This is why?

 

The NY Times notes:

 Declines this fall also appear to be stacking on top of losses in Ph.D. student capacity from last year. The A.A.U.D.E. collected data for fall 2025 and found that, for the 42 schools that responded, new enrollments dropped by 11 percent from the previous year. Enrollments and admissions are not the same, but tend to be good proxies for each other in doctoral education. The central takeaway, A.A.U. officials said, is that the data shows two years of a “substantial reduction in the number of Ph.D. students being admitted and ultimately enrolled at major research universities.” Sally Kornbluth, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in a message to the campus in May that, while Congress restored some agency cuts, the money was “not actually flowing to M.I.T. the way it typically has.” She said new federal research awards were down 20 percent and also cited the effects of a new tax on the school’s endowment.

In my opinion this is one reason why. Students must take Humanities courses such as (you must take 8 of these things!):  

 21W.764J Computational and Experimental Writing Workshop

21W.765J Interactive Narrative

21W.766 Writing Fantasy

21W.770 Advanced Fiction Workshop

21W.771 Advanced Poetry Workshop

21W.773 Writing Longer Fiction

21W.774J Playwriting Methods

21W.776J Screenwriting

21W.780J Writing the Full-Length Play

21W.786J Social Justice and The Documentary Film

21W.790J Short Attention Span Documentary

CMS.150J Black Matters: Introduction to Black Studies

CMS.301 Game Design Methods

CMS.303J DJ History, Technique, and Technology

CMS.305J Rap Theory and Practice

CMS.306 Making Comics and Sequential Art

CMS.307 Critical Worldbuilding

CMS.308 The Visual Story: Graphic Novel, Type to Tablet

CMS.309J Transmedia Storytelling: Modern Science Fiction

CMS.335J Short Attention Span Documentary

CMS.336J Social Justice and The Documentary Film

CMS.338 Innovation in Documentary: Technologies and Techniques

CMS.339 Virtual Reality and Immersive Media Production

CMS.344 Spatial Sound: Culture, Theory, and Practice

CMS.352J Japanese Cinema

CMS.374J Transmedia Art, Extraction, and Environmental Justice

CMS.418J Gender in the Visual Arts

 

Plus MIT instituted and continues its DEI program with Commissars in each Department ensuring compliance (Think Hunt for Red October).  

So what do they do, blame Congress! Perhaps a mirror would help. For example who ever had put  the "toll booth" at all entrances really started the ball rolling.

 As a Note the 1961 MIT catalog stated:

The M.I.T. program in humanities and social sciences has several objectives. It seeks first to develop attitudes and skills basic to a life of effective thought , action, and appreciation as a responsible citizen and broadly educated human being. Secondly, it seeks to provide some understanding of man's experience at key points in his history and of the human problems which must be the concern of every civilized  man. Thirdly, it seeks to provide some sense of the intellectual discipline involved in a particular area in the humanities or social sciences, some cutting in depth in a field outside the student’s professional specialization. Finally, it seeks to develop skill in accurately and effectively communicating facts and ideas orally and in writing. Every candidate for a Bachelor's degree must take eight term subjects in the humanities and social sciences; normally these are distributed over the eight terms of his residence, one to each term. All  ndergraduates may take, if they choose, two additional humanities or social science subjects in place of two  professional electives. In his first two years each student takes a series of four subjects: INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMANITIES (21.01, 21.02) and MODERN WESTERN IDEAS AND VALUES (21.03, 21.04). Through intensive work with original texts he is given training in critical reading, a sampling of the liberal disciplines; notably history, philosophy, and literature and a foundation for more advanced study in these and related fields. Frequent written exercises, with criticism from his instructors in scheduled conferences, give him an opportunity to improve his writing ability.

Notice the drastic difference. It lacks focus, stresses "woke" elements, and most likely has faculty less appropriate for science and engineering.

What are they talking about?

 

In a Science article the authors, some folks from a Southern Business School, opine on how R&D should be conducted. The recognize that research is now well established in the University, Venture funded entities are able to convert that research into services and products, and large corporations can often, but not always, industrialize these entities. The fail to note than many start ups continue to grow independent of a third party, but let that slide.

They then state:

 One lesson is clear: The American research university is the indispensable foundation for innovation. Industrial research in America arose partly because university research was underdeveloped, but over time, the two flourished together, reinforcing each other. It is not necessary to choose between universities, start-ups, and corporate laboratories. Instead, the institutions that connect them must be strengthened, and the scientific foundations that make those connections possible must be protected.

My question is simple: what are the institutions that connect them? I spent a few years after having done my own start ups and tried to go to the university and then commercialize them. Not a single success. The university research often lingers in the valley of death, where the researcher holds on to the idea but simultaneously wants to keep their academic position. That is a bad example of the wing-walkers rule, never let go of something until you have a firm hold of something else. The result may be half of you stays on the two aircraft. 

I wonder why these academics postulate some undefined solution. It appears they have no hands on experience. At the best, one may license a patent from an institution. However that can be a painful process, I also have done that. You often are still stuck with the researcher. The problem is that researchers live in silos. Thus they may have a great technology, but have no idea as to how to manufacture it. I would get a test tube worth but need tons!

This three step process is weak. Lots of great ideas and technology but getting it to a viable start up phase is complex. The worst I have ever seen was MIT starting its VC fund. A university should not be in the position of choosing winners and losers. Research is research. It is not product development. It lacks the ruthless hand of management. 

A Reason Why Tuition is so High!

 In reading a recent MIT News brief they lauded a new employee whose job is:

... associate director of student organizations and programming for the Student Organizations, Leadership, and Engagement Office (SOLE) in the Division of Student Life (DSL), empowers and equips students to lead and serve not only during their time at MIT, but also as they venture into their professional lives. With enthusiasm and a global mindset, she is dedicated to helping students thrive and reach their goals.  

Well there goes another couple of hundred thousand, How long has this organization been around. Do MIT students have time for this stuff, I never did.  

 

Down with the Old?

 

The NY Times has a piece by some Yale Prof. Not surprisingly he proposes:

 Ageism has not ended, but that should not stop those questioning and seeking to rein in American gerontocracy.

Ageism is prejudice against older folk. Gerontocracy is the group of older who have been successful and prudent and have assets. Now this character is no saying "kill the old" but it comes close.

First home ownership. My current house bought in 1980 had a mortgage rate of 18.5%! It would have been cheaper on my credit card. I had to bear the Nixon/Johnson war tax if you will. Fortunately Reagan came in and put a halt to it.

Second, I drive a Honda. Not a BMW or Mercedes.

Third I worked seven days a week, and for several years by traveling around the world managed to get at times greater than 24 hours for a day.

Fourth, I have no country club, no country house, etc. 

Fifth, I saved wisely.

Thus due to my prudence I am in the gerontocracy. Perhaps this Yale Prof may be coming for me? This character further states:

Absolutely, but what your story misses is that older citizens are complicit in the lack of senior housing. We have very good studies of how land use decisions — typically at town meetings where there is a lot of white hair in the audience. Ironically, if we democratized land use we would serve elder citizens better — by building more age-appropriate housing for them, and more housing in general.

 Yep, ship me off to age appropriate housing...try NYC with the local Marxist! No wonder students, at Yale and elsewhere are so off center!

We have gone from "kill the rich" to now "kill the old"! Thank you US Universities.... 

Missing the Point

 

Stefanik, in “Poisoned Ivies”, provides a recount of the hearing of College Presidents regarding the antisemitic riots on campuses and the suppression of free speech. Regrettably, that is about all; it is detailed and limited to the confines of the testimonies with some minor examinations of causes and remedies. She examines several major universities and then summarily discusses what went wrong and what to fix. I think, from personal experience over the past sixty plus years, that her depth of coverage is a bit shallow. The book does help to understand what happened in the hearings but it fails to understand what were the deep causes of these situations. In my opinion and in my experience, this change for the worse in universities has been building for quite a while.

The book is divided into three sections. First a long recitation of the events surrounding multiple universities and their clumsy if not outright incompetent defense of their dealings with the Hammas slaughter aftermath in 2023. Second a limited analysis of what went wrong. Third, in my opinion, a rather weak assessment and sets of recommendations on what should be fixed and how. Overall, however, the author is facing a much more complex issue and the 2023 issues were but the tip of an iceberg regarding cultural changes in US universities.

I have personal experience with three of the institutions examined by Stefanik. Stefanik provides a twenty year view, mine is over sixty five years.

First is MIT, where I was a student, faculty and researcher over the period of the 60s until the early 2010s. I chose MIT based upon my collecting trash in a janitor job at a public school in New York. The trash contained a bunch of old MIT catalogs. I took them home and spent hours reading these catalogs, seeing labs, reading course materials. In those days all you needed was great SATs and good grades. In New York Regents exams proffered grades and SATs I garnered from some friends at the Jewish Community Center, could be mastered by attending a prep course and studying the exam book, that led to 1700+ grades. Then just fill out the application, no essay, no interview, and get accepted. Never even visited! Think of the days of Richard Feynman from Rockaway Beach! Tuition at MIT in 1960 was $750 per year. Room and board the same but if you managed to live off campus with some colleagues it could even be less.

Then, over the past 60 plus years, things changed, but for the worse. The most recent example was when some administrator put gates at all the entrances of MIT. That was more symbolic than the actual physical gates. Then they went and put DEI officers in every department to ensure compliance. Then the administration became a mess of non-alumni bringing in their view of what students should look like and should believe. The quintessential example was the statements of the MIT President at Stefanik’s committee.

From a historical perspective. an interesting observation at MIT is the experience of the Presidents[1]. Until 1990, Presidents had close ties to MIT before taking office. They had studied there and taught there. Then came the outsiders with their ideas and truly gross misunderstanding of what MIT meant. I believe that this change was critical to the problems that occurred. These 36 years have been the seeding ground for the deprecation of quality education.

Consider MIT Lincoln Lab, a major Federal Research Lab, has a multibillion dollar budget funded by the US Government. It is a singular research facility primarily for the Air Force but also the FAA and intelligence community. However its management continues to display statements such as:

… is invested in cultivating a strong culture of innovation and is deeply committed to diversity and inclusion across the Laboratory… currently serves as the Executive Sponsor for the Lincoln Laboratory Hispanic/Latinx Network employee resource group.

Clearly the DEI culture still not only survives but prospers. Apparently managers select employees based upon these cultural imperatives. I spent three years working with Lincoln Lab and was highly impressed by its competence. Selection or members of the staff was based upon accomplishment. My wife also worked at Lincoln, so the employment was not DEI but competence.

One should then ask who was in charge of this change? We see that the number of graduate students from abroad, and especially the PRC! 30+% are from there and these students are supported on Government contracts. We are educating our adversaries on our tax dollars. Are US students that stupid? Hardly, it is a political ploy by the administrations to appear global, globalization of education. When these PRC students complete degrees with no debt they go back to PRC! Will we see them again as we saw Admiral Yamamoto ate Pearl Harbor?

Now Columbia is another interesting case. I had been a Professor in the Business School and on Boards at the Medical Facilities. But the best part was when I applied as an undergrad, I was denied admission in writing because I was a Catholic! A long letter from a Dean (a Donald Barr, yes the father of) accompanied my denial. Thus clearly Columbia was anti-Catholic, exemplified by Professor Hofstetter who was a highly aggressive anti Catholic. Yet none spoke of this issue 60+ years ago. But that was Columbia, in the 1930s a den of Communists. During Viet Nam it was a collection of violent protesters.

As for Harvard, I have some experience there as well but most on the medical side, which is great, and not much on the other side of the river. Medicine is simple, save a life and do so the best you can while having dignity for the patient.

What Stefanik seems to miss is how did these institutions get this way. She is just seeing the current issues. Harvard has always been a bit antisemitic, think Lowell. Columbia has always be extreme left wing, so no surprise there. But MIT? An institution which was critical in WW II, which just got a $12 B 5 year contract from the Air Force at Lincoln Lab. Yet, as I noted, when you examine the CVs of the Lincoln Management one see massive DEI efforts! If I am spending $12 billion perhaps I want the best workers not those filtered by DEI!

Finally, and most importantly, there is the issue of the institutions Governing Boards, such as the MIT Corporation[2]. It is these shadow players, often self-selected based on donations and commonality of political views that are often the buffers in retaining the new world views and degradation of the institutions. It was this Board that rid Harvard of its President but on the other side supported MIT’s President for comparable behavior. Stefanik should be examining them and not just Presidents.

Thus, Stefanik seems to miss the steps in evolution. Some steps were there before but others, such as MIT, have ruptured forth in just the past two or three decades. How did this happen? That is more important than just what is happening now.

As to what is to be done; simple, provide opportunities for American students. Feynman types should be admitted and supported. Essays and interns are useless. One never knows who writes and who reads essays. Also interning is a façade of the wealth and well connected. The Government can provide scholarships and fellowships only to American students. What counts is prior performance, not gilded credentials of no true merit. But Stefanik proposes a massive list of Government controls. The worst problem is that these institutions are not creating American students of excellence. Preference for admission should be given to American students. Perhaps the problem is mostly in American secondary education, and its failures to teach adequately which place American students at a disadvantage.

I would like to have seen Stefanik address these issues but she lightly covered them; what caused this and what can be done. The answer is not Government controls, God knows what that would lead to, the US Postal Service. The answer is university administrations and presidents who are leaders of excellence not administrators of social policy.

---

 

---

[1] https://facts.mit.edu/leadership/

 [2] https://corporation.mit.edu/

 

Taking Your Own Advice

 In PJ Media the Wrestling Lady in DC noted:

 “Two weeks in, millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid, and schools are operating as normal,” McMahon emphasized. “It confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states.”

 But it did not stop her from "advising" Universities how to do their tasks. Perhaps this is nothing more than the "blind leading the blind"

Another Simple Calculation

 I was thinking about MIT and foreign grad students. Consider the following:

1. 40% of the grad students are foreign

2. There are about 5000 grad students so that is 2000 foreign students

3. Half of them are PRC students or 1,000 students from the PRC

4. All grad students are funded by some form of research, almost solely from the US Government

5. The student costs paid for at $60,000 tuition and $40,000 support, or $100,000 per student per year

6. The PRC students are thus supported by we the Taxpayers for $100 million per year

7. When I was there in 60s we had no USSR students

8. The PRC students are there under the rubric of the US State Dept viusa program

9. The research grants do not restrict who is supported

Now think about this. 

Threats: Cutting one's nose to spite one's face

 This ludicrous "Compact" that the folks in Washington issued will, if implemented against Universities, will destroy American excellence. Consider the opening paragraph:

American higher education is the envy of the world and represents a key strategic benefit for our
Nation. In turn, the U.S. university system benefits in a variety of ways from its extraordinary relationship
with the U.S. government. These include (i) access to student loans, grant programs, and federal contracts; (ii) funding for research directly or indirectly; (iii) approval of student and other visas in connection with university matriculation and instruction; and (iv) preferential treatment under the tax code. To advance the national interest arising out of this unique relationship, this Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education represents the priorities of the U.S. government in its engagements with universities that benefit from the relationship. Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits

 This is a clear threat. Do what we tell you or we will bankrupt you! Who in their right mind would do this. Yes Universities have their childish problems. Yet this is more than throwing the baby out with the bath water, it a Hammas like act of execution.

There is a tool that works, namely via funding. If one wants to limit foreign nationals in Grad school, funded under Government contracts then put that in the contract. Namely only US citizens. 

Visa controls are already in place. Why burden the University. If the R&D funding delimits foreign nationals then clearly the system will act accordingly.

In my opinion the issue is getting more US students in Grad school. Is a PRC student really better than any US student? If they are blame US education. If not, then fix it via funding.

This clearly is one of the most egregious documents I have ever read. In my opinion it reads like it was written by some Community College drop out trying to get revenge.  

Some Thoughts on College Admission

 Back in 1960, MIT admissions required an application, mostly your address and school, a school record, and SAT scores. No essay, no list of parent funded research at some exotic location, no letter of recommendation from Nobel Prize winners, no pictures of the erstwhile student feeding starving children in some war torn country. Just grades. Also yearly tuition was $750 as was room and board. One could make that working hard over the summer so no student loans were necessary. One just had to be smart, hard working, and focused.

Thus a large group was from New York City, a lot were Jewish or friends of them. Many came from first class City schools or some quality Catholic High Schools. 

Now such students would have zero chance. The new cadre are either socially deprived, or family funded. Hard working city kids would never even get close. But it was those hardworking city kids that built trillion dollar start ups! 

We managed to get through the Vietnam War days with little disruption, although I got to know the Rosa Luxemburg SDS folks, mostly wandering down from Harvard.

The new Administrations have become social brewing pots, collecting the strangest group of social justice warriors possible. The Administration has ballooned into a social justice warrior enclave, a self perpetuating mass of hangers on who are over paid and under educated. 

What will happen to this institution? 

The Idiocy of Commencement Speakers

 I received my doctoral degrees in 1971. It was still amidst the Vietnam War and a year after the massacre at Kent State. The President of MIT, Prof Howard Johnson, just congratulated the graduates, no outside speakers, and no class Presidents. Just get the degree, show the family and friends and then get lunch! Commencement was a day for the graduates. The last thing we needed was some artificial pompous person pontificating on what we should be doing. Just get a job, avoid getting drafted, and become productive. Yet there we no jobs, Nixon had crashed the economy, the War continued, and getting productive was seeking out opportunities at McDonald's!

Come 2025 at MIT we see some Internet comedian giving advice to students who all seem clueless about the reality of life. That was followed by some political radical bemoaning her fate while apparently dissing many students who were too clueless to understand. 

Do Universities have problems? If one examines Commencements then one sees that they sure do. 

As for foreign students it is worth examining the MIT records. 

MIT Government Funding and Foreign Students

 MIT is a land grant college. Over its almost 150 year history it has supported the US in various ways such as the Rad Lab, Lincoln Lab, the Instrumentation Lab, and recently such efforts as Koch Lab, Whitehead, and others. Much of the success in technology has come from these efforts. MIT's Government funding is now close to $2.4 billion annually. However it has some 30% of its almost 12,000 students are foreign. 

Now I have been a member of the above mentioned Labs over the years. I have also been in the EECS Department as student and faculty as recently as 2012. However I noticed that by 2012 none of my doctoral students were US citizens, many from the PRC. But worse was the fact that these students were funded from US Government contracts many even from DoD related contracts! One fears that in a remake of the film Tora Tora Tora we see an Admiral Yamamoto saying not that he went to Harvard but to MIT and learned all he could under a DoD sponsored contract while earning a doctorate. While one suspects the American student, say a Feynman double, was not admitted since he did not make the DEI match and was from New York City! 

In my opinion the current Administration may have a point but the point is mired in details which seem to be a blind spot. In the 60s it would have been unheard of to have a large cadre of Soviet grad students funded by DoD! But the parallel today is not only thought of but implemented. Details do count. Perhaps that is a step to understanding what these students are doing and from whence they came.

More critically is why we do not have more American students. Are these 30%, or 3600 foreign students that much better than American students? Could I no longer qualify, even after life's accomplishments to gain admission.  

There is clearly a critical national problem here. Are we educating possible national adversaries at the costs of the taxpayer. Are these putatively a threat of our own making? How does this compare to other countries? Does the PRC admits 30% of their students from the West? Hardly. I have argued this for decades just to see it compounded by the putative adversarial mix of students.

Are "Scientists" Really That Smart?

 Nature has an interesting piece on scientists and tattoos! Yep, cool scientists are getting tattooed along with Secretaries of Defense and all the lonely people. Nature notes:

... had wanted a tattoo for years, so when she finished her neuroscience PhD in 2019, she knew it was time. “It made sense that once I had my PhD, I would commemorate it this way,” she says. Barry’s research focused mainly on hearing-loss disorders, such as tinnitus, and she spent a lot of time looking at auditory thalamus neurons, the nerve cells that help to process sound. These were often stained using the Golgi method, highlighting the neuron’s cell body and dendrites that resemble tree roots and tendrils — and would make for a good fine-line tattoo.  In 2021, she got the tattoo — aptly, behind her ear. “I really didn’t expect my tattoo to play as much of a part in my identity, but it just felt right,” says Barry, who is now a research fellow at the University of Western Australia and Curtin University in Perth. She’s not alone. Many scientists mark research accomplishments and career milestones by heading to a tattoo par

However, less than a year ago a Lancet article noted:

 The popularity of tattoos has increased dramatically over the last few decades. Tattoo ink often contains carcinogenic chemicals, e.g., primary aromatic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals. The tattooing process invokes an immunologic response that causes translocation of tattoo ink from the injection site. Deposition of tattoo pigment in lymph nodes has been confirmed but the long-term health effects remain unexplored. We used Swedish National Authority Registers with full population coverage to investigate the association between tattoo exposure and overall malignant lymphoma as well as lymphoma subtypes.

 That is not at all surprising. Tattoos elicit a massive immune response, resulting in methylation of histones and resulting in suppression and activation of lymphoma generating genes! Do these scientists have a clue!

The Ideal College President

 While in Russia with my local colleagues we discussed managers and styles. We even discussed College Presidents. Now I was not your typical American. I spoke a little Russian, I took the Metro not a limo, and I did not belong to a super big American Corporation. My colleagues in other countries saw the difference as well. 

But in discussing management styles, they often said I reminded them of the Dean of the Joe Stalin School of Management. Whether a compliment or an observation of my rather heavy fisted style, I did not eliminate anyone, I found that interesting.

One sets out goals, gets concurrence, the assigns tasks and expects results. No results, no job.

Perhaps a Dean of the Joe Stalin School of Management could be the next Columbia President. But beware of the Trustees! Joe knew how to deal with them.

To The Outgoing President

 I knew this would happen. It was a suicide mission from the get go. Now it is headed by a former Newscaster! So for the outgoing one:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

 

If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;

If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

 

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

 

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!