1) Not too surprising, but liberal arts and Ivy League schools are the furthest left. Not a good sign that elite status correlates strongly with leftism.
2) Sex divides between men and women are much larger on campus then in general society. This is a bad sign for the future (heading to South Korea-ville). Probably the result of the overwhelming dominance of 3rd-wave feminism on campus.
3) College students, like Gen Z in general, are extremely LGBT, especially women (with the caveat that just over half of LGBT women are "bi"). Another bad sign for the future.
4) The only clearly-conservative campus in the entire country is Hillsdale. Even BYU and Utah State are only around evenly split. Red state flagships are more conservative then other colleges, but still skew hard left.
5) Fraternity men are pretty much evenly split ideologically (the only significant subgroup like this). Scott Greer vindicated.
6) Campus Judaism is basically dead - only 3% of elite students ID as Jews (7% at Ivies, down from 20% twenty years ago). As I've said before, this is the last significant generation of American secular Jewry.
7) Whites are a small minority on many campuses, particularly in California, where they're outnumbered by both Asians and Hispanics.
8) Income is basically irrelevant to partisanship. Should be common knowledge by now, but there are still people who claim that the ideological divide in the US is really just a class war.
9) As I've said in the past, the main vector by which the LGBT mind-virus is the Internet, not the school system. Unfortunately, home schooling is not a guarantee of safety.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Employers hiring people and then training them in the specific skills they require has declined as a hiring model for decades, in favor of a hiring market where employers look for people who already have those skills.
In the training/internal labor markets model, a company struggling to find specific skills will train promising entry-level employees. In the hiring market model, they can raise wages or otherwise improve conditions. In both, they can also substitute technology for labor.
Neither a hiring market nor training model for matching jobs to seekers is compatible with "skill shortages" as a concept, which implicitly assumes skills are fixed and once people with those skills run out employers can do nothing (except through immigration or schooling).
"Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (TR Fehrenbach, 1973/1995) thread of threads. Mesoamerican civilization was horrifying and very backwards by Old World standards, but unique.
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1995). The PRI had massively expanded higher education. These universities were entirely 'free'/self-governing and became locuses of left-wing organizing.
In 1968, security forces fired upon a massive student demonstration/riot against the Olympic Games.
By 1970 Mexico had made enormous progress; the national income increased sixfold while the death rate dropped by half. But Mexico was still struggling with foreign-exchange; the govt pursued import-substitution to improve balance-of-payments.
Thread with excerpts from the Partido Nacional Revolucionario (PNR) section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1995). Calles created the PNR in 1929 to institutionalize the govt and Revolution, creating a Mexican party-state.
The Calles/Obregon governments were corrupt, but never succumbed to paranoia; there was no equivalent to the Soviet or Chinese liquidations of class enemies, the press was free, and the average Mexican had nothing to fear from the govt (Red Terror against the Church aside).
Roughly 19M acres were redistributed through 1933; most land remained with latifundios. But the new latifundios were not like the old ones, they were commercial enterprises rather than social systems. The clerics, army, and latifundistas were all tamed by Calles/Obregon.
Thread with excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1995), on post-Revolutionary Mexico. To justify land reform, the revolutionaries revived the principle that expropriation was justifiable if the national interests demanded it.
The Constitutionalists defeated the Villistas in battle and assassinated the leader of the last revolutionary faction, Zapata, by treachery.
Carranza, the erstwhile leader of the victorious Constitutionalists, dug his own grave by trying to promote someone other than Obregon to the presidency after him; he was forced to flee the capital, run down, and murdered.
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). The Porfiriato gave Mexico a generation of stability and development for the first time since independence. This left Mexico overdue for another civil war: the Mexican Revolution.
One problem was that the Porfirian school system had created a large, literate middle structure (not class). These educated mestizos became dissatisfied due to lack of opportunity; growth was rapid but not rapid enough to absorb them all.
The Revolution kicked off in 1910, when Diaz announced he'd won reelection with 99% of the vote. This kicked off an insurgency in Chihuahua, in the mestizo, frontier north.