the education project

the education project

via Matthew Jacobson

from his about page:

The Education Project, conducted by Matthew Jacobson, took shape at the crossroads of his documentary work for Historian’s Eye and his participation in the American Studies Association’s ad hoc committee on the future of higher education. In this gallery, educators from many walks of academic life–professors, deans, presidents, staff members–reflect on the tattered and contested state of the academic mission in an age of scarcity, neoliberal austerity, mounting student debt, corporate management and administrative structures, and amid the ever-increasing power and influence of non-educators in the halls of university administration. Begun in summer 2014 (and ongoing), this collection is meant both as an archive that documents a very particular moment in the history of US education and as a resource for the vexed and necessary discussions to come regarding the fate of the American university and the frayed dream of democratized education.

_____

interviewing Andrew Ross (nyu):

Andrew Ross (born 1956) is a professor in the Department of Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University. A writer for The New York Times, Artforum, The Nation, Newsweek and The Village Voice, he is also the author and/or editor of numerous books. Much of his writing focuses on labour, the urban environment, and the organisation of work, from the Western world of business and high-technology to conditions of offshore labour in the Global South. Making use of social theory as well as ethnography, his writing questions the human and environmental cost of economic growth, has an activist, alternative globalisation approach, and emphasises principles of sustainability.

http://educationproject.yale.edu/andrew-ross/

44 min – the right to education has been replaced with the right to access education loans.. same with housing… right to access cheap credit

46 min – most are aware college is too expensive ..very few realize how little it would cost to provide a free system.. if you striped away all taxes, gi bill, money to for profit.. it’s not an economic challenge.. it’s the politics

51 min  – occupy student debt – goal was to find 1 million debtors that would refuse to pay debt… ironically over course of year – 1 million student debtors defaulted on their loans. 1 million student debtors default every year

i think of myself as a home owners rather than a house debtor

difficult to organize around debt.. debts are like fingerprints..

watching congress trying to manage this crisis is a very cruel spectator sport. bandaid over a gaping wound.

i don’t know how to advise them (my students)..

So the future of places like this, it’s an interesting one to contemplate. It’s sort of above my pay level to do that. And one would wish that in the administration there would be people who would be a little more innovative in thinking about the intellectual future of universities.

Unfortunately, they’re few and far between. How many presidents ofAmerican universities have interesting things to say on that topic? Maybe Leon Botstein, at Bard, is often worth listening to, whether you agree with him or not. But who else do you listen to?

– – –

 

interview with Harry Lewis (harvard):

Harry Roy Lewis (born April 19, 1947) is a Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science and the Director of Undergraduate Studies in Computer Science at Harvard University. He is also a Faculty Associate of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. He is in addition the author of several books, including Excellence Without A Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education (2006), and is a co-author (with Hal Abelson and Ken Ledeen) of Blown to Bits: Your Life, Liberty, and Happiness After the Digital Explosion, a work that explores the origins and public consequences of the explosion in recent years of digital information. 

..Among his students were the young Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, whose website “Six Degrees to Harry Lewis” was a precursor to Facebook

http://educationproject.yale.edu/harry-lewis/ 

33 min – (love the transcripting going on – while he’s talking)

But it’s just a philosophy of liberal education. Liberal education is learning for learning’s sake, which it actually isn’t. Liberal education is– actually, the liberal in liberal education is the learning that free people are supposed to have. That’s where the liberal is. In Roman times, the liberal arts were the things that you were supposed to have if you were a Roman citizen as opposed to whatever the slaves needed to know. Right?

Those were writing, speaking, and all the rest of that– arithmetic. So the notion that the reason why you have in the American system and places like Harvard a general education and not a pre-professional education–we’ve lost sight of the fact of that all of that stuff was to prepare you for life as a citizen, as a kind of social leader or at least a social participant.

And it’s just been reduced to this sort of check box formula that you’regoing to be liberally educated if you’ve taken at least one course in eachof the following eight ares. But then no real tissue holding them together.

we have such good financial aid – none have to wor

I shouldn’t have a conversation like this without mentioning money. And money’s important in two ways. It’s important because it costs a lot of money to go to college now. And there’s so much in the air about the impact that student debt is having on the American educational system.

It’s not a huge issue for me sitting in my privileged position here in 02138 because we have such good financial aid that effectively none of our students has to worry about graduating with enormous debt from their undergraduate degree.

whoa.

If they go to medical school, that’s a different story, of course. So it’s not a major factor. But it’s still out there because they all have siblings who are– and parents have made huge sacrifices to enable them to get enough education so they can get this far.

But it’s not the same kind of– thinking of America in a larger sense, I’m little puzzled, frankly, well, I’ll say two things. So two things I want to say about money. There’s the student debt issue. And then I want to come back and talk about careerism. But the student debt issue I find puzzling because the average student debt with which an American student graduates is two years of the delta between the average salary they would have had without a college degree and the average salary they get with a college degree.

 i find the student debt issue puzzling because… ave debt w/which american student ..30000 on average.. is paid back in 2 years work.. 

whoa.

this is not something that touches me directly.

oh my.

So the other side of the money equation has to do with the alleged materialism of our student body, right? You hear a lot of this kind of discussion that the students arenot– they’re not intellectually motivated. They just want to get jobs. They just want to make lots of money.

And so again, to the extent this is true, and I don’t know any controlled studies that totally persuade me about it. But it’s, as I’ve said, byproduct of two things. One, a bad consequence of something very positive. And two, our own lack of evangelism about what education is really for. So the good thing that it’s a consequence of is that we now have lots of students who have no money and whose parents didn’t have money. And if we don’t tell them anything else, they’ve grown up thinking that doctors, lawyers, engineers– bankers, maybe, probably not, are– and they’ve got three sisters who don’t go to places like Harvard and are having to borrow lots of money, and parents are in debt, and all the rest of that stuff. It’s not terribly surprising that more students now than when most of our students were relatively well off think about making money as one of the things that college is going to enable them to do.

whoa.

then goes into responsibility of uni to get better at evaluations of teaching.

51 min – I think we’re in the business of creating the future citizens and leaders of society, not just American society, but world society.

And we’ve actually done a pretty good job at that over the past 300-and-something years. But it’s now gotten atomized and chopped into such little non-communicating pieces that in we’re doing– this is where can see the title of my book came up. We’re producing actually excellent results if you define the objective function correctly. What’s the average board scores on the people who take graduate record exam? I don’t know. What’s our admissions record for people applying to law school and medical school?

There’s all kinds of– how many members of Congress have Harvard degrees. We’re succeeding fabulously on all of these, but I don’t know that we’re doing a very good job getting people ready to take over responsibility for preserving civilization.

an congress et al is suiting us well?

Well, so again, on the national level, which is really frankly, a much more important issue than what’s going to happen to– Harvard Yale, and Princeton– they’re going to be fine. We almost went broke. And weraised more money. But, basically, we’re in a competition against each other to stay– who’s going to be on the very top of this quite lofty pyramid.

lovely.

Thomas Paine’s common sense in an anonymous document – sold 100s of 1000s of copies. .. this is why the whole thing got started. .. if you’re going to run a democracy.. the citizenry has to be educated.

or has to be awake.

– – – –

interviewing Claire Potter (the new school):

http://educationproject.yale.edu/claire-potter/

I think very often, people become academics because they’re perfectly comfortable in small groups or alone. Those of us who are successful writers, have to be comfortable being alone. Those of us who love to read, that is a singular activity. So I think there are many of us for whom it’s not that we wouldn’t like our work to be out there, but it doesn’t really matter to us. I think universities have a tendency to be very self enclosed, some more than others. Wesleyan was very self enclosed. So whoever you were at Wesleyan, was who you were. You could be theKing of Poland outside of Wesleyan, and nobody really cared. What you did yesterday at Wesleyan was what mattered.

33 min – do you know anybody that worked on the CommonCore?

MJ: No.

CP: I don’t either. And yet, this is the biggest thing that’s happening right now. And I don’t know a single university professor who worked on that.Or who is actually working to sort out– because actually on some level Common Core seems pretty good. There are some things that are very substantial about it.

ugh.

isn’t the common core the sequel to the national standards..?

But for example, at the AHA, we don’t even talk about– should there be a national standard? What do we think about that, as the AHA? It’s not that we don’t have plenty to talk about at theAHA, we have plenty of urgent political issues. But that strikes me as something that we need to begin to think about. Well, what do we think and how do we reach out to the people who are on the ground, working with this?

So I think it’s new challenges, it’s unexpected new rewards. And in theWesleyan model, very often the reward was like a great senior thesis,where you’ve seen one person develop for four years, and then they’veproduced a piece of scholarship that’s real. That’s real scholarship.Which means basically they’re like me now. But these students aren’t like me, and actually the liberating thing is, I don’t want them to be. I want them to be them. And I want to see what role I can play in helping them be them.

Now you could say that’s another model for higher education. But right now, I’m just kind of playing with it. At our humanities action lab, that’s the kind of teaching we’re going to be incubating in it. It’s bottom up. Students deciding what they’re going to study. And faculty helping them do it.

spot on. but crazy that it has to be said. crazy that she says … i’m just kind of playing with it.. incubating it.. no? it’s like – how did we get here…? to this mentality.

1:33 – we hire so many people to do financial aid.. if we didn’t have to pay those people, uni could probably be free..

– – –

interview with Christopher Newfield (uc at santa barbara):

his blog: remaking the university: http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/

http://educationproject.yale.edu/christopher-newfield/

16 min –

Like culture wars and budget wars?

MJ: Yeah, kind of, yeah.

CN: They are just completely interconnected. It’s kind of the roll back of the potentially integrated society that had the power to really democratize the country and really make it post-white. That’s what’s been happening for 50 years. That’s really what happened in California.

I don’t think it’s even that controversial to say that racial anxiety, if not actual racism, is behind the disinvestment in public services of every kind, including higher education that is seen by upper middle class white folks to be primarily used by people of color that aren’t their children,those people’s children.

46 min – Here’s another example. A friend of mine in England that studies apprenticeship programs, and he said, the really astonishing thing to me is an apprenticeship program in England and the United States teaches people to follow rules on the shop floor. An apprenticeship program in Germany and Scandinavia teaches them what to do when the rules don’t work. And that’s harder, and it takes years and years to teach people how to do well.

or to stay out of their way.. no?

49 min – I’m very interested in, which is non-violent conflict resolution and mass collaboration, mass intelligence, thrown at global scale problems of unbelievable complexity and magnitude like global warming, like public health in poor countries. It’s just like– or in this country, for that matter.

Homelessness. Could we solve that? It’s absolutely unbelievably terrible how a lot of people live. Why aren’t we working on that?

52 min – But what you’re saying, actually, is we need to move forward to something that maybe we’ve never known before. And so how do you articulate what that is? What’s the university on the horizon that would be the better university, but that isn’t just recouping our losses under the old factory model?

CN: It’s pretty much scaled up customization of individual learning with different level of resources. You could talk about how you would actually budget that with somebody with– I mean I think it can actually be done by– we can convert, it can fully pay for research, instead of subsidizing it the way we do now. And we can convert a lot of administration into frontline partners in actually doing education and research with students.

I haven’t really thought this through, and I’m not necessarily the person to do that. It’s kind of outside my area, but we’re way too weak to even get together to rewrite the curriculum.

maybe we don’t do that.

And then going from there to actually having serious co-governance– guess it would be a cooperative [laughs]. I think actually, that’s what it’s going to be. I think there’s going to be more sort of bootleg universities,kitchen table stuff, the kind of stuff that Anya Kamenetz talked about. In away that was too conflictual with existing universities, I think it’ll be more people going back and forth.

So much education is going on outside of universities now, because people can’t afford them, or they take too long, or they can’t fit them into their schedule.

59 min – I would actually like to do this on a small scale. The model that I was thinking of is senior faculty would teach, who are making a salary that’s enough for them, could just teach a course a year as an overload, as kind of a freebie for an academy that people set up. Participate in something that maybe the community actually wants, and teach a course a year, ..You could have a little school that has kind of a regular, a free school curriculum that teaches people that would never get into a college but want to learn some stuff, where it would be designed in collaboration with what folks feel like they need to learn that year. And just see how it goes. Just use the experiment as a–use the activity as an experimental site for different kinds of pedagogy and different relationships between faculty and the institution that houses them.

Give us the institution of independent teaching, which we have lost. Like we don’t know how to meet our students outside of the structure that depends on managerial control. We don’t know how to do that anymore. Just go into the auditorium, and stand up in front of a bunch of strangers,where they don’t have to be there, they’re not going to get graded.

– – –

interview of Bill Deresiewicz  (yale – then fro 2008 – full time writer):

author of excellent sheep (have on recommend to our library)

http://educationproject.yale.edu/bill-deresiewicz/

Students also started to invite me to talk on campus, students and professors, but a lot of student groups. So over the years, I’ve given, I don’t know, 15, 20 talks, mostly at selective campuses. And I’ve learneda lot from that. But one of the things that I’ve learned is that, well, thequestion that was most often asked me was some form of, what we do about this? What I do about this? What do we all do about it? What should schools do about it?”

7 min –

Everybody knows what the advantages of an elite education are. Well, they think they know.

But you know, it sets you up in life. That’s the advantage. And that’s whyeveryone is rushing to do this.

There are a number of disadvantages. But I think fundamentally they stem from the admissions process and from the kind of person that students are shaped to become in order to succeed at the admissions game. What happens in college really is just about not disrupting. mean, most of my complaint about the colleges is the admissions process that they superintend.

So it makes students into excellent sheep, as my student said. They’re world class hoop-jumpers, checklist-completers. They learn to be great at being students, which means right now doing all the things, because you have to do everything. And they know perfectly well what that entails.

However much professors or teachers or parents may ingenuously or disingenuously mislead themselves about what it involves, the kids know perfectly well. And it involves the implication of an enormous cynicism about education. Education is a game. It also means that you never get to go very deeply into anything, because you’re doing so many different things.

And the final thing it means– and this is the sheep part– I think I explained the excellent part– is that they’re always doing the things that they know the adults want them to do. And the trouble starts when they have to start figuring out on their own. And that’s where I see the connection between what happens before college and what happens after college or late in college, which is they start to see the end of college and they, think what am I going to do?

I’m very adamant about saying that this is not a phenomenon of the last 10 years. This is not about kids today. This is not about Millennials.

Part of what’s happened as I’ve written the book is that I’ve come to understand my own experience better and better and how the system– graduated from high school in ’81– was the same system but in embryonic form, you know, three APs and three extracurriculars. Now itmay be eight APs and 11 extracurriculars.

WD: I think that this is resonating, my argument is resonating because students feel– they sort of get it. And I think– listen, I think it’s very natural for young people to want to think about something more than just getting a job, and even when it comes to thinking about getting a job, to feel that what they’re going to do in life has some kind of meaning or purpose.

And I think they all or many of them sort of have this idea that college is going to be about something more. And in fact, I’ve often heard kids say– well, often– several times, either late high school or very early college say, once I get to college, then I’ll really be able to start to learn. And then they find out that that’s not true.

I mean, it could be true. But it’s very difficult to interrupt the cycle. So they’re hungry not necessarily for my ideas, but just to talk about this stuff. I mean, when I do an event, it can often kind of be this– on campus, it can often be this kind of cathartic experience.

And there’s never an opportunity to think about this stuff. There’s never an opportunity to talk about this stuff. The very terms in which we can talk about it don’t seem to be available to them, because there’s really never been time for them to– I mean, it’s really just kind of crazy.

And I don’t think things have reached a breaking point.But there’s a lot of evidence that, a lot of evidence that mental health issues among these kids are getting worse and worse and worse. 

But all of this has gone along with this increasing idea that college is about getting a job and nothing else, and so this increasing move to“practical majors.”

21 min – This is just a game that the elite plays with itself where it criticizes the Ivy League but doesn’t mean it.

WD: This is actually one of the biggest and most surprising and most disturbing criticisms. And I’m thinking of The New Yorker pieces and some others. Let’s say for the sake of simplification that I am saying that the Ivy League and its peer institutions don’t provide a real education or don’t do enough to provide a real education, which means something more than just technocratic professional training. Some people– the response by and large has not been, yes they do, although there’s been a little bit of that.

It’s been, who wants a real education anyway? I mean, don’t be sucker, man. This is the 21st century. People go to school to get a goodj ob. And all this stuff is just, you know, it’s either medieval, ..

28 min – I have other answers that I could give. But my leading thought is this is not modernity, because another aspect is sort of romantic youth, right, youth as rebellion, youth as a time– I mean, that’s a modern phenomenon. So what he’s really urging is post-modernity, which is to say a neoliberal self– you are your ability to earn in the market and to spend as a consumer– and either demanding or pointing out or excusing the fact that neoliberal youth means neoliberal college means preparation for that.

MJ: Right. So the atomization of the university is fine, because we’repreparing kids for an atomized world.

WD: That’s kind of what he says. It’s either him or Heller or both whosay, like, you know– yeah, I mean, I think Heller’s the one who startswith the story of himself falling asleep on his notebook in the Harvard library and waking up with like the spiral markings on his cheek and just like, yeah, you know, you’re going to have to run like a hamster when you’re an adult, so you might as well learn to start doing it in college. To which I would say, like, maybe we should have third graders have jobs,because that will prepare them for the workforce.

..my rubricis not the university so much as the student, my focus. I’ve alreadydescribed how it’s the same but worse. And from what I can tell, with universities it’s the same but worse.

31 min – MJ: OK. So now to your propositions for meaningful intervention.

WD: A lot of the book is aimed at individual students, because they can’twait for the adults to get their act together. So I try to outline my vision of what should happen to a student in college. And I try to be careful to say,but of course you can never say this enough, I’m not saying you shouldn’t worry about job and career. But you can do more than one thing. And in fact, these things are related.

How do you find a sense of purpose? How do you find your way? I don’t necessarily– I keep updating my formula, so I don’t necessarily say this exact thing the same way in the book. But don’t think of your education as getting from Point A to Point B. You are the thing that’s going to change. This is about you becoming someone that you could never have envisioned becoming when you were 18, and maybe doing something that you could never have imagined when you were 18.

College is about learning how to think. Schools already say that. They tend to mean it in the analytic way, sort of acquiring the intellectual skills to be a successful professional. And that’s fine. I mean, in some ways that’s what the liberal arts in their proper definition are about. Liberal arts is the fields where knowledge is created and pursued.

But there’s a deeper purpose, which is about thinking about yourself,which really means learning to identify and question the assumptions that you got to age 18 with about the world, about what’s important,about what’s important to you. And everyone has to do this for themselves. And I think there are two big things that can help you. And one is the humanities, because the humanities are sort of the human species’ collective act of self-reflection, individual acts of self-reflection that you can use to model your own.

And then the other thing are teachers, teachers in their role as mentors and guides who can just listen and ask questions that help elicit your own desires or values or whatever, right? Whenever people talk as if this is this crazy idea, this utopian idea– and they tend to seize on the word soul, which I use, but I actually use the word self more, but they always seize on that, because of course that’s ridiculous– I say to them, first of all, there are schools where this actually happens. I mean, it happens everywhere. The question is how hard or easy is it?

I mean, it even happens at Yale. But you have to work for it. You have toeven fight for it.

There are schools, and I think the liberal arts colleges tend to be like this, and I’m also including the public honors colleges, where this is much– I mean, it’s just set up to help you do this. There’s more– I mean, we can talk about how and why.

And then the other thing is, so in a synchronic way, this is happening elsewhere. This assumption that the Ivy League must give you the best possible education because it’s the most prestigious is simply not grounded. And then also diachronically, right? This isn’t the ’60s. This isn’t the 19th century gentleman’s education.

This has been the basic idea of American college since American colleges were founded as colonial institutions. They used to say character. David Brooks in his response to me and Pinker says moral education. Neither of those rubrics are my favorite ones. But the rubric would have been citizenship, really.

MJ: Yeah. I was going to say that. I mean, someone like Jim Sleeper talks a lot about civic republicanism and the centrality of the university to that kind of broader political project.

MJ: Or civic project.

WD: Despite the fact that Jim Sleeper hates me and we have thispoisonous personal history that he refuses to acknowledge, we reallyagree about that. And part of the narrative, the sort of mistaken anti-menarrative or anti-my-ideas narrative is that this was 19th centuryaristocrats who could afford to do this. But once the mass middle classstarted to go to college, they just wanted jobs.

And in fact, first of all, when we started to really build public highereducation during the Civil War, the notion of liberal arts came right alongwith it, right, which is why we have English departments, so we couldhave a humanities curriculum for people who didn’t learn the classicallanguages. And then it did culminate in the ’60s. But the ’60s wereprecisely the heyday of mass public higher education. I mean, if all theseworking class and middle class kids were in college in the ’60s, why wasthe English major at its most popular them? Because they wanted thatkind of education too, or enough of them did.

So it’s really neoliberalism. It’s really us that’s the exception. This is not some kind of pipe dream. This is what we used to have.

MJ: And so then, thinking about those last 30 or 40 years in the history ofhigher education, where do the culture, the so-called culture wars comein to these shifts that you’re talking about, these shifts in perception?

WD: That’s a good question. I avoided anything like that in the book,partly I just didn’t want to get into all that anymore. Partly it just wasn’tsomething I was thinking about very much. You probably knowChristopher Newfield’s book, where he says the culture war was, you know, basically it was for the sake of destroying public higher education.I’m not sure I believe that, although it might have been used as anopportunity to do that. Well–

MJ: Because, I mean–

WD: No. No I was going to–

MJ: Go ahead.

WD: I mean, I think the humanities have not helped their cause. I think the left academy has not presented what the humanities can do for society and for the individual in a way that I like, identify with, and certainly in a way that’s going to make people want to support it.

 Yes. I was thinking also more specifically of the fact that one of thesort of constituted features of the left, of left cultural studies, is animpenetrable prose style. And listen, if you go out of your way to write in a way that only your colleagues can understand, then only yourcolleagues are going to understand you.

41 min – MJ: How do we heal these kind of rips in the fabric of both the university itself but also the society that you’re describing?

WD: Right. Right. I mean, so the largest historical structure of the booksays we made the shift from aristocracy to meritocracy. And here’s why it happened. Here’s how it happened. And now we need to do it again,because the meritocracy has become a hereditary meritocracy. It’s become a new aristocracy.

So we need to do the two things that they did. We need to reform selective private college admissions so we’re getting a different kind of student. But more importantly, we need to build first rate, low- or no-costpublic higher education. And I think the second is by far the more important one.

?

And I don’t do this in any kind of– I don’t suggest that we do this in any kind of subtle or politically savvy way. I mean, it’s just you just send the tank right up to the fortifications, which is raise taxes on the upper middle class, pay for public higher education. It sounds crazy. It sounds like it’llnever happen.

But I think the one thing that’s predictable about the future is that it’s not predictable.

It seems impossible. Raising the minimum wage also seems impossible.One good thing about both agenda items is that they can be done stateby state, and maybe even locale by locale, without having to get Congress to sign off.

But that shift from meritocracy to aristocracy which I think– fromaristocracy to meritocracy, which really was triggered by the crash of ’29– and Conant at Harvard really started during the Depression, because Ithink he recognized there was a crisis in the lost aristocracy. So ’29started it.

Brewster didn’t finish it until 35 years later here at Yale. I think 35 yearsis probably a reasonable timeline for this. But it’s only even going tohappen in 35 years if we start.

? ugh.

MJ: If we start.

WD: And, you know, I mean, I think that answers your question. Because obviously, the premise, the idea that this could ever happen is premisedon the idea that we will recover a notion of collective responsibility andcitizenship and putting the common interest ahead of the private interestand the class interest and the family interest. But that’s– we need to dothat for everything, right?

WD: It’s more neoliberalism coupled with the dilution of technologicalsalvation and the general American tendency to solve problems withtechnology rather than humans, human beings. Unfortunately, thereseemed to be a lot of– you know, this crisis talk in both K-12 and highered is producing a lot of reforms. And the more powerful ones seem to begoing in the wrong direction right now. Yeah. I don’t know.

MJ: Are you an optimist at all on this?

WD: I’m not really an optimist about anything. But I actually want to getback to what I said before. I really do believe that the future is unpredictable. I mean, I believe this because I lived through the collapse of Soviet Union and 9/11 and the rise of the Tea Party. And none ofthese things, you know, a black president, nobody thought any of this stuff was ever going to happen. So that’s the basis of not optimism, but refusal of pessimism.

MJ: Which is different, but important.

WD: Yes.

_____________

interview of Peter Salovey – (president of yale):

Peter Salovey (/ˈsæləv/; born February 21, 1958) is an American social psychologist and current President of Yale University. He previously served as Yale’s Provost, Dean of Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and Dean ofYale College. Salovey is one of the early pioneers and leading researchers in emotional intelligence.

http://educationproject.yale.edu/peter-salovey/

14 min –

We do that by offering very generous financial aid. If you’re at the median income level in this country, or lower, and you get admitted to Yale, you come with no parental contribution. We are making Yale accessible, financially.

But it’s impossible to get into this place. And most students– most highschool students– who deserve a higher education and who a higher education would change their lives and would open up new vistas for them and would create some social mobility for them– the Yale education is not available to them. So what else can we be doing to promote that? How do we promote education, not just education at Yale?

19 min –

But there is an orientation around– a kind of customer orientation that is problematic, too. We are educating the next generation of leaders for the world. We are creating citizens. We are creating people who will enjoy the life of the mind, who will have different kind of lives.

And some of that require– the customer orientation, where if our job is give customers what they want when they enter here, we’re not going to accomplish that mission very well.

Sometimes an 18-year-old doesn’t know what they don’t know. And we have to be the educators in the room. And that tension– that tension is stronger now than it’s ever been, I think.

oh my.

now we’re grappling toward – what is our role..

And many of them are not quite ready for the hands-off experience of the late ’60s and ’70s.

22 min – – I don’t think we’re in crisis. I do think highereducation is changing. And I do think the pressures on higher educationare more obvious now than they’ve been in the past. And there’s lots–there’s lots of them.

26 min – at a place like Yale College, let’s say, and have as your goal want to be an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. And your education will bedirectly relevant to that aspiration. Not only that– I would argue it might give you an advantage over someone whose education focused more narrowly on just the technical skills.

28 min –

I certainly want the most deserving, interesting, diverse group of studentsthat we can admit to come here. Many members of that group are going to be attracted to other places, too. And so I think we do feel thepressure to help them figure out that Yale is a good fit and attract themhere.

?

31 min –

What I would say is I wouldn’t call it a crisis. But I would say the challenge is that we’ve scrambled up the natural processes that would allow students to find the university or college, the place in higher education, that best fits their interests, their personal styles, the level at which they can perform intellectually. And we’ve scrambled that all up and focused them on too narrow a range of places and convinced them that they’ll only be happy if they go to just a narrow range.

And then we’ve convinced ourselves that they’ll only choose us if we compete for them.

37 min – it cost 3 billion a yr to run yale.. 1 billion each .. 1\ endowments  2\ grants  3\ tuition/ticket sales/etc  (endowments used to be 2 billion – now they are 23 billion…?)

40 min – So just to scale it, the amount of money we spend on financial aid in YaleCollege– just in Yale College– is about the same as the amount ofmoney we spend paying the ladder faculty of Yale College. That’s a bignumber.

45 min – why prices have gone up – 2001 to 2014 – main – security and safety and regulation.. used to have 2 lawyers on campus – now 20.

48 min – And I believe there is a group now, in the Obama administration, that’s actually very interested in figuring out whether simplifying regulatory climate and burden might be a way of freeing up more funds that can then be given to students and their families. What’s nice about that idea is that the left and the right could get together on this.

of course. too much ness.

52 min -25 yrs – the need for intro to psych in a classroom will still be there..

?