"To me, it seems as though the formal methods for cultivating talent have become corrupted. The selection systems have been gamed, and our cultural institutions reward conformity rather than excellence. "
I disagree. Our institutions are still selecting for excellence, but their criteria for what they select for based on excellence has changed. They select excellent ideological devotees. The selection systems have not been gamed, but those doing the selection have simply changed what they select for.
If we lived in a world with competition and death among institutions that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. If some private universities wanted to select for ideology A, others for ideology B, and others for, say, actually teaching students something useful, we could let the market figure that out as people pick what they want. As it stands, universities are funded both by the state directly and indirectly through heavily subsidized tuition, while supply via entry is limited, all while many jobs legally require a college degree, and as such we have no real market because there can be no failure that causes colleges to go out of business. Colleges could select for excellence in speaking Klingon and it wouldn't affect their position so long as the state supports stay in place.
The Doctor is correct if he means that the students who walk off with the prizes on graduation day look very similar to each other, and that the metric is increasingly effectiveness in advancing a cause. Public complaints by the older generation of Rhodes Scholars about the more recent awardees provide some confirmation of this. But the problem is not that colleges are propped up by public subsidies and thus don't compete with each other--or fail. Colleges compete in all kinds of ways, and within colleges departments compete for enrollments.
In fact one of the hottest areas of competition between colleges is competition for promising young faculty from the most famous graduate schools. There is the heart of the problem. Many famous graduate schools, at least outside of the STEM fields, are ideological hell-holes, and the prevailing ideology is you-know-what. This is then inculcated in the students, and the ones who most closely mirror and effectively advance the ideas of their professors get the best grades and recommendations. The system has not been gamed--the doctor is right about that. Rather the system itself has become a game.
That's a good point I didn't make clear: the colleges compete with each other, but in exactly the same niche. As if every ice cream shop in town only sold vanilla, and competed over how famous its vanilla was, how prestigious eating there was, how soft the seats were, but try to serve mint chocolate chip and you will lose your license to sell ice cream.
I think it is notable that universities are competing over enrollments, but all the top schools turn away a huge percent of customers. It is the less prestigious schools that are struggling, and really they are competing with non-college options as total enrollments drop.
What is especially telling is that as of yet, no less prestigious school has decided "You know, we could probably drop a ton of administrators, maybe some majors with lower enrollment, or even, hey, stop with the CSJ/DEI stuff and just lean hard right. Be the next Hillsdale, Grove City or GMU Econ!" When I see a few schools doing that, I will believe they are facing serious budgetary constraints that might lead to closing their doors. Till then it sounds a lot more like the wheel trying to get more grease by being more squeaky.
If the universities had to fund their own student loans with no taxpayer guarantees and students could go bankrupt and dismiss the loans perhaps some universities would go bust or up their game.
indicate a growth of informal networks of very divergent people, which can be very productive. Probably few of these people have ever meet in real life and knowing just a couple and reputations of others about the only thing in common is they are all very numerate.
"To me, it seems as though the formal methods for cultivating talent have become corrupted. The selection systems have been gamed, and our cultural institutions reward conformity rather than excellence. "
I disagree. Our institutions are still selecting for excellence, but their criteria for what they select for based on excellence has changed. They select excellent ideological devotees. The selection systems have not been gamed, but those doing the selection have simply changed what they select for.
If we lived in a world with competition and death among institutions that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. If some private universities wanted to select for ideology A, others for ideology B, and others for, say, actually teaching students something useful, we could let the market figure that out as people pick what they want. As it stands, universities are funded both by the state directly and indirectly through heavily subsidized tuition, while supply via entry is limited, all while many jobs legally require a college degree, and as such we have no real market because there can be no failure that causes colleges to go out of business. Colleges could select for excellence in speaking Klingon and it wouldn't affect their position so long as the state supports stay in place.
The Doctor is correct if he means that the students who walk off with the prizes on graduation day look very similar to each other, and that the metric is increasingly effectiveness in advancing a cause. Public complaints by the older generation of Rhodes Scholars about the more recent awardees provide some confirmation of this. But the problem is not that colleges are propped up by public subsidies and thus don't compete with each other--or fail. Colleges compete in all kinds of ways, and within colleges departments compete for enrollments.
In fact one of the hottest areas of competition between colleges is competition for promising young faculty from the most famous graduate schools. There is the heart of the problem. Many famous graduate schools, at least outside of the STEM fields, are ideological hell-holes, and the prevailing ideology is you-know-what. This is then inculcated in the students, and the ones who most closely mirror and effectively advance the ideas of their professors get the best grades and recommendations. The system has not been gamed--the doctor is right about that. Rather the system itself has become a game.
That's a good point I didn't make clear: the colleges compete with each other, but in exactly the same niche. As if every ice cream shop in town only sold vanilla, and competed over how famous its vanilla was, how prestigious eating there was, how soft the seats were, but try to serve mint chocolate chip and you will lose your license to sell ice cream.
I think it is notable that universities are competing over enrollments, but all the top schools turn away a huge percent of customers. It is the less prestigious schools that are struggling, and really they are competing with non-college options as total enrollments drop.
What is especially telling is that as of yet, no less prestigious school has decided "You know, we could probably drop a ton of administrators, maybe some majors with lower enrollment, or even, hey, stop with the CSJ/DEI stuff and just lean hard right. Be the next Hillsdale, Grove City or GMU Econ!" When I see a few schools doing that, I will believe they are facing serious budgetary constraints that might lead to closing their doors. Till then it sounds a lot more like the wheel trying to get more grease by being more squeaky.
If the universities had to fund their own student loans with no taxpayer guarantees and students could go bankrupt and dismiss the loans perhaps some universities would go bust or up their game.
I'd vote for that referendum initiative.
Articles like:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/03/crypto-skeptics-growing/
indicate a growth of informal networks of very divergent people, which can be very productive. Probably few of these people have ever meet in real life and knowing just a couple and reputations of others about the only thing in common is they are all very numerate.
Since it is so much easier to break things than to fix them, perhaps the null hypothesis should be applied asymmetrically.