3 ms·

Then UMich - a notably Dem leaning govt program - wouldn't be included. Personally, I remember taking Fairbanks Center associated classes and noticing how we h

Then UMich - a notably Dem leaning govt program - wouldn't be included. Personally, I remember taking Fairbanks Center associated classes and noticing how we have the children of Chinese VVIPs sitting next to active duty members. It sparked interesting conversations, but seeing someone who was a test pilot at Hanford sitting next to a scion of a Red Family was interesting to say the least. The program also absolutely did used to publicly give advice to the CCP at the time, and on the listservs I'm still on I do still see publicly pronounced UFWD members responding and posting events in the Boston area. Ofc, if I noticed this then it was absolutely known to three-letter agencies and State, and some of the institutions included are part of a larger culture war, but there is a kernel of truth - too many children of various countries dignitaries attended the program. Edit: can't reply > I think isolationism amongst the war party is less helpful than some degree of interaction UMich isn't an isolationist program though - it's a program which imo is the closest to how foreign policy was managed under the Obama admin.

ggm 8mo ago
Noting that we have always been at war with Eurasia, given we actually are not at war with Eurasia, would it not be both normal and sensible to at least know your Eurasian counterparts? I think isolationism amongst the war party is less helpful than some degree of interaction.
ricksunny 8mo ago
You casually drop a lot of acronyms and references to obscure programs (here and especially in parallel comment) on the apparent assumption that everyone reading does or should be clued in to the same acronyms. I feel you do so in good faith, but I wonder where the implicit assumption comes from that the 'rest of society' ('rest' w.r..t. whatever sub-group does in fact know about these programs intimately) ought to know what this sub-group knows.
- alephnerd 8mo ago
  Good question! Gimme the acronyms, terms, and context you don't know and I can give some context and meaning behind them. It's easy to fall into the trap of jargon with Gov stuff.
  - ricksunny 8mo ago
    Thanks - well what I'm actually interested in is what imaginary line can be drawn most tightly (i.e. descriptively) around a social group that would be familiar with all of the acronyms and institute names you referenced in this post's comments. Like are they all history majors? Political science majors? Given that whatever nexus this is seems to attract VVIP's of multiple countries, I think it would be interesting to understand what institutional lever in society these folks are preparing to grip. If it helps for perspective, I (like most HN folks) am coming from an engineering background so these are broadly unfamiliar to me.
    - alephnerd 8mo ago
      First things first - let me level set about what the SSC is. In federal jobs (civilian and service) in order to climb up the leadership track you need to take part in professional development courses. A bunch of universities set up 10 month long fellowship and educational programs that would give these leadership track individuals some additional academic polish, teach them new skills, and allow them to network with private sector and other public sector leadership track individuals. Anyone who has worked in the Federal Government --- > Given that whatever nexus this is seems to attract VVIP's of multiple countries No, that's just an American private school undergad thing. China's Harvard and Yale is Harvard and Yale because they were the first programs to conduct mass outreach in China after Mao was toppled. The Gulf's Ivies (other than the Ivies) is Georgetown and CMU because both GTown and CMU did a massive outreach ans brand positioning campaign in the Gulf. The reality is, most decisionmakers (not political appointees) in the US actually did their undergrad at state flagships like UMich, UNC, and ASU or beltway schools and only ended up at an Ivy for grad school - as is the norm in the private sector. In countries like China or much of the Gulf, brand name matters as it helps with climbing the ladder in those countries and it gives mobility that a domestic degree couldn't provide aside from at a handful of institutions. It's much easier to get into Harvard for an undergrad than to do the Gaokao to get into Tsinghua, and a Harvard degree gives you the ability to get expedited naturalization in Japan and much of Europe. > Like are they all history majors? Political science majors? Primarily Engineering (especially IEOR, ECE, MechE, and Aerospace), CS, and PoliSci. I myself was a double major in CS (specialized in systems) and PoliSci and spent a minor stint in grad school and > it would be interesting to understand what institutional lever in society these folks are preparing to grip At least in the US, it's just standard corporate management kinda work. The reality is, governments operate the same way that corporations do - you get "big picture" types (political appointees like most cabinet members in every institution) who are the public face for an organization, but the actual decisionmaking and strategy setting is done by careerists who are managing upwards. Institutional inertia always wins (eg. It's why Obama's red line on Syrian chemical weapons was ignored by the DoD and why Trump's interventionist policy shifted to what it is today), and the reality is a lot of conflicts that have been bubbling in the background for decades are now reaching their precipice. I know I didn't fully answer your question but it's a fairly complex question that I'm not sure I can fully do justice in a comment. It's best to view shifts within the USG the same way you would see shifts in a large conglomerate like Pfizer or at a large R1 research institution like a UC Berkeley.

ggm 8mo ago

Noting that we have always been at war with Eurasia, given we actually are not at war with Eurasia, would it not be both normal and sensible to at least know your Eurasian counterparts? I think isolationism amongst the war party is less helpful than some degree of interaction.

ricksunny 8mo ago

You casually drop a lot of acronyms and references to obscure programs (here and especially in parallel comment) on the apparent assumption that everyone reading does or should be clued in to the same acronyms. I feel you do so in good faith, but I wonder where the implicit assumption comes from that the 'rest of society' ('rest' w.r..t. whatever sub-group does in fact know about these programs intimately) ought to know what this sub-group knows.

alephnerd 8mo ago
Good question! Gimme the acronyms, terms, and context you don't know and I can give some context and meaning behind them. It's easy to fall into the trap of jargon with Gov stuff.
- ricksunny 8mo ago
  Thanks - well what I'm actually interested in is what imaginary line can be drawn most tightly (i.e. descriptively) around a social group that would be familiar with all of the acronyms and institute names you referenced in this post's comments. Like are they all history majors? Political science majors? Given that whatever nexus this is seems to attract VVIP's of multiple countries, I think it would be interesting to understand what institutional lever in society these folks are preparing to grip. If it helps for perspective, I (like most HN folks) am coming from an engineering background so these are broadly unfamiliar to me.
  - alephnerd 8mo ago
    First things first - let me level set about what the SSC is. In federal jobs (civilian and service) in order to climb up the leadership track you need to take part in professional development courses. A bunch of universities set up 10 month long fellowship and educational programs that would give these leadership track individuals some additional academic polish, teach them new skills, and allow them to network with private sector and other public sector leadership track individuals. Anyone who has worked in the Federal Government --- > Given that whatever nexus this is seems to attract VVIP's of multiple countries No, that's just an American private school undergad thing. China's Harvard and Yale is Harvard and Yale because they were the first programs to conduct mass outreach in China after Mao was toppled. The Gulf's Ivies (other than the Ivies) is Georgetown and CMU because both GTown and CMU did a massive outreach ans brand positioning campaign in the Gulf. The reality is, most decisionmakers (not political appointees) in the US actually did their undergrad at state flagships like UMich, UNC, and ASU or beltway schools and only ended up at an Ivy for grad school - as is the norm in the private sector. In countries like China or much of the Gulf, brand name matters as it helps with climbing the ladder in those countries and it gives mobility that a domestic degree couldn't provide aside from at a handful of institutions. It's much easier to get into Harvard for an undergrad than to do the Gaokao to get into Tsinghua, and a Harvard degree gives you the ability to get expedited naturalization in Japan and much of Europe. > Like are they all history majors? Political science majors? Primarily Engineering (especially IEOR, ECE, MechE, and Aerospace), CS, and PoliSci. I myself was a double major in CS (specialized in systems) and PoliSci and spent a minor stint in grad school and > it would be interesting to understand what institutional lever in society these folks are preparing to grip At least in the US, it's just standard corporate management kinda work. The reality is, governments operate the same way that corporations do - you get "big picture" types (political appointees like most cabinet members in every institution) who are the public face for an organization, but the actual decisionmaking and strategy setting is done by careerists who are managing upwards. Institutional inertia always wins (eg. It's why Obama's red line on Syrian chemical weapons was ignored by the DoD and why Trump's interventionist policy shifted to what it is today), and the reality is a lot of conflicts that have been bubbling in the background for decades are now reaching their precipice. I know I didn't fully answer your question but it's a fairly complex question that I'm not sure I can fully do justice in a comment. It's best to view shifts within the USG the same way you would see shifts in a large conglomerate like Pfizer or at a large R1 research institution like a UC Berkeley.