prone to violence (17%-4%-1%).

Super surprisingly, with respect to religion, Buddhists were the most likely to throw hands over speech on campus (30%-10%-2%). Atheists were 2nd (24%-6%-1%). Christians were least likely (11%-3%-1%).

"Something else" was the most likely political category to be violent (29%-7%-2%). Strong Democrats were 2nd (24%-7%-2%). "Independent, lean Republican was the least likely (11%-3%-1% -- exactly the same as Christians). 

For the "field of study", African/Afr-American Studies (56%-31%-10%) Ethnicity and Race studies (52%-18%-1%) people were easily the most prone to violence.  Real Estate was the least prone to violence and the lowest group out of anything I saw (4%-1%-1%). Jewish Studies should also get a mention (8%-8%-0%).

(use this resource to play around with the data for all above categories) --> 2022 College Free Speech Rankings Data | Tableau Public 

Among many other statements, two other interesting statements were given to the students to evaluate how acceptable they are (1) "Block other students from attending a campus speech", and (2) "Shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus".

Agender (72%-41%-12%) and Non-binary (65%-33%-6%) were the 1st and 2nd worst genders for answering statement (1), with Non-binary (87%-64%-17%) and Agender (81%-55%-15%) switching places for statement (2). Males were least likely for (1) (33%-11%-3%) and (2) (58%-26%-6%).

Middle Easterners were again the least tolerant race for (1) (47%-22%-5%) and (2) (68%-37%-7%). Whites were the most tolerant for (1) (34%-10%-2%), but "other" was most tolerant for (2) (56%-27%-5%).

For religion, Agnostic (46%-15%-2%), Atheists (44%-15%-2%) and Buddhists (45%-18%-3%) were all about 1st for (1), whilst only Atheists (73%-43%-10%) and Agnostics (75%-41%-7%) were the worst for (2). Christians most tolerant for (1) (29%-9%-1%), and Orthodox Christian for (2) (55%-25%-4%).

Strong Democrats were the worst for (1) (49%-19%-3%) and (2) (77%-47%-9%). Independent, lean Republican were the best for (1) (20%-4%-1%), and Strong Republican was best for (2) (37%-13%-3%).

Field of Studies had African/Afr-American Studies (61%-32%-12%), Ethnicity Studies (61%-28%-6%), and Women's and Gender Studies (and Sexuality) (59%-25%-5%) were the worst for (1), whilst Jewish Studies took the cake for (2) (92%-37%-0%). Ethnicity and Race Studies should get a mention, too (83%-70%-22%). Robotics and Intelligent Systems were the best for (1) (13%-0%-0%), whilst European Cultural Studies were the best for (2) (18%-0%-0%).

Anyone who doesn't identity as a man or woman is likely to be against genuine freedom of speech, with the mythical agender and non-binary people the most prone to violence of any groups. Middle Easterners are not quite as bad as the mythical genders, but they certainly don't seem to support freedom of speech either, and thus are the most troublesome race. Whites seem to support freedom of speech the most and are the least likely to be violent over it. Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and Strong Democrats are somewhat intolerant, but not as prone to violence as Middle Easterners or the mythical genders. Christians are the most tolerant in all regards. African/Afr-American Studies and Ethnicity Studies people are almost as violent as the mythical genders but won't engage in other disrupting tactics as much (but they are still the worst from any field of study). Real Estate study people were the least violent of any group.

Another interesting recurring theme I found was that Asians were slightly more intolerant of freedom of speech than Blacks, even in regards to violence.

Finally, the worst college for freedom of speech, in accordance with the study's "2022 College Free Speech Rankings," was Columbia University by some margin, garnering an "abysmal" rating of 9.91 (the only "abysmal" rating out of 203 campuses) 2022 College Free Speech Rankings | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)