Skeptics of universities say: "But most of the people who graduate end up leaving."
1/OK, I should really write another thread about university-centric regional development, because I think people often make some (very understandable) mistakes when thinking about this issue.
Skeptics of universities say: "But most of the people who graduate end up leaving."
Educating local kids is good for the nation, but doesn't help a region much.
The way a university helps a region is through RESEARCH.
https://t.co/zud8wNQDTh
But university RESEARCH pulls in OTHER smart people from other regions, and they stay there.
Here's a paper showing that this is the main way universities increase a region's human capital: https://t.co/ofu256tsFi
Companies want to partner with university labs, so they can commercialize the technologies the labs produce. So they invest in the labs, and sometimes they even put their offices in the town.
https://t.co/NiVzQVgn5I
Answer: A little bit. But mainly because this means less tuition money that can be used to fund university research labs.
BUT, the most important thing is to fund research more!!
Critics of university-centric development like to point out that the probability of succeeding at this is very low.
But this doesn't really matter.
My hometown of College Station is no Silicon Valley. But College Station, and its surrounding region, are thriving thanks to a university.
https://t.co/2GduLv9SL5
Beyond the research-and-investment thing I discussed earlier, universities also draw in residents from small towns, creating pleasant small cities.
https://t.co/2xqpKdMZUs
https://t.co/hYSbEKxeV8
In fact, this is unlikely to be a useful approach. https://t.co/uxUcLHzmON
What we have to do is UPGRADE the RESEARCH CAPABILITIES of the second- and third-tier universities.
1. By spending more research dollars there
2. By encouraging companies to partner with the labs there
3. By letting these universities admit more high-paying foreign students
4. A new land grant program?
More from Noah Smith
Yes, we have been more divided than we are now. Within living memory.
Labor disputes used to kill hundreds of people!
In 1932 Douglas MacArthur called in tanks on protesting veterans, injuring over a thousand people!
In 1967 there were 159 race riots in cities across
In 1921, rioters used airplanes to bomb black businesses in Tulsa, Oklahoma! Hundreds were killed in the riot!
At one point there were five bombings in America *every day*. https://t.co/VUnLr2IDyt
— Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) October 7, 2018
Deadly riots in literally hundreds of American cities. A rash of high-profile political assassinations. Soldiers shooting protesters on college campuses!
Labor disputes used to kill hundreds of people!
In 1932 Douglas MacArthur called in tanks on protesting veterans, injuring over a thousand people!
In 1967 there were 159 race riots in cities across
In 1921, rioters used airplanes to bomb black businesses in Tulsa, Oklahoma! Hundreds were killed in the riot!
This is so dumb and incorrect and wrong it's unbelievable.
Facts.
Facts!!
FACTS FACTS
Moar
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. is quickly approaching \u201ca moment of crisis\u201d because of the \u201crecord number of migrants\u201d spilling into the country https://t.co/QuiWPcXswA
— POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2018
Facts.
Facts!!
FACTS FACTS
Moar
To be honest, I think this is just the effect of Twitter.
If you're on Twitter all the time - as every political commentator now is - it's easy to think that whiny, big-talking Twitter slacktivists are "the Dems".
But what's happening out there on the ground?
This is another reason I think Twitter is so bad for society.
It convinces intellectuals and commentators that practically everyone who's on their side is an extremist.
Which makes them tolerate extremism out of a (false) feeling of necessity.
If you stay on Twitter too much (which we all do now), you start to think that the typical left-of-center person is some British wanker who quote-tweets "Imagine thinking this" to anyone who doesn't like the idea of "ending capitalism".
But he is not typical.
A majority of Americans are not on Twitter.
But *every* journalist, commentator, and intellectual *has* to be on Twitter.
So every journalist, commentator, and intellectual comes face to face with big-talking slacktivist faux-extremists day in and day out.
It's a problem!!
Online bubbles full of shouty faux-extremists are, in general, fine.
The difference is that every journalist, commentator, and intellectual is essentially forced to exist in THIS bubble, because their jobs require it.
Twitter is a dystopian technology.
(end)
If you're on Twitter all the time - as every political commentator now is - it's easy to think that whiny, big-talking Twitter slacktivists are "the Dems".
But what's happening out there on the ground?
— VeryHiddenGeniusHat (@Popehat) October 18, 2018
This is another reason I think Twitter is so bad for society.
It convinces intellectuals and commentators that practically everyone who's on their side is an extremist.
Which makes them tolerate extremism out of a (false) feeling of necessity.
If you stay on Twitter too much (which we all do now), you start to think that the typical left-of-center person is some British wanker who quote-tweets "Imagine thinking this" to anyone who doesn't like the idea of "ending capitalism".
But he is not typical.
A majority of Americans are not on Twitter.
But *every* journalist, commentator, and intellectual *has* to be on Twitter.
So every journalist, commentator, and intellectual comes face to face with big-talking slacktivist faux-extremists day in and day out.
It's a problem!!
Online bubbles full of shouty faux-extremists are, in general, fine.
The difference is that every journalist, commentator, and intellectual is essentially forced to exist in THIS bubble, because their jobs require it.
Twitter is a dystopian technology.
(end)
1/Politics thread time.
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
Bad ballot design led to a lot of undervotes for Bill Nelson in Broward Co., possibly even enough to cost him his Senate seat. They do appear to be real undervotes, though, instead of tabulation errors. He doesn't really seem to have a path to victory. https://t.co/utUhY2KTaR
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 16, 2018
