Moderate Democrats are in an increasingly abusive relationship with elite universities and higher education in general. Democrats go to bat for their funding and prestige (largely out of a fundamentally conservative impulse), while these schools pump out junk ideologies, misleading research, and militant activist staffers that make it difficult for elected Democrats to govern and coalition build.
Matthew Yglesias is over in The Argument making a fantastic case that CRT has been an incredibly corrosive and undermining force for liberalism, but he never circles back to blame the academics that popularized it and gave it institutional force. The same can be said of climate policy, where weak renewable energy only models have come to dominate the academic discourse, while actively hamstringing the energy transition of blue states.
I think moderate Dems should take the same advice that Matt gives the billionaires funding liberal NGOs; reflect carefully on the people you're giving money and influence to, because it's increasingly at cross purposes with your own goals.
I am unreasonably anti-elite university, though I understand their historical value. At this point, they seem more like a luxury good and a gatekeeping device to ensure children of the elite are advantaged and pushed to the front of the line for high-paying jobs. Until that last part changes, they will remain "elite," no matter the quality of their students, faculty, or administrators.
I've been waiting 20 years for this implosion. It's finally here. All the incentives were that grade inflation would wipe out everything.
I thought it would have happened long ago but I think there were enough honest actors in the system trying to prop everything up. The 2020 nonsense and then the AI apocalypse swept out the legs of everyone holding on.
Someone said that in ten years the wealthy will send their kids to school with no laptops, no phone, no screens, everything on paper. Maybe in the computer lab you can use a desktop. The rest of us will have this dystopian thing where teachers just hand out ipads that are supposed to do the teaching and gives everyone an A.
I cannot agree with this enough. I attended college from 2006-10, then immediately got into K12 education, taught for a decade, and now am on the other side of things, looking at it all from an administrative and systems lens.
The weird "for-profit" markets of the educational industrial complex that popped up over the course of the past 15 years are almost dystopian in some ways. First, it was 1-to-1 laptops so that students could gain "technical literacy," then it was all of these silver bullet curricula that were totally aligned to x, y, z, but cost a fortune to implement at scale, and now the hot zietgiest is "personalized learning" - which just involves plopping a bored and restless seven year old in front of a laptop so they can get "algorithimically responsive" problems. And if I hear another fucking sales rep talk about "gameifying" education as though that's somehow a good thing, I'm going to throw them out the window.
It's all very depressing. A book, a pencil, and a dedicated and well-trained teacher (like at the ritzy K12 private schools you're alluding to) can do wonders.
as someone who genuinely struggled with ADD (before we got folded into ADHD in the dsm V) and needed all the support and accommodations my college offered (diagnoses dating back to early childhood, had to attend schools specifically geared towards helping me), i feel like whats gonna happen here is a crackdown that materially harms way more students than alot of these kids who i suspect didnt have serious problems till their late teens.
as for this section:
"When Weis and his colleagues looked at how students receiving accommodations for learning disabilities at a selective liberal-arts school performed on reading, math, and IQ tests, most had above-average cognitive abilities and no evidence of impairment."
Isn't this fundamentally misunderstanding how these diagnoses work? learning disabilities are not actually about ones cognitive abilities but their ability to apply those abilities to the real world, such as struggling with executive function or the literal process of reading or writing words? of course these kids got above average cognitive results! their disability is that they struggle with staying focused enough to do it in a timely manner, or it takes an unusual amount of effort to physically make out what words are on the page, not that they can't do it. the problem is education policy these days is almost entirely built around standardized exams that exist largely to feed data upstream to politicians, even if the exams are poor metrics of individual capabilities and often more a measure of one's ability to fill out standardized exams.
> If you’re too anxious to complete a test on time, that’s something a test should measure, not something it should avoid measuring.
It also could be an indicator that instructors aren't allocating sufficient time in their exams (and are potentially therefore measuring fairly small differences in test-taking speed far more than comprehension). It'd be interesting to know what the distribution is of times between students receiving exams and turning them in.
I almost always got extra time in college and I rarely ended up actually going over and using much of that extra time, but It's also hard for me to really say what the end result would have been otherwise. i ended up mostly using the accomodations for the quieter, more isolated location the disability office offered, along with the ability to type written portions due to my dysgraphia (a handicap with my ability to hand write words, even if i knew what i wanted to say).
This analysis missed two additional points worth considering. First, chasing away international students will do nothing to help or incentivize US students become more competitive, but it will reduce the financial resources available to improve institutions. Second, re-requiring the SAT will not improve secondary education or elevate student skills, except those officially measured in specific ways by the SAT. It’s not that hard of a test.
Let’s give credit to the statisticians for understanding and accounting for intercorrelation. And there’s no contradiction. The SAT by design is not a test that is meant to guide secondary instruction (nor in its current form could it purport to do that beyond the 10th grade level), and by definition it can’t contribute to any skill development except in those it measures.
I am not anti-SAT. I’ve participated in hundreds of hours of analysis of how it functions as an instrument and the results it can support. It would be depressing if the UCs were to readopt it with no changes or improvements because most instances of the SAT improving have originated in the College Board responding to challenges from UC. It would be better for every US student if another round of improvement can occur.
Ha! You’re claiming something the College Board stopped claiming decades ago. But, okay; if it’s measuring some important component of “intelligence,” it must suck. From the early 1960s to 2020 it was employed almost universally in admitting students to elite US colleges, so on average the people who did best on it are now the working Americans and retirees leading in every profession, including journalism, business, and politics. And yet by almost any measure we’re in one of the worst troughs of a prolonged national decline. Meanwhile people say China and India are on the rise, but both countries administer pure subject examinations that claim to measure only exposure to concepts, theories, and practices—i.e. skills. Not intelligence. So—what’s the benefit of measuring “intelligence?”
Don’t talk like you know anything about the entrance tests in India and China. They almost certainly measure intelligence. The college board doesn’t say it because they are liars and want to protect the sentiments of certain races. Not because it stopped being true. As an admissions officer you’re one of those liars who’ll deny data.
It isn’t. Even during a period of grade inflation, and even referencing the College Board’s own (not disinterested) research, the best predictor of academic success has remained a combination of high school grades and scores together.
They’re not exactly orthogonal. Smart people who do well in standardized tests also tend to do well in HS. The HSGPA is not standardized. That’s the main issue. You’re also contradicting yourself that bringing standardized tests back will not help.
As someone who lives in California, where the SAT has not been required for UCs for a while… dude, I think you mean well, but you would be shocked at how mayonnaise brain some of these elite college kids are. We need the SAT back if only to keep the truly, truly stupid on the other side of the fence.
I have amassed a forty-year career in higher education as admissions leader at three elite research universities, most recently as Vice Provost at Cornell. I don’t think I can be “shocked” by the behavior of any students at elite colleges. Persistently the most consistently stupid behavior requiring regular intervention at all three places came from white male students with modest grades and high test scores. My thesis is that they thought their scores made them smarter than others, so they didn’t need to work as hard. They were wrong. I don’t mean to impugn the vast majority of high-scoring white men, but to the extent that some students found trouble on campus, they were the most representative group.
Well, I said you I thought you meant well, but you clearly don’t.
You conflated my point about academic readiness with poor out-of-class behavior just so you could drop in some sexism and racism. You’re not exactly rehabilitating my opinion of academics here.
I’m not an academic. I reported the objective facts about my experience. Calling that “sexist” and “racist” doesn’t change those facts.
From the vantage point of managing a campus, to the extent that any particular behavior—personal or academic—could be predicted, what was predicted by high SAT scores was not objectively better. “Academic readiness”—which is predicted by a combination of grades and scores better than it is by any other simple metric, but still not predicted very well (the R2 value is low) is not the only important adaptive behavior to consider.
I find I always agree 95 percent with Josh and appreciate that he has summarized and synthesized important issues that are so often being intentionally obfuscated. This essay is no exception. Not that I am always right about the other 5 percent, of course, but here goes.
There is one point in this essay that makes me very uncomfortable. I don't think a college test or degree should be expected to measure all the elements of employability, which are going to differ from job to job anyway. In particular, if an employer wants to gauge performance under pressure, they need to use specific tests for that, or look very carefully at an applicant's performance in previous high-pressure jobs. They should not rely on a Harvard degree or any college degree for that, and I very much doubt that they do.
I've been in a position to evaluate job applicants, and that's definitely not what I was counting in when I saw an elite degree. Rather, I was hoping the individual had had a great education, benefitting from the most knowledgeable and insightful professors, and had learned how to think. So I wholeheartedly agree with your other points about AI, etc.
Moreover, not every job requires performance under pressure. Employers are most likely to avoid hiring people with disabilities out of fear of health care costs, and wanting to avoid making reasonable accommodations.* In our health care system, where health insurance is based to such a great extent on employment, and that greatly harms people with disabilities. (Not to mention being unable to earn a living.) If we had an effective social safety net, it would be different, but we do not.
Encouraging the current Congress to repeal "overbroad disability accommodation laws that universities have interpreted as forcing them to accommodate fundamentally cognitive conditions like anxiety and ADHD" simply feeds into Trump's horrifying ridicule of people with disabilities and the desire of those around him to limit employment to supposedly manly men (never mind that he and guys like Elon wouldn't do so well on objective tests of mental health).
I'm trying to remember the famous businessmen and politicians who have talked about dealing with their anxiety, dyslexia, ADHD, and other problems. I'm blanking on names right now (but don't worry, I'm retired so that won't hold back the economy), but there are many with impressive achievements who even credit learning to deal with what we consider disabilities to some of their success.
*Anyway, here's a major CEO explaining how avoiding accommodations really works, in this case, women who are pregnant or might be:
As a mom who just completed the IEP process for my 7th grader, I find this fascinating and something I hadn't thought about. We had a lot of conversations around what testing accommodations we wanted to try taking away since the whole goal is least restrictive environment and striving for independence.( I'm lucky that we live in a district where we're not fighting for resources but truly figuring out what's best for him.)
To think about how I'm working with a team to get a kid who's had an intervention plan since he was 3 and wants to go to college to scale down to minimum accommodation so he can succeed there and then some kid who has never had accommodations is now pushing for them in college is wild to me. And the idea that all these people can just get them when I know the hoops we have to go through to get this stuff in place in K-12 schools, it really bothers me that we're not pushing more perseverance and acceptance of discomfort when that's what we ask of people with disabilities everyday.
I'm also an IEP parent, of a high school student who has been on an IEP for a decade now. When it started, my child, diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and another DSM 5 diagnosis, was so severely affected by anxiety that the school wanted ann out of district placement. (Where I live, the more typical dance between IEP parents and schools is parents pushing for an expensive private placement and the school resisting; we were the rare opposite case of parents pushing to stay in district and the school pushing us out, until even we had to admit that staying in wasn't going to work.) After a few years we returned to the district with mixed success - it was working, but not great. Then we got to high school and it was like a switching had been flipped. Now my kid is an almost straight A student, all honors and AP courses, involved in extracurriculars, beginning to focus on college plans, etc. A lot of stuff I would not have thought likely a few years ago. Few outward signs of how severe things were in prior years. We still have an IEP, and my kid now negotiates what the accomodations will be, including some things like time limits, quiet rooms for testing, etc.
At a big picture level, I agree with Josh that accomodations processes are abused and that needs to be curtailed.
Where I differ is that I think my kid is a square peg that doesn't really fit into the round hole Josh thinks everyone should be forced into. And I don't mean only my kid; I think there are many kids like mine. Meet my kid casually today, Josh and most anyone else would almost certainly think "this is a normal kid." See my kid in school a decade ago and absolutely no one would think that - we had one school official tell us this was the worst case she'd seen in decades of teaching.
Reforms are abolsutely needed, but I'd strongly oppose reforms that toss some kids out because they do not fit the expectations of those doing the tossing.
As a mom who just completed the IEP process for my 7th grader, I find this fascinating and something I hadn't thought about. We had a lot of conversations around what testing accommodations we wanted to try taking away since the whole goal is least restrictive environment and striving for independence.( I'm lucky that we live in a district where we're not fighting for resources but truly figuring out what's best for him.)
To think about how I'm working with a team to get a kid who's had an intervention plan since he was 3 and wants to go to college to scale down to minimum accommodation so he can succeed there and then some kid who has never had accommodations is now pushing for them in college is wild to me. And the idea that all these people can just get them when I know the hoops we have to go through to get this stuff in place in K-12 schools, it really bothers me that we're not pushing more perseverance and acceptance of discomfort when that's what we ask of people with disabilities everyday.
Moderate Democrats are in an increasingly abusive relationship with elite universities and higher education in general. Democrats go to bat for their funding and prestige (largely out of a fundamentally conservative impulse), while these schools pump out junk ideologies, misleading research, and militant activist staffers that make it difficult for elected Democrats to govern and coalition build.
Matthew Yglesias is over in The Argument making a fantastic case that CRT has been an incredibly corrosive and undermining force for liberalism, but he never circles back to blame the academics that popularized it and gave it institutional force. The same can be said of climate policy, where weak renewable energy only models have come to dominate the academic discourse, while actively hamstringing the energy transition of blue states.
I think moderate Dems should take the same advice that Matt gives the billionaires funding liberal NGOs; reflect carefully on the people you're giving money and influence to, because it's increasingly at cross purposes with your own goals.
I am unreasonably anti-elite university, though I understand their historical value. At this point, they seem more like a luxury good and a gatekeeping device to ensure children of the elite are advantaged and pushed to the front of the line for high-paying jobs. Until that last part changes, they will remain "elite," no matter the quality of their students, faculty, or administrators.
I've been waiting 20 years for this implosion. It's finally here. All the incentives were that grade inflation would wipe out everything.
I thought it would have happened long ago but I think there were enough honest actors in the system trying to prop everything up. The 2020 nonsense and then the AI apocalypse swept out the legs of everyone holding on.
Someone said that in ten years the wealthy will send their kids to school with no laptops, no phone, no screens, everything on paper. Maybe in the computer lab you can use a desktop. The rest of us will have this dystopian thing where teachers just hand out ipads that are supposed to do the teaching and gives everyone an A.
I cannot agree with this enough. I attended college from 2006-10, then immediately got into K12 education, taught for a decade, and now am on the other side of things, looking at it all from an administrative and systems lens.
The weird "for-profit" markets of the educational industrial complex that popped up over the course of the past 15 years are almost dystopian in some ways. First, it was 1-to-1 laptops so that students could gain "technical literacy," then it was all of these silver bullet curricula that were totally aligned to x, y, z, but cost a fortune to implement at scale, and now the hot zietgiest is "personalized learning" - which just involves plopping a bored and restless seven year old in front of a laptop so they can get "algorithimically responsive" problems. And if I hear another fucking sales rep talk about "gameifying" education as though that's somehow a good thing, I'm going to throw them out the window.
It's all very depressing. A book, a pencil, and a dedicated and well-trained teacher (like at the ritzy K12 private schools you're alluding to) can do wonders.
as someone who genuinely struggled with ADD (before we got folded into ADHD in the dsm V) and needed all the support and accommodations my college offered (diagnoses dating back to early childhood, had to attend schools specifically geared towards helping me), i feel like whats gonna happen here is a crackdown that materially harms way more students than alot of these kids who i suspect didnt have serious problems till their late teens.
as for this section:
"When Weis and his colleagues looked at how students receiving accommodations for learning disabilities at a selective liberal-arts school performed on reading, math, and IQ tests, most had above-average cognitive abilities and no evidence of impairment."
Isn't this fundamentally misunderstanding how these diagnoses work? learning disabilities are not actually about ones cognitive abilities but their ability to apply those abilities to the real world, such as struggling with executive function or the literal process of reading or writing words? of course these kids got above average cognitive results! their disability is that they struggle with staying focused enough to do it in a timely manner, or it takes an unusual amount of effort to physically make out what words are on the page, not that they can't do it. the problem is education policy these days is almost entirely built around standardized exams that exist largely to feed data upstream to politicians, even if the exams are poor metrics of individual capabilities and often more a measure of one's ability to fill out standardized exams.
> If you’re too anxious to complete a test on time, that’s something a test should measure, not something it should avoid measuring.
It also could be an indicator that instructors aren't allocating sufficient time in their exams (and are potentially therefore measuring fairly small differences in test-taking speed far more than comprehension). It'd be interesting to know what the distribution is of times between students receiving exams and turning them in.
I almost always got extra time in college and I rarely ended up actually going over and using much of that extra time, but It's also hard for me to really say what the end result would have been otherwise. i ended up mostly using the accomodations for the quieter, more isolated location the disability office offered, along with the ability to type written portions due to my dysgraphia (a handicap with my ability to hand write words, even if i knew what i wanted to say).
This analysis missed two additional points worth considering. First, chasing away international students will do nothing to help or incentivize US students become more competitive, but it will reduce the financial resources available to improve institutions. Second, re-requiring the SAT will not improve secondary education or elevate student skills, except those officially measured in specific ways by the SAT. It’s not that hard of a test.
I’m totally in favor of making standardized tests harder.
Also, it’s the best available predictor of academic success in college. That’s something any decent college should care about.
Let’s give credit to the statisticians for understanding and accounting for intercorrelation. And there’s no contradiction. The SAT by design is not a test that is meant to guide secondary instruction (nor in its current form could it purport to do that beyond the 10th grade level), and by definition it can’t contribute to any skill development except in those it measures.
I am not anti-SAT. I’ve participated in hundreds of hours of analysis of how it functions as an instrument and the results it can support. It would be depressing if the UCs were to readopt it with no changes or improvements because most instances of the SAT improving have originated in the College Board responding to challenges from UC. It would be better for every US student if another round of improvement can occur.
It’s correlated to intelligence, not skill. Unfortunately, dumb people don’t do so well academically.
Ha! You’re claiming something the College Board stopped claiming decades ago. But, okay; if it’s measuring some important component of “intelligence,” it must suck. From the early 1960s to 2020 it was employed almost universally in admitting students to elite US colleges, so on average the people who did best on it are now the working Americans and retirees leading in every profession, including journalism, business, and politics. And yet by almost any measure we’re in one of the worst troughs of a prolonged national decline. Meanwhile people say China and India are on the rise, but both countries administer pure subject examinations that claim to measure only exposure to concepts, theories, and practices—i.e. skills. Not intelligence. So—what’s the benefit of measuring “intelligence?”
Don’t talk like you know anything about the entrance tests in India and China. They almost certainly measure intelligence. The college board doesn’t say it because they are liars and want to protect the sentiments of certain races. Not because it stopped being true. As an admissions officer you’re one of those liars who’ll deny data.
😘
It isn’t. Even during a period of grade inflation, and even referencing the College Board’s own (not disinterested) research, the best predictor of academic success has remained a combination of high school grades and scores together.
They’re not exactly orthogonal. Smart people who do well in standardized tests also tend to do well in HS. The HSGPA is not standardized. That’s the main issue. You’re also contradicting yourself that bringing standardized tests back will not help.
As someone who lives in California, where the SAT has not been required for UCs for a while… dude, I think you mean well, but you would be shocked at how mayonnaise brain some of these elite college kids are. We need the SAT back if only to keep the truly, truly stupid on the other side of the fence.
I have amassed a forty-year career in higher education as admissions leader at three elite research universities, most recently as Vice Provost at Cornell. I don’t think I can be “shocked” by the behavior of any students at elite colleges. Persistently the most consistently stupid behavior requiring regular intervention at all three places came from white male students with modest grades and high test scores. My thesis is that they thought their scores made them smarter than others, so they didn’t need to work as hard. They were wrong. I don’t mean to impugn the vast majority of high-scoring white men, but to the extent that some students found trouble on campus, they were the most representative group.
Well, I said you I thought you meant well, but you clearly don’t.
You conflated my point about academic readiness with poor out-of-class behavior just so you could drop in some sexism and racism. You’re not exactly rehabilitating my opinion of academics here.
I’m not an academic. I reported the objective facts about my experience. Calling that “sexist” and “racist” doesn’t change those facts.
From the vantage point of managing a campus, to the extent that any particular behavior—personal or academic—could be predicted, what was predicted by high SAT scores was not objectively better. “Academic readiness”—which is predicted by a combination of grades and scores better than it is by any other simple metric, but still not predicted very well (the R2 value is low) is not the only important adaptive behavior to consider.
I find I always agree 95 percent with Josh and appreciate that he has summarized and synthesized important issues that are so often being intentionally obfuscated. This essay is no exception. Not that I am always right about the other 5 percent, of course, but here goes.
There is one point in this essay that makes me very uncomfortable. I don't think a college test or degree should be expected to measure all the elements of employability, which are going to differ from job to job anyway. In particular, if an employer wants to gauge performance under pressure, they need to use specific tests for that, or look very carefully at an applicant's performance in previous high-pressure jobs. They should not rely on a Harvard degree or any college degree for that, and I very much doubt that they do.
I've been in a position to evaluate job applicants, and that's definitely not what I was counting in when I saw an elite degree. Rather, I was hoping the individual had had a great education, benefitting from the most knowledgeable and insightful professors, and had learned how to think. So I wholeheartedly agree with your other points about AI, etc.
Moreover, not every job requires performance under pressure. Employers are most likely to avoid hiring people with disabilities out of fear of health care costs, and wanting to avoid making reasonable accommodations.* In our health care system, where health insurance is based to such a great extent on employment, and that greatly harms people with disabilities. (Not to mention being unable to earn a living.) If we had an effective social safety net, it would be different, but we do not.
Encouraging the current Congress to repeal "overbroad disability accommodation laws that universities have interpreted as forcing them to accommodate fundamentally cognitive conditions like anxiety and ADHD" simply feeds into Trump's horrifying ridicule of people with disabilities and the desire of those around him to limit employment to supposedly manly men (never mind that he and guys like Elon wouldn't do so well on objective tests of mental health).
I'm trying to remember the famous businessmen and politicians who have talked about dealing with their anxiety, dyslexia, ADHD, and other problems. I'm blanking on names right now (but don't worry, I'm retired so that won't hold back the economy), but there are many with impressive achievements who even credit learning to deal with what we consider disabilities to some of their success.
*Anyway, here's a major CEO explaining how avoiding accommodations really works, in this case, women who are pregnant or might be:
https://michaeldellexplainslikeimfive.com/why-disabled-people-suffer-most-under-return-to-office-2/
As a mom who just completed the IEP process for my 7th grader, I find this fascinating and something I hadn't thought about. We had a lot of conversations around what testing accommodations we wanted to try taking away since the whole goal is least restrictive environment and striving for independence.( I'm lucky that we live in a district where we're not fighting for resources but truly figuring out what's best for him.)
To think about how I'm working with a team to get a kid who's had an intervention plan since he was 3 and wants to go to college to scale down to minimum accommodation so he can succeed there and then some kid who has never had accommodations is now pushing for them in college is wild to me. And the idea that all these people can just get them when I know the hoops we have to go through to get this stuff in place in K-12 schools, it really bothers me that we're not pushing more perseverance and acceptance of discomfort when that's what we ask of people with disabilities everyday.
I'm also an IEP parent, of a high school student who has been on an IEP for a decade now. When it started, my child, diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and another DSM 5 diagnosis, was so severely affected by anxiety that the school wanted ann out of district placement. (Where I live, the more typical dance between IEP parents and schools is parents pushing for an expensive private placement and the school resisting; we were the rare opposite case of parents pushing to stay in district and the school pushing us out, until even we had to admit that staying in wasn't going to work.) After a few years we returned to the district with mixed success - it was working, but not great. Then we got to high school and it was like a switching had been flipped. Now my kid is an almost straight A student, all honors and AP courses, involved in extracurriculars, beginning to focus on college plans, etc. A lot of stuff I would not have thought likely a few years ago. Few outward signs of how severe things were in prior years. We still have an IEP, and my kid now negotiates what the accomodations will be, including some things like time limits, quiet rooms for testing, etc.
At a big picture level, I agree with Josh that accomodations processes are abused and that needs to be curtailed.
Where I differ is that I think my kid is a square peg that doesn't really fit into the round hole Josh thinks everyone should be forced into. And I don't mean only my kid; I think there are many kids like mine. Meet my kid casually today, Josh and most anyone else would almost certainly think "this is a normal kid." See my kid in school a decade ago and absolutely no one would think that - we had one school official tell us this was the worst case she'd seen in decades of teaching.
Reforms are abolsutely needed, but I'd strongly oppose reforms that toss some kids out because they do not fit the expectations of those doing the tossing.
As a mom who just completed the IEP process for my 7th grader, I find this fascinating and something I hadn't thought about. We had a lot of conversations around what testing accommodations we wanted to try taking away since the whole goal is least restrictive environment and striving for independence.( I'm lucky that we live in a district where we're not fighting for resources but truly figuring out what's best for him.)
To think about how I'm working with a team to get a kid who's had an intervention plan since he was 3 and wants to go to college to scale down to minimum accommodation so he can succeed there and then some kid who has never had accommodations is now pushing for them in college is wild to me. And the idea that all these people can just get them when I know the hoops we have to go through to get this stuff in place in K-12 schools, it really bothers me that we're not pushing more perseverance and acceptance of discomfort when that's what we ask of people with disabilities everyday.
You’re thinking too hard. Align incentives. We can solve this by requiring colleges to guarantee some minimal level of employment or provide a refund.
+100