Right, but a loud minority is still a minority and doesn't justify the bloat, they'd be better off enticing the cohorts of Chinese students that fell off with the pandemic, who don't care about "baizuo" nonsense *and* pay full tuition. So, it still seems to be ideological in nature and not straight greed. There's lefty prestige stuff in …
Right, but a loud minority is still a minority and doesn't justify the bloat, they'd be better off enticing the cohorts of Chinese students that fell off with the pandemic, who don't care about "baizuo" nonsense *and* pay full tuition. So, it still seems to be ideological in nature and not straight greed. There's lefty prestige stuff in there that wins awards for careerists but isn't likely to boost enrollment due to, as you mentioned, it being a loud minority. So, I think the idea that the admins aren't a big part of this woke indoctrination problem doesn't hold up.
I think they believe it does justify the bloat. I don't necessarily think they are very good at their jobs or thinking about this rationally, but that does seem to be what they are doing - reacting to their (perceived) customer base. In the long term it's a bad policy, I think, just like trying to sell prospies on athletic facilities and new buildings. Certainly they are sacrificing the academic reputation of the institution by pushing policies that maximize enrollment regardless of student academic readiness.
I agree that good admins should do things like try to enroll foreign students more as well, but, everyone else is also trying to do that kind of thing. Demography means there are more spots in ivy's that going to students who would have gone here. And we accept more students who would have gone to a less competitive school. On down the line.
I’m not sure what one wins if admins are pushing woke commissars and their authoritarian policies for pure “greed”rather than ideological conformity but even say you’re right, in practical terms, its a distinction without a difference.
The original point was that schools are ideologically captured currently, so crying at a shift in the ideological capture of one schools seems hypocrisy.
You responded that the admins aren’t ideologues themselves but greedy incompetents who are reacting to a vocal minority by installing commisars and firing teachers for “hate speech” and other nonsense. I mean, okay but in what material way does that refute the status quo being lefty ideological capture at the admin level?
Right, but a loud minority is still a minority and doesn't justify the bloat, they'd be better off enticing the cohorts of Chinese students that fell off with the pandemic, who don't care about "baizuo" nonsense *and* pay full tuition. So, it still seems to be ideological in nature and not straight greed. There's lefty prestige stuff in there that wins awards for careerists but isn't likely to boost enrollment due to, as you mentioned, it being a loud minority. So, I think the idea that the admins aren't a big part of this woke indoctrination problem doesn't hold up.
I think they believe it does justify the bloat. I don't necessarily think they are very good at their jobs or thinking about this rationally, but that does seem to be what they are doing - reacting to their (perceived) customer base. In the long term it's a bad policy, I think, just like trying to sell prospies on athletic facilities and new buildings. Certainly they are sacrificing the academic reputation of the institution by pushing policies that maximize enrollment regardless of student academic readiness.
I agree that good admins should do things like try to enroll foreign students more as well, but, everyone else is also trying to do that kind of thing. Demography means there are more spots in ivy's that going to students who would have gone here. And we accept more students who would have gone to a less competitive school. On down the line.
I’m not sure what one wins if admins are pushing woke commissars and their authoritarian policies for pure “greed”rather than ideological conformity but even say you’re right, in practical terms, its a distinction without a difference.
The original point was that schools are ideologically captured currently, so crying at a shift in the ideological capture of one schools seems hypocrisy.
You responded that the admins aren’t ideologues themselves but greedy incompetents who are reacting to a vocal minority by installing commisars and firing teachers for “hate speech” and other nonsense. I mean, okay but in what material way does that refute the status quo being lefty ideological capture at the admin level?