I'm not sure what all the "its" here are referring to--what is a progressive and authoritative take? what reminds you of Peterson? (not trying to be picky here, I just don't understand clearly what you're referring to). What is the "something" that should receive effort to change? what are trying not to write off? what seems like propaganda? what is focused on promoting tribalism over mankind? as we sometimes say to students, the pronoun(s) need a clear antecedent.
Here you go grading my post like a paper, which is likely written below a 5th grade level. I’m a poor writer and have a hard time articulating my thoughts, I know, thanks Teach. Instead of breaking down every word, I’ll try giving a lose overarching point again hoping you may have the capacity to make up for my deficiencies. I’m mostly talking about political factions making inorganic efforts and goals to socially engineer professions / fields of work to better reflect their political views. That reminds me of this in a way, if academia naturally trends left, for whatever organic reasons, why are we to make efforts to intervene?
I'm really sorry that didn't come out better, I really do try to understand what someone says if I want to take the time to respond. I just wasn't sure what of mine you were responding to versus what of anyone else's you were responding to. And not sure what the Jordan Petersen connection is . . . I'm not much of a fan, I think his very very early stuff was okay but he got a bit too full of himself once he became a celebrity. anyway. not trying to be a jerk on the pronouns etc., I just couldn't follow your meaning. I also take your views more seriously than most others' on here, so I want to take care in responding that I'm understanding your points
No need to apologize you were right it reads pretty awful, I was making a lot of connections in my mind that I was not articulating, I try to be honest with myself. It’s way better to be called out with the expectation that I can correct myself than the alternative. To again try to clarify the Peterson connection (and I am not trying to classify myself as a general fan of him either, lol), he makes the point that woman and men naturally gravitate to different careers based on natural biological phenomena, even in the most socially free and highest gender equality countries in Scandinavia. Some people identify (normally politically motivated groups) inequality in work fields (such as few woman being engineers) as being problematic, something to be combated and “fixed”. He asks why, if woman more often naturally prefer to be teachers or nurses than engineers or construction workers, are we to artificially intervene, and for what good? I think that’s a fair point, and I’m trying to compare that point on the gender divide in work to the political divide in work.
on gender-expectant/gender-stereotyped roles, I think culture accounts for 80 to 90 percent of that, and maybe more. There may be some sex-linked traits that correlate with behavioral or intellectual capacities, but I'm not sure at this point that those can be teased out. At one point in my life I was a biology student with 50 credits of evolutionary theory and what not under my belt, but that's a good forty years ago at this point, and I don't have quite the same level of interest in those questions that I once had. I think aggressive recruitment and encouragement of individual members of "underrepresented" groups is a good thing. But having that kind of recruitment goal effectively take over as a trump card in employment hiring, promotions, and the like is very problematic.
Wow, that sounds shockingly high from what my expectations would be, but I have next to zero formal education is any of this. This gets back to the whole affirmative action talk we've had here and there over the years. You are more open and understanding of these things, and potentially are more socially progressive than I am here. This is where political language gets weird too, what do you call someone advocating for DEI for conservative ideology? That's why I used to the word authoritative (or perhaps authoritarian is the correct word here?) earlier, intervention in this context feels illiberal to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think "DEI" (which has too many gender/ethnic/racial connotations) is the right term for what has been called "viewpoint diversity" for probably well over thirty years, and conservatives have been calling for better representation in academia going back to William F. Buckley and God and Man at Yale.
gift link Academia is finally learning hard lessons Universities, colleges took prestige and public support for granted. Now they are paying the price. https://wapo.st/41bDARa
I think some here have watched her vids before. I didn't post it then because I'm not in academia and I don't personally know much about the situation. Saw this Dr. Jeffrey Funk post on my linkedin Sabine Hossenfelder uses the contents of a seven-year old e-mail from a top physicist to highlight problems with physics and science in general. She argues that scientists need to remake scientific research or else the bubble will “pop,” making many of the same arguments that I have made in articles such as one for American Affairs in 2022. The sender of the email did not like Sabine’s 2017 article in Nature Physics entitled “ #Science needs to be trusted.” How can anyone disagree with a title like that? Well they can, because the writer was worried about the scientists who depend on government funding to pay their bills and those of their families. Yes, you got that right, families of scientists deserve money, but not families of other workers. The e-mail says it doesn’t matter if scientists over promise and don’t solve any problems that taxpayers care about because those taxpayers are stupid. This makes Sabine mad because she believes that such letters are condescending to those who do honest work in academia, of which there are many. She is probably publicizing the letter now because Donald Trump is busily looking for wasteful projects to cancel and he gave Elon Musk that assignment. And we know that Elon will likely do something, like cut many projects, despite heavy resistance to any change. Sabine wants #scientists to fix the system because they are the ones with the best knowledge about the problem. She says fix the problem from the inside. She also criticizes the scientists who make fun of her. She says use your ****ing brain. She asks them: do you keep your mouth shut, laugh about me, or spread lies about me, then you are a coward about scientific integrity. She also says that every bubble eventually bursts, and the science bubble will eventually burst, perhaps this year. I agree with Sabine that there are problems with our global system of scientific research, and also our global system of venture capital and startups. My recent book, Unicorns, #Hype and Bubbles, details some of those problems and my 2022 article in American Affairs details problems with our system of global research. There are too many papers published, too many journals created, too much bureaucracy, and many research projects produce little value to taxpayers. Unfortunately, there is little if no debate on these issues by scientists, but privately I receive many messages from professors who are angry about my book and articles. This includes professors from Stanford and MIT, among many other top #universities. Clearly Sabine has stirred up a hornet’s nest and there currently is a president who will be sympathetic to her comments. Musk and others are looking for such stories to justify their budget cuts and Musk has already demonstrated that he would like to cut healthcare#research. He is even more likely to cut research on particle physics. As Sabine says, every bubble eventually breaks. I think it's more personal than Trump's hatchet, and she publicized the letter because she caught new wind of nasty rumors spread about her and used this to refute them and put them on blast.
Not higher education but saw this story St. Paul school field trip canceled for students of color following racial discrimination complaint -Yahoo apparently a high school had a colored only field trip planned, which was canceled after someone filed a civil rights complaint on it
This entire paragraph still lingers a month later. It's kind of a self selecting "it is what it is" moment when you think about it. Why would billionaires and political leadership want to fund think tanks where ideological con/lib academics have objectionable reasons against their mass marketed slogans and mantras? Many think tanks don't feel a pressing need to test their own theories any more. Below is a hamburger summary of an hourlong article found in the link. https://www.stimson.org/2024/nasty-...rs-think-tanks-and-influence-on-policymaking/ The Stimson Center's article "Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Scholars, Think Tanks, and Influence on Policymaking" presents a detailed examination of the complex relationship between academic research and policymaking, with think tanks serving as an increasingly problematic intermediary. The article explores how think tanks have transformed from scholarly institutions into partisan advocacy organizations, affecting their ability to transmit valuable academic insights to policymakers effectively. The Deteriorating Scholar-Policymaker Relationship The relationship between academic scholars and government policymakers has long been challenging, characterized in the article as "nasty, brutish, and short," borrowing Thomas Hobbes' famous description of life in a state of nature1. This provocative framing underscores the fundamental difficulties academics face when attempting to influence policy decisions. While think tanks were theoretically created to bridge this gap, many have evolved away from their original mission of applying rigorous academic standards to policy problems. Instead, they have increasingly embraced advocacy roles with ideological orientations that garner media attention but diminish their effectiveness as neutral knowledge brokers1. The article pointedly criticizes both sides of this equation: "If the scholarly world has been criticized for pursuing irrelevant research divorced from policymaking concerns, think tanks are equally at fault for having moved from hardheaded social science-infused advice to becoming more ideological and media-focused"1. This dual critique establishes that neither academia nor think tanks are adequately fulfilling their roles in informing public policy. The Transformation of American Think Tanks The evolution of think tanks reveals a clear trajectory away from scholarly objectivity toward partisan advocacy. The article traces this development from early institutions like the Brookings Institution (founded 1916), which operated almost as an academic department with scholars on loan, to the emergence of explicitly ideological organizations1. The Heritage Foundation (1973) marked a turning point by developing a comprehensive conservative agenda for the Reagan presidency, while the Democratic Leadership Council created the Progressive Policy Institute (1989) to serve similar functions for Democrats3. Perhaps most concerning is the documented decline in academic credentials among think tank scholars. Research cited in the article found that "among a representative group of think tanks founded before 1960, 53% of scholars held Ph.Ds. Among a similarly representative group of think tanks founded between 1960 and 1980, 23% of scholars have advanced degrees. And among those founded after 1980, only 13% of scholars are as highly educated"3. This dramatic erosion of formal academic training among think tank staff suggests a prioritization of media savvy and ideological alignment over scholarly expertise. Case Studies in Policy Influence The article examines three major policy areas to demonstrate how the scholar-think tank-policymaker relationship has functioned in practice, with varying degrees of success. Democratic Peace Theory: From Academic Concept to War Rationale The Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) case study illustrates how academic theories can be misappropriated when filtered through ideologically-driven think tanks. Beginning with Princeton scholar Michael Doyle's work in the 1980s, DPT established that mature democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other3. The theory found purchase in policy circles during the Clinton administration's search for a post-Cold War foreign policy framework. However, the most troubling aspect was how neoconservative thinkers at organizations like the American Enterprise Institute embraced and distorted the theory to justify regime change after 9/11. Bruce Russett, one of the theory's scholarly developers, lamented this misuse, comparing it to atomic scientists' horror at seeing their work applied to bombing Japan: "We feel rather like many atomic scientists did in 1945. They had created something intended to prevent conquest by Nazi Germany, but only after Germany was defeated was the bomb tested and then used — against Japanese civilians whose government was already near defeat"3. Climate Security: Persistent Advocacy Against Political Headwinds The climate security concept demonstrates a more successful, though still incomplete, transmission of scientific knowledge into policy. The article traces how the concept emerged primarily through the Center for Naval Analysis and the advocacy of Sherri Goodman, who served as deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security3. Their 2007 report introduced the influential framing of climate change as a "threat multiplier" for global instability. Despite the evidence and advocacy from security-focused think tanks, climate security has remained highly politicized, with acceptance ebbing and flowing based on which party controls the White House. Francesco Femia of the Climate & Security Advisory Group summarized the Biden administration's approach: "The administration gets credit for saying all the right things and for making climate change an essential element of national security and foreign policy, but now it's time to take the next step. To get full credit, they must move from words to deeds. Otherwise, they're just admiring the problem"3. Counterterrorism: Expertise Sidelined After 9/11 The counterterrorism case reveals how academic expertise can be completely marginalized during crisis moments. Despite decades of serious scholarship on terrorism by experts like Brian Michael Jenkins, Martha Crenshaw, and Bruce Hoffman (nicknamed the "terrorist mafia"), their nuanced understanding was largely ignored following 9/113. Instead, policymakers embraced a simplified view that dismissed terrorists as "evil, mad dogs," which prevented deeper analysis. The article states bluntly: "The failure of the War on Terror was not just in its execution but also in its conception"3. Once terrorists were labeled as insane or pathological, government authorities defaulted to preemptive intervention rather than understanding motivations and organizational dynamics. As the article notes, "once terrorists are dismissed as mad, 'no further inquiry was necessary. The methods of interrogation closed prosecutions by military tribunals, and the rules of classification have kept information out of the public domain'"3. The Consequences of Ideological Polarization James McGann, a leading historian of think tanks, observed that because of growing partisan divides, "it is increasingly difficult to find objective analysis that looks at a range of ideas, opinions and policy options surrounding an issue"3. This polarization has serious consequences for policymaking, as John Glaser notes: "Think tanks service policymakers rather than guide them…their work tends to reflect the policy preferences of Washington rather than the scholarly consensus"3. The current landscape features think tanks increasingly catering to media cycles rather than promoting rigorous analysis. As the article observes, think tankers are "the ideal resource for media outlets such as CNN and Fox News, which are hungry for 'quick-and-dirty' commentaries"3. This pivot toward media visibility comes at the expense of their original function as bridges between academic knowledge and policy application. Conclusion The article presents a sobering assessment of the deteriorating relationship between academic expertise and policymaking in America. The transformation of think tanks from scholarly institutions to partisan advocacy organizations has compromised their ability to serve as effective knowledge brokers. The three case studies—Democratic Peace Theory, Climate Security, and Counterterrorism—demonstrate how this dysfunction can lead to policy failures, misappropriation of academic concepts, and missed opportunities to incorporate expert knowledge. The fundamental challenge remains finding mechanisms to effectively transmit scholarly insights into policy processes without distortion by ideological agendas or media imperatives. Until this challenge is addressed, the relationship between scholars and policymakers may indeed remain "nasty, brutish, and short," with serious consequences for the quality of American governance.
I also did a follow up since you've posted some interesting articles on here about the theme of epistemic collapse without mentioning it explicitly. Our safeguards are clearly not what they were like half a century ago. I guess doing actual research with clear quantifiable and falsifiable goals into whether these ideas would work as a sample set of reality would be expensive and hard (boo hoo, I just wanted to impress my date by sounding brilliant), but what's the alternative...turn off the lights on a fifth of the public, call them evil and lazy moochers and allow your tribe's sycophantic echo chamber make you feel better about the wanton callousness of your unproven ideas? The increasing prioritization of ideological agendas over objective analysis in academia and think tanks creates systemic repercussions that undermine institutional credibility, distort policy outcomes, and erode public trust. Below is a breakdown of key reverberations: Erosion of Institutional Credibility Loss of scholarly legitimacy: Think tanks founded after 1980 employ only 13% of scholars with advanced degrees (vs. 53% pre-1960), reflecting a shift toward media-savvy advocates over rigorous researchers. Academia faces similar critiques for pursuing "irrelevant" research detached from policy realities. Polarization feedback loops: Partisan think tanks like the Heritage Foundation amplify congressional polarization by replacing nonpartisan expertise with ideologically aligned narratives. This incentivizes academia to adopt similarly polarized positions to remain "relevant," further entrenching divisions. Public distrust: Only 28% of politically engaged "spectators" trust think tanks, with many viewing them as tools for elite interests. When institutions prioritize ideology, they validate perceptions of bias, weakening their influence. Distortion of Policy Outcomes Misuse of academic frameworks: The Democratic Peace Theory, originally an academic concept about democracies avoiding war, was co-opted by neoconservative think tanks to justify the Iraq War—a stark example of ideology overriding evidence. Short-termism over sustainability: Advocacy-driven think tanks favor "quick-and-dirty" media commentary to shape narratives, sidelining long-term, evidence-based solutions. For instance, counterterrorism experts were ignored post-9/11 in favor of reductive "mad dog" rhetoric, leading to flawed policies. Selective evidence curation: Climate security advocates successfully framed climate change as a "threat multiplier" through security-focused think tanks, yet politicization has stalled consistent policy action. Structural Consequences for Knowledge Production Funding vulnerabilities: Polarized environments make think tanks dependent on ideologically aligned donors, limiting research independence. For example, conservative think tanks now openly prepare policies for a potential Trump administration, while liberal counterparts align with Biden’s agenda. Talent drain: As think tanks prioritize media visibility and advocacy, they attract professionals skilled in persuasion over deep expertise, creating a "brain drain" from academia[8][10]. Epistemic crisis: The glut of ideologically skewed research exacerbates public skepticism toward experts. Policymakers, overwhelmed by "information pollution," increasingly rely on think tanks as partisan filters rather than neutral arbiters. Broader Democratic Implications Weakened checks on power: When think tanks act as "shadow parties" crafting ready-made policies for politicians, they bypass democratic deliberation. This mirrors critiques of Musk’s DOGE initiative, where inexperienced tech elites bypass Congress to unilaterally dismantle agencies. Fragmented discourse: Media-aligned think tanks amplify echo chambers. For instance, Fox News and CNN disproportionately feature ideologically congruent think tankers, reducing cross-partisan dialogue. Erosion of institutional memory: Historians, often excluded from policy debates, warn that neglecting historical context leads to repetitive failures (e.g., counterterrorism strategies). Case Study Parallels: Musk’s DOGE and Think Tank Dynamics The hostile takeover of USAID by Musk’s DOGE team—young tech elites with no governance experience—mirrors think tanks’ shift toward ideological advocacy over expertise. Both scenarios reflect: Contempt for institutional knowledge (e.g., sidelining USAID’s 11,000 staff) Preference for disruption over evidence-based reform Centralization of power among unaccountable actors Paths Forward (meh) Reasserting academic rigor: Think tanks must balance advocacy with peer-reviewed research standards to rebuild credibility. Transparency mandates: Disclose funding sources and methodologies to counter perceptions of bias. Guardrails against politicization: Institutions like the Climate & Security Advisory Group show how think tanks can persist with evidence-based advocacy despite political shifts[8]. Cross-sector collaboration: Historians and academics should partner with think tanks to provide longitudinal insights, mitigating short-term ideological pressures. In abandoning objectivity, academia and think tanks risk becoming mere extensions of political machinery—a trajectory that weakens democratic governance and amplifies societal fractures. Spoiler: Citations [1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazo...ae20c8d-d01e-4d0b-b1e7-158cba279ceb/paste.txt [2] https://gppi.net/assets/Bressan_Hoxtell_2023_Whose-Bright-Idea-Was-That.pdf [3] https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420?p=emailACXQdb2ZCvht2&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420 [4] https://onthinktanks.org/articles/on-the-business-model-and-how-this-affects-what-think-tanks-do/ [5] https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-think-tanks-drive-polarization-and-policy/ [6] https://historyandpolicy.org/policy...nks-lessons-from-the-u.s-marketplace-of-ideas [7] https://onthinktanks.org/articles/insights-2024-state-of-the-sector-report/ [8] https://www.stimson.org/2024/nasty-...rs-think-tanks-and-influence-on-policymaking/ [9] https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7448&context=etd [10] https://onthinktanks.org/articles/t...uence-of-think-tanks-in-the-policy-ecosystem/ [11] https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/so-what-does-a-think-tank-do/ [12] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1478929918807714 [13] https://buildathinktank.org/think-tanks/ [14] https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33906/political-leanings-of-academia-and-of-think-tanks [15] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9477.12184 [16] https://onthinktanks.org/articles/who-is-responsible-for-a-think-tanks-influence/ [17] https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-624?p=emailAEkRnnSum4c8w&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-624 [18] https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/berj.3824 [19] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/3/93 [20] https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3519 [21] https://www.jstor.org/stable/48722914 [22] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00091383.2023.2263188 [23] https://siepr.stanford.edu/publicat...ing-rules-connecting-academic-research-policy [24] https://merics.org/en/think-tank-toolbox/what-do-policymakers-want-think-tanks [25] https://www.cipe.org/reports/how-to-guide-for-economic-think-tanks/the-role-of-think-tanks/ [26] https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420?d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420&p=emailAG8/HTHMM9cso [27] https://onthinktanks.org/articles/n...inking-how-we-assess-and-support-think-tanks/ [28] https://www.britannica.com/topic/think-tank [29] https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/a...anks-us-foreign-and-national-security-policy/ [30] http://newamerica.org/weekly/rethinking-the-think-tank/ [31] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2003/5/cj23n1-19.pdf [32] https://unu.edu/cpr/blog-post/what-are-think-tanks-good [33] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank [34] https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/think-tanks/
Over 4 million Gen Zers are jobless—and experts blame colleges for ‘worthless degrees’ for the rising number of NEETs There’s been a mass derailment when it comes to Gen Z and their careers: About a quarter of young people are now deemed NEETs—meaning “not in education, employment, or training.” While some Gen Zers may fall into this category because they are taking care of a family member, many have been frozen out of an increasingly tough job market where white-collar jobs are seemingly out of reach. In the U.S., this translates to an estimated 4.3 million young people not in school or at work. Across the pond in the U.K., the situation is also only getting worse, with the number of NEET young people rising by over 100,000 in the past year alone. A British podcaster went so far as to call the situation a “catastrophe”—and cast a broad-stroke blame on the education system. “In many cases, young people have been sent off to universities for worthless degrees, which have produced nothing for them at all,” the political commentator, journalist, and author Peter Hitchens said of colleges last week. “And they would be much better off if they apprenticed to plumbers or electricians; they would be able to look forward to a much more abundant and satisfying life.” With millions of Gen Zers waking up each day feeling left behind, there needs to be a “wake-up call” that includes educational and workplace partners stepping up, Jeff Bulanda, vice president at Jobs for the Future, tells Fortune. Higher education’s role in the rising number of NEET Gen Zers There’s no question that certain fields of study provide a more direct line to a long-lasting career—take, for example, the health care industry: In the U.S. alone, over a million net new jobs are expected to be created in the next decade—home health aides, registered nurses, and nurse practitioners, among them. On the other hand, millions of students graduate each year with degrees that offer a less clear career path, leaving young adults underemployed and struggling to make ends meet. And while the long-term future may be bright—with an average return on investment for a college degree being 681% over 40 years, plus promises of the Great Wealth Transfer—it may be coming too late for students left with ballooning student loans in an uncertain job market. Too much time has been focused on promoting a four-year degree as the only reliable route, despite the payoff being more uneven and uncertain, says Bulanda. Other pathways, like skilled trade professions, should be a larger share of the conversation. “It’s critical that young people are empowered to be informed consumers about their education, equipped with the information they need to weigh the cost, quality, and long-term value of every path available to them,” says Bulanda, who leads the ASA Center for Career Navigation at Jobs for the Future. Lewis Maleh, CEO of Bentley Lewis, a staffing and recruitment agency, echoes that colleges should do better at communicating with students about career placement as well as nonacademic barriers to entering the workforce, like mental health support and resilience development. “Universities aren’t deliberately setting students up to fail, but the system is failing to deliver on its implicit promise,” Maleh tells Fortune. “The current data challenges the traditional assumption that higher education automatically leads to economic security,” he notes. What’s caused a NEET crisis—and what can be done? Rising prices on everything from rent and gasoline to groceries and textbooks have put a damper on Gen Z, with some even having to turn down their dream job offers because they cannot afford the commute or work clothes. Plus, with others struggling to land a job in a market changing by the minute thanks to artificial intelligence, it’s no wonder Gen Z finds doomscrolling at home more enjoyable than navigating an economy completely different from what their teachers promised them. The United Nations agency warns there are still “too many young people” with skills gaps, and getting millions of young people motivated to get back into the classroom or workforce won’t be easy. Efforts should include ramping up accessible entry points like apprenticeships and internships, especially for disengaged young people, as well as building better bridges between industries and education systems, Maleh says. Above all, better and more personalized career guidance is key, Bulanda adds. “When you don’t know what options exist, no one is helping you connect the dots, and the next step feels risky or out of reach—it’s no surprise that so many young people pause,” he says. “The question isn’t why they disconnect; it’s why we haven’t done a better job of recognizing that the old ways aren’t working anymore, and young people need more options and better support to meet them where they are.”
@Os Trigonum told everyone in this thread the trump admin would never cancel any student visas for being anti trump
This shouldn't be political. I tried pulling up sources on duckduckgo for most engineers by country and the shitlists don't even include China. Even our search results are deluded. Russia, China, and Iran foster strategies to pump out hordes of engineers in order to create or reverse engineer our stuff when we decide to take our ball and go home. We need a wholesale rethinking of education and what it takes to upgrade/upskill all forms of engineering. Pretending we make it up through India while murcan kids dream of handling the Important Stuff is not gonna fly anymore. I guess one route would be to retool our JC system and make all eng courses free or capped. Extend that to grad level classes with assistance and means testing. The next will be more unpopular which would be to guarantee employment for all graduates from that jc track. The unpopular bit would be to enforce gpa and yearly testing standards. I don't care if you fake it and make it but you gotta do it every year and we gotta make the tests llm resistant. Upon graduation they get assigned a 1 year task where benchmarks have to be met. This would be the initial payback in taxpayer investment. I dunno wtf happened to our standards but we're more interested in coddling and celebrating those who are in as "successful" while shying away from firing low performers because of lawsuits and litigation..
