13 ms·

The erosion of campus liberties at elite schools makes them worse places for everyone. And it's been happening at least since I went to school, from 2000-2004.

The erosion of campus liberties at elite schools makes them worse places for everyone. And it's been happening at least since I went to school, from 2000-2004. It not only removes all the fun, it also infantilizes the students. College is where modern kids grow up, and growing up requires, for many of us, doing some unwise or at least unwise-looking things. The growth of the nanny-bureaucratic complex at these schools will make them dull, lifeless, and even more expensive, and then after college, people will finally start the growing up process at age 22. As that happens, they'll hire ever more administrators to try to fix it, with predictable results.

pers0n 4y ago
Do people really need college to grow up?
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>” then after college, people will finally start the growing up process at age 22.” I used to think like this, but then I realize that a good portion of the students who are used to this kind of institutionalized infantilizing internalize that it is proper and necessary. Then they go on to agitate for similar structures “in the real world”. Something to be especially mindful of is the fact that these students are going to “elite” schools and are therefore likely to end up in management or decision making positions.
- pram 4y ago
  Ah, so this is how we ended up with SBF and his “oopsie I made a fucky wucky” act.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    He's almost 30 though.
    - elcritch 4y ago
      Exactly, they’re saying that SBF and cadre expect to be treated as “kids” with the government/institutions playing nanny. It’s become their worldview coming from elite universities.
  - b112 4y ago
    This isn't Seinfeld, and everything doesn't come back to Lloyd Braun.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    SBF?
    - taormina 4y ago
      SBF = Sam Bankman-Fried
      - andrepd 4y ago
        Thanks!
      - alexvoda 4y ago
        aka. Sam Bank-Fraud
- ibeckermayer 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    I think you are giving too much credit to Twitter and an ex manager from it. Shaping the civilization? Oh come on, the whole saga is just a part of a billionaire’s clash in the culture war. Could have played out entirely differently had he bought it for cheaper.
    - ibeckermayer 4y ago
      Yes, Twitter is a key platform where political ideas are exchanged, particularly for politically active / elite, and Roth was responsible for censoring it on the basis of his own political bias and on behalf of the FBI, CIA, and other federal government agencies
      - fortuna86 4y ago
        There's no evidence he acted on personal bias, and the US government never asked or told Twitter to do anything. Other than that, your knowledge of current events is spot on.
        fourthark 4y ago
        Huh? This is not asking or telling? Is it suggesting at least? https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/12/22/how-twitter-hid-us-military-info-ops-from-the-public/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/12/22/how-twitter-hid...
        fortuna86 4y ago
        Of all the "revelations" of the Twitter Files (mostly recapping the interactions that were already publicly known), preventing DoD run accounts from being marked as spam is the closest thing to an actual scandal. But 1. These accounts weren't promoted, they were just protected from being "deranked". 2. Twitter and Meta suspended most of these accounts, and made public that they had done so. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-social-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-soci... So the entirely of this "scandal" is that Twitter agreed to shield these accounts from being attacked themselves (mass labeled as spam) - which as it turns out wasn't needed because according to their own records, these accounts received 1-2 impressions per post. In other words, no one even saw them. Then Twitter banned them and pubicaly fingered them. Should Twitter have done this? No. Is it proof of an engine of Twitter/US Gov cooperation to promote certain things and silence others? No.
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > Something to be especially mindful of is the fact that these students are going to “elite” schools and are therefore likely to end up in management or decision making positions. Well, they only do because people, probably including yourself recruit them preferentially. They don't magically end up in these positions. Disagree? Make sure you exclude graduates from the top 20 universities in the US in your next recruiting event.
- beardedwizard 4y ago
  Why does everyone blame the administrators as if students play no part? Inclusion, diversity, and psychological safety are strong values with the current generation of college students (gen z) and are building upon ideas from previous generations (millennials). The parents of millennials (boomers) have been lamenting their creation for years already. America created and raised these children and now seems to have some remorse about it, and history continues to repeat itself. Maybe the dominant culture is leaving some folks behind.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    The problem is not valuing inclusion, diversity and psychological safety. Those are just the excuses used by bureaucrats to justify removing autonomy. You can promote those values without requiring people to preregister attendees for every party.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    Leftist faculty educated students this way. America created these children, but leftist activists raised them, because parents were too busy working through their own self-fulfillment woes. It's a cultural shift that seems crafted: Self-fulfillment -> follow your heart -> feelings first -> feelings only. We have a whole generation of people who excuse bad behavior and failure with "I was having a hard time, I have to have my support peacock on the plane." None of these people heard "No" enough as a child. There's value in teaching children to ignore name-calling. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me." This is what we used to teach. People can be mean, don't let it affect you. Show grit, find it in yourself to continue anyway, and you'll succeed. Now? Achieve power by exploring your victim-hood and collapse in shaking outrage because someone disagreed with you. We need to start fixing this, and clearing these piles of frivolous administrators from the staff at universities would be a great start.
    - beardedwizard 4y ago
      Isn't that largely because the most marginalized groups started speaking up, and started being heard? Hasn't it progressed from there? I think it's fair to say LGBTQ, women and brown folks are being hurt in tangible ways by dominant language (words can in fact hurt when they influence generations of behavior), and like most progress there seem to be some who are experiencing downsides now that things are changing. Who decides who has sour grapes? Were these bureaucrats just waiting in the wings for an excuse to pounce with regressive policy? Blaming the staff without examining the broader cultural shift seems as bad as an emotional support peacock.
rayiner 4y ago
And then these elites will graduate and run the country’s major unelected institutions, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley, consulting firms, expert agencies, non-government organizations, charitable foundations, think tanks, etc.
stevehawk 4y ago
I've also noticed that a lot of the elite and ivy league schools have started pulling themselves from the US News and World Reports ranking system. Which is a great ploy to keep the mystique of these schools alive while they lose most of the educational advantages that they had over other schools.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  > while they lose most of the educational advantages that they had over other schools. The dirty secret is that they haven't really had those supposed educational advantages for a long time, if ever. I attended undergrad at a large university that was (and still is) around the 75-100 range in US News rankings. I then attended graduate school at a top-10 US News school. My expectation coming in was that compared to my peers in undergrad, the undergrad students I was teaching as grad student would on average be smarter and work harder, and would have better resources available to them. All three were false. They were on average more ambitious and more demanding (in terms of e.g. asking for points back on assignments), but not smarter. There are very real advantages to attending an elite school, but they are primarily social rather than educational. Having letters of recommendation from top scholars helps you get into grad school. Making friends with other people attending an elite school can provide all sorts of opportunities down the road. Just having the name on your resume will open doors for you. The undergrad education itself, though, probably isn't better.
  - eastAligned 4y ago
    At one point there was a huge filtering effect on who got into the best schools, if you start with and concentrate top performers you get good results no matter what; and can set a faster pace in addition. The proportion of legacy and diversity students (combined with the national push for a reduced emphasis on objective testing) completely eroded this. Not only are the students of less quality, the pace has to match the bottom, so they don't fail out all the special entries.
    - malandrew 4y ago
      This has been my observation as well. When I meet a boomer that went to an elite school I often find them impressive. Anyone that is a millennial that went to an elite school, rarely is more impressive than the folks I’ve met from second tier schools. For Gen-Z it’s a mixed bag. All those schools have going for them these days is a reputation that’s no longer deserved, social connections, wealth and a sense of entitlement that scores them freebies from time to time.
rendaw 4y ago
I went to a school with lots of parties, and I don't believe the presence of parties causes students mature to any extent. Most students acted like kids and were unaware of responsibility until after graduation regardless. My gut feeling is being responsible for your own well being (rent, food, job) is important for contextualizing other aspects of your life, like studying vs play.

pers0n 4y ago

Do people really need college to grow up?

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago

>” then after college, people will finally start the growing up process at age 22.” I used to think like this, but then I realize that a good portion of the students who are used to this kind of institutionalized infantilizing internalize that it is proper and necessary. Then they go on to agitate for similar structures “in the real world”. Something to be especially mindful of is the fact that these students are going to “elite” schools and are therefore likely to end up in management or decision making positions.

pram 4y ago
Ah, so this is how we ended up with SBF and his “oopsie I made a fucky wucky” act.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  He's almost 30 though.
  - elcritch 4y ago
    Exactly, they’re saying that SBF and cadre expect to be treated as “kids” with the government/institutions playing nanny. It’s become their worldview coming from elite universities.
- b112 4y ago
  This isn't Seinfeld, and everything doesn't come back to Lloyd Braun.
- andrepd 4y ago
  SBF?
  - taormina 4y ago
    SBF = Sam Bankman-Fried
    - andrepd 4y ago
      Thanks!
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      aka. Sam Bank-Fraud
ibeckermayer 4y ago
[flagged]
- mrtksn 4y ago
  I think you are giving too much credit to Twitter and an ex manager from it. Shaping the civilization? Oh come on, the whole saga is just a part of a billionaire’s clash in the culture war. Could have played out entirely differently had he bought it for cheaper.
  - ibeckermayer 4y ago
    Yes, Twitter is a key platform where political ideas are exchanged, particularly for politically active / elite, and Roth was responsible for censoring it on the basis of his own political bias and on behalf of the FBI, CIA, and other federal government agencies
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      There's no evidence he acted on personal bias, and the US government never asked or told Twitter to do anything. Other than that, your knowledge of current events is spot on.
      - fourthark 4y ago
        Huh? This is not asking or telling? Is it suggesting at least? https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/12/22/how-twitter-hid-us-military-info-ops-from-the-public/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/12/22/how-twitter-hid...
        fortuna86 4y ago
        Of all the "revelations" of the Twitter Files (mostly recapping the interactions that were already publicly known), preventing DoD run accounts from being marked as spam is the closest thing to an actual scandal. But 1. These accounts weren't promoted, they were just protected from being "deranked". 2. Twitter and Meta suspended most of these accounts, and made public that they had done so. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-social-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-soci... So the entirely of this "scandal" is that Twitter agreed to shield these accounts from being attacked themselves (mass labeled as spam) - which as it turns out wasn't needed because according to their own records, these accounts received 1-2 impressions per post. In other words, no one even saw them. Then Twitter banned them and pubicaly fingered them. Should Twitter have done this? No. Is it proof of an engine of Twitter/US Gov cooperation to promote certain things and silence others? No.
quadrifoliate 4y ago
> Something to be especially mindful of is the fact that these students are going to “elite” schools and are therefore likely to end up in management or decision making positions. Well, they only do because people, probably including yourself recruit them preferentially. They don't magically end up in these positions. Disagree? Make sure you exclude graduates from the top 20 universities in the US in your next recruiting event.
beardedwizard 4y ago
Why does everyone blame the administrators as if students play no part? Inclusion, diversity, and psychological safety are strong values with the current generation of college students (gen z) and are building upon ideas from previous generations (millennials). The parents of millennials (boomers) have been lamenting their creation for years already. America created and raised these children and now seems to have some remorse about it, and history continues to repeat itself. Maybe the dominant culture is leaving some folks behind.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The problem is not valuing inclusion, diversity and psychological safety. Those are just the excuses used by bureaucrats to justify removing autonomy. You can promote those values without requiring people to preregister attendees for every party.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  Leftist faculty educated students this way. America created these children, but leftist activists raised them, because parents were too busy working through their own self-fulfillment woes. It's a cultural shift that seems crafted: Self-fulfillment -> follow your heart -> feelings first -> feelings only. We have a whole generation of people who excuse bad behavior and failure with "I was having a hard time, I have to have my support peacock on the plane." None of these people heard "No" enough as a child. There's value in teaching children to ignore name-calling. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me." This is what we used to teach. People can be mean, don't let it affect you. Show grit, find it in yourself to continue anyway, and you'll succeed. Now? Achieve power by exploring your victim-hood and collapse in shaking outrage because someone disagreed with you. We need to start fixing this, and clearing these piles of frivolous administrators from the staff at universities would be a great start.
  - beardedwizard 4y ago
    Isn't that largely because the most marginalized groups started speaking up, and started being heard? Hasn't it progressed from there? I think it's fair to say LGBTQ, women and brown folks are being hurt in tangible ways by dominant language (words can in fact hurt when they influence generations of behavior), and like most progress there seem to be some who are experiencing downsides now that things are changing. Who decides who has sour grapes? Were these bureaucrats just waiting in the wings for an excuse to pounce with regressive policy? Blaming the staff without examining the broader cultural shift seems as bad as an emotional support peacock.

rayiner 4y ago

And then these elites will graduate and run the country’s major unelected institutions, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley, consulting firms, expert agencies, non-government organizations, charitable foundations, think tanks, etc.

stevehawk 4y ago

I've also noticed that a lot of the elite and ivy league schools have started pulling themselves from the US News and World Reports ranking system. Which is a great ploy to keep the mystique of these schools alive while they lose most of the educational advantages that they had over other schools.

CrazyStat 4y ago
> while they lose most of the educational advantages that they had over other schools. The dirty secret is that they haven't really had those supposed educational advantages for a long time, if ever. I attended undergrad at a large university that was (and still is) around the 75-100 range in US News rankings. I then attended graduate school at a top-10 US News school. My expectation coming in was that compared to my peers in undergrad, the undergrad students I was teaching as grad student would on average be smarter and work harder, and would have better resources available to them. All three were false. They were on average more ambitious and more demanding (in terms of e.g. asking for points back on assignments), but not smarter. There are very real advantages to attending an elite school, but they are primarily social rather than educational. Having letters of recommendation from top scholars helps you get into grad school. Making friends with other people attending an elite school can provide all sorts of opportunities down the road. Just having the name on your resume will open doors for you. The undergrad education itself, though, probably isn't better.
- eastAligned 4y ago
  At one point there was a huge filtering effect on who got into the best schools, if you start with and concentrate top performers you get good results no matter what; and can set a faster pace in addition. The proportion of legacy and diversity students (combined with the national push for a reduced emphasis on objective testing) completely eroded this. Not only are the students of less quality, the pace has to match the bottom, so they don't fail out all the special entries.
  - malandrew 4y ago
    This has been my observation as well. When I meet a boomer that went to an elite school I often find them impressive. Anyone that is a millennial that went to an elite school, rarely is more impressive than the folks I’ve met from second tier schools. For Gen-Z it’s a mixed bag. All those schools have going for them these days is a reputation that’s no longer deserved, social connections, wealth and a sense of entitlement that scores them freebies from time to time.

rendaw 4y ago

I went to a school with lots of parties, and I don't believe the presence of parties causes students mature to any extent. Most students acted like kids and were unaware of responsibility until after graduation regardless. My gut feeling is being responsible for your own well being (rent, food, job) is important for contextualizing other aspects of your life, like studying vs play.