you could feel that place going bad in the early 90's. back then we called it "political correctness" and we sort of sniggered about it, but it ate the whole school. i stopped going to reunions over a decade ago. it's just too painful to listen to any of the folks there speak.
it has become an ideological echo chamber of recursive bias generation. they have no idea how far they have drifted. they assume it's everyone else who "went far right" and have no concept of the degree of their own radicalization because they shout down, censor, and shun anyone with views divergent from their own.
once, the ivies were a sort of selector, a sorting hat. if you could get in and graduate, you were a certain sort of person.
now, they discriminate against legacies and admit for intersectional reasons that have nothing to do with merit, ability, or character and often indicate the opposite.
the schools themselves have dumbed down horribly. they had to. their caliber of student has plummeted. the administrations and endowments are now driven so heavily by a few huge donors that they do not really care about 98% of the alumni. they mine wealthy foreign families for huge donations to take their kids and get them US visas.
the admissions departments have zero diversity. they are captured satrapies of DEI.
as a result, these are no longer elite educational institutes, they're smug descents into mediocrity and ideological forcing.
obviously, it's not all the students. there are still some great kids there. but the "ivy league dimploma" no longer signifies excellence. you might be excellent, but you might also be a calamity. the discernment is gone.
paxton is an embarrassment, and the staff and culture she has allowed is worse. the rot is marrow deep. i doubt it can be fixed.
i’m watching my friends’ kids apply to colleges. for those who are not top athletes, the process has become horrific to the point where i cannot even imagine participating in it. i wrote my college essays in single drafts (sometimes in ink, brown required it then) and went back to my life. these kids are already waging admissions campaigns as freshman. they have consultants, advisors, planners.
and it still doesn't work because the discrimination against merit in favor of whatever flavor is passing for "diversity" just now. is just too strong.
the whole “elite” admissions process has become insane, counter-productive, and increasingly looks like baroque kabuki dance signifying nothing so much as ability to comply with the overtly absurd.
there’s no way i could have managed it even if i could have tolerated it and there’s zero percent chance of that.
i’d have thrown my hands up in disgust and gone to state.
and i suspect many of them should as well.
the whole thing looks like hazing for sad circus bears selected for their uncomplaining endurance at riding in pointless circles.
they have squandered perhaps the best reputation ever to exist in education and their student selection has become explicitly anti-meritocratic.
they no longer serve as a first pass screen for excellence.
because that's not how they pick their students.
and any institution that is not explicitly and deliberately a meritocracy becomes an anti-meritocracy.
if griggs v duke gets overturned and companies can start testing for IQ and character/personality again, this places will be over faster than you can say "will the last kid out of the sci-li please turn out the lights..."
people love to trot out the old chestnut of "we did the best we could with the information we had" around covid vaccines.
the more extreme examples claim "you could not have known, you just got lucky!"
both are risibly false.
people ask: "how did you know not to take or trust the covid jab?"
here's how: (and how to spot similar in the future)
1. you could tell from the pfizer trial design that the "covid vaccine" was not assessed as a vaccine. it was never tested on spread, infection, transmission, or sterilizing immunity. at best, the trials could have shown it to be a therapeutic. even that was deeply /sus and the sudden enrollment in sites in argentina run by a doctor with a history of fraud did not reassure. neither did the all cause deaths data in the study.
2. the messaging about the covid vaccine "this will be a dead end for the virus! if you get the vaccine, you will not get covid, you will not spread covid" was obviously not supported by any clinical data.
it was a made up claim to make getting the shot look like a moral duty. it was marketing, not science.
3. this marketing was NEVER plausible. vaccines are not magic, they simply train your immune system to recognize a pathogen. if you do not develop durable immunity from exposure to live disease, a vaccine is not going to impart it either.
it's amazing that people are still out peddling this obviously inaccurate data. rig your studies all you like, covid vaccines did not reduce cases, deaths, or hospitalization. they made them worse.
all these slanted studies fly in the face of the overall data. for this to be correct, covid vaccines would need to reduce hospitalization risk by ~92%. that's incredibly high efficacy. efficacy like that would create a massive, unmistakable signal in the data with populations that were 70-99% vaccinated. the curves would bend so hard that anyone could eyeball it. it would be air horn during vatican vespers unmissable.
but it's not there. not only is this signal absent, it's inverted.
let's take some obvious examples in the high risk high vaxxed populations:
i chose the top states in the US by vaxx rate and looked at 65+, the high risk high vaxx group.
95% vaxxed. hospitalizations and all cause mortality both rose post vaccine despite a less dangerous covid variant. if this were 92% effective, the 5% unvaxxed would have had to see their hospitalization rates rise 18 fold just to stay flat. and we KNOW that did not happen.
this signal is not isolated. we see the same thing in maine, rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut. this is obviously the modal outcome.
more here:
in fact, the highest vaxxed states in the US saw the worst rises in hospitalization rates while the lowest saw far less. vaxx is, at a societal level, associated with more, not less hospitalization and death.
one could, i suppose, try to argue causality, but the timing is highly provocative and again, if efficacy is 90% signal should be strongly opposite to that which is observed.
this same was true of all search engines i tried. it's not just google.
i suspect this is an artifact of something deeper like "media refusing to use these words" or some more generalized manipulation.
literally in the time i was doing the analysis, luxxle caught up perhaps because this issue is going viral on X.
but the others had not as of this writing.
i suspect this may have more to do with this than with something google specific:
even once this avalanche of absurdist headlines was replaced by ones that bore at least marginally more resemblance to reality, the words “assassination attempt on” appear basically nowhere.