Evergreen, 3 Years Post Meltdown

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying recount the Maoist uprising at Evergreen State College 3 years after the fact.

Recount tales of students armed with baseball bats destroying the campus, attacks on students, transformation of the College from institute of higher learning to fortress of social activism.

One of the things they talk about is how serious professors were keeping their heads down on campus, trying to ignore what was happening. Cautionary tale of allowing Leftist thugs to go unchecked.

 

[Secret Asshole]

I guess my point is that some sort of filter is necessary and germane. Further, what other kind of standards can engineering programs go on when public high schools have wildly varying grading scales, rampant grade inflation, and differing expectations, e.g. a student can get an A in calculus if the teacher gives participation points and extra credit while at another school that student would be struggling to get a B or even a C. I find it completely disingenuous for these colleges to suggest that the current iteration of the SAT, which actually is a content-based test now more than ever, isn't useful for admissions. They're actually getting rid of it because Asian and white--and male--students are consistently the highest scorers.

I truly believe that anyone who's capable of studying high-level engineering should be able to score at least 650 (realistically 700+ or even a perfect score for the big guns like MIT and Caltech) on the SAT math and shouldn't mind taking it as a formality to determine baseline comprehension and ability.

This article with a hot take from Georgia Tech of all places is sobering. These SJW ideologues say that "weed-out classes" are unfair and too rigorous: "'We need to wash out the 'weed-them-out orientation' in the classroom,' says Mary Fox, co-director at the Center for Study of Women, Science and Technology at Georgia Tech. 'That is not a hospitable climate for students, we have to teach students to move along rather than have them sink or swim.'" It's really worrisome tbh. Lower standards are definitely not the answer, but I think they're imminent if school culture says that testing is meaningless or that STEM should care about identity over skill and aptitude.

Don't forget Indians too. They score high on it as well. I absolutely do not agree with eliminating entry requirements. There needs to be some standards.

Now, in terms of make or break, weed-out classes are an entirely different problem. They primarily exist to show how great Professional (Med, Pharm, Dentist, etc.) admission rates the college has are. Functionally, weed-out classes are like cops fudging the numbers. Your school might have a 90% admission rate for medical school, but the pre-med program basically is cracking skulls with a sledge hammer, killing anyone who isn't strong enough with a blow to the head. Then you get some poor bastard who wants to just sit in a lab get collateral damaged by smashing him in the face with it too. Weed-out classes are not generally relevant to graduate STEM success. Graduate STEM generally requires theoretical as well as creative thinking. Weed-Out classes are notorious for their absurd levels of memorization and just the obscene amount of material they throw at you. Because the focus of weed-out classes isn't to teach you the material, its to destroy those that will drag down admission rates.

There does need to be a point where a student needs to understand just what they're getting into. But for me, when I went to college they did the shit 'look to the left, and look to your right. One of these people beside you will not be here for your graduation'. They did not fucking hide that shit from you. Believe me, nobody was better off for this. I'm not training for the Navy SEALS for fucks sake, I'm in Biology 101 you cunt. Grad schools in some universities are pretty different. Grad programs in STEM in a lot of unis will basically just not admit you if they don't think you'll finish (because completion rate is make or break for STEM graduate programs).

All in all, I think weed-out classes overall benefit the college more than the student. To me, its basically insulation for the universities themselves to keep their numbers up. If you've never gone through a weed-out class like I have, its very hard to understand what they're like and why they really just don't serve you. It doesn't really feel like its there to teach you. Its there to murder you. But every discipline has these. Typically for Biology its Biochemistry and for Chemistry its Physical Chemistry.

I don't think weed-outs work if you want to go into research, honestly. Weeding out there would basically be you going into a lab saying 'This shit sucks' and not doing it. Weeding out for STEM in research is piss easy. Just make people go to science labs and serve under a mentor for a year with a project. You'll know REALLY fast if you hate it or not. There's no reason to subject students to these classes. You don't even have to make the lab project hard.

But academia is fucked in every way possible, and I cannot wait to get off my ass to get out of it.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Don't forget Indians too. They score high on it as well. I absolutely do not agree with eliminating entry requirements. There needs to be some standards.

Now, in terms of make or break, weed-out classes are an entirely different problem. They primarily exist to show how great Professional (Med, Pharm, Dentist, etc.) admission rates the college has are. Functionally, weed-out classes are like cops fudging the numbers. Your school might have a 90% admission rate for medical school, but the pre-med program basically is cracking skulls with a sledge hammer, killing anyone who isn't strong enough with a blow to the head. Then you get some poor bastard who wants to just sit in a lab get collateral damaged by smashing him in the face with it too. Weed-out classes are not generally relevant to graduate STEM success. Graduate STEM generally requires theoretical as well as creative thinking. Weed-Out classes are notorious for their absurd levels of memorization and just the obscene amount of material they throw at you. Because the focus of weed-out classes isn't to teach you the material, its to destroy those that will drag down admission rates.

There does need to be a point where a student needs to understand just what they're getting into. But for me, when I went to college they did the shit 'look to the left, and look to your right. One of these people beside you will not be here for your graduation'. They did not fucking hide that shit from you. Believe me, nobody was better off for this. I'm not training for the Navy SEALS for fucks sake, I'm in Biology 101 you cunt. Grad schools in some universities are pretty different. Grad programs in STEM in a lot of unis will basically just not admit you if they don't think you'll finish (because completion rate is make or break for STEM graduate programs).

All in all, I think weed-out classes overall benefit the college more than the student. To me, its basically insulation for the universities themselves to keep their numbers up. If you've never gone through a weed-out class like I have, its very hard to understand what they're like and why they really just don't serve you. It doesn't really feel like its there to teach you. Its there to murder you. But every discipline has these. Typically for Biology its Biochemistry and for Chemistry its Physical Chemistry.

I don't think weed-outs work if you want to go into research, honestly. Weeding out there would basically be you going into a lab saying 'This shit sucks' and not doing it. Weeding out for STEM in research is piss easy. Just make people go to science labs and serve under a mentor for a year with a project. You'll know REALLY fast if you hate it or not. There's no reason to subject students to these classes. You don't even have to make the lab project hard.

But academia is fucked in every way possible, and I cannot wait to get off my ass to get out of it.

Here's what gets to me about the education debate: people don't look at college enrollment as a function of globalization.

College used to be something rare, about 5% of the population attended. These days, it's 20%, they're projecting an increase to 30% in the next 10 years. That's because you can't just graduate high school and expect to have a good job.

https://archive.is/FIs6L

So instead, we're engaging in this social experiment where we expand the number of people able to attend. In turn, this creates this societal expectation where we look down on those who did not pursue higher learning. Meanwhile, education debt spirals out of control, the number of people earning enough to pay off their loans shrinks annually.

It's a negative benefit cycle. Instead of growing as a person and cultivating an appreciation for how the world actually works, we undermine the system of education and put people into debt traps from which they will never escape. There's no character building going on, it's just another commercial enterprise.

The general population should not be engaged in competition for the highest level, elite positions in our society. There should be a way to achieve a middle class lifestyle without an advanced degree. We've cut so much of the fat out of the economy everyone believes a college education is an imperative. Society needs far fewer leaders than it needs workers, yet we're optimizing for the former. It's not going to work out in the long run.

 

[Cedric_Eff]

Is admission rates still dropping and how is COVID-19 affecting these sweet dumbasses?

 

[Hollywood Hitler]

From what I remember, the funniest thing to come out of Evergreen besides the wheelchair guy mad at a Limp Bizkit fan was that it resulted in this photo (context, this gang was running around campus enacting "justice"):
View attachment 1320606

A weakling with a bat is still a weakling. Start shit and see what happens.

 

[Local Coyote]

There's no way Evergreen will change. It's designed for lazy hippies and spoiled rich kids who can't get into any other school on the account of being fuck ups at life. Design your own is fine for a paint your own ceramics place, not a college.

My first introduction to this college was on a panel of alumni speaking to students at my old high school about college. I just got accepted on a study abroad program. The guy next to me was going to one of the best film schools in the US. And then the Evergreen girl was majoring in interpretive dance.

 

[Bum Driller]

Here's the thing about eliminating entrance requirements: you get the students who would traditionally be excluded from higher education.

You know, the ones who really can't handle the work, who would enjoy partying, who are easily recruited by activist groups, who are going to have emotional issues because they can't handle the stress of a pursuit they are not intellectually equipped for, who are going to commit serious crimes, the ones who are a little bit off and just don't have anything better to do than accumulate debt with an institution that doesn't actually cater to their needs.

It's true there will be some students who don't fit any of those descriptions. But you only need a small group of crazies to completely disrupt the operations of a university. Let's say admissions are 97-3 in favor of those who are there in good faith. The 3% - if they're organized - that's all you need to shut down a school.

Colleges will try to adapt to the needs of the vocal ones in the name of inclusiveness and diversity, transforming the educational experience to suit the lowest common denominator. Tossing some really bright and gifted one out along the way for the crime of speaking up about the disfunction.

Disaster waiting to happen.

Lot of that's simply not true. Academic and artistic types have been known for hard partying since Renaissance, at least. Hell, back then one enterprising architect designed a building called "House of Virtue and Vice", which had a bar and a brothel in the two bottom floors, church on the third and above that different schools of science, or what was considered science back then. It's a damn shame it never got built. Just about everyone in university attends student parties, which are quite rowdy affairs, and still most of them manage to become professionals in their respective fields.

All kinds of activists have also always come from the universities and other academic institutions, as literally they are places where new thoughts are created, nurtured and adopted the most because, and this may come as a shock to you, it's the job of university to create and test new ideas. As a side effect this breeds political movements.

Some countries in Europe have very lax requirements for entry to universities. In my country you really have to be one fucking dumb-ass or literally too insane to hold a pen to not pass if you really try. Still, we have none of the madness that destroyed Evergreen. Reason for that is quite simple; if you start acting like the folks who brought Evergreen down, you will get kicked out of the school faster than you can count.

And that, that is the real reason why Evergreen went to shitter. It's ultimately the fault of administration who chose not to interfere with force when people started roaming the corridors with baseball bats. Reasons for this are quite well explained, in my opinion, in the video OP posted.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Don't forget Indians too. They score high on it as well. I absolutely do not agree with eliminating entry requirements. There needs to be some standards.

Now, in terms of make or break, weed-out classes are an entirely different problem. They primarily exist to show how great Professional (Med, Pharm, Dentist, etc.) admission rates the college has are. Functionally, weed-out classes are like cops fudging the numbers. Your school might have a 90% admission rate for medical school, but the pre-med program basically is cracking skulls with a sledge hammer, killing anyone who isn't strong enough with a blow to the head. Then you get some poor bastard who wants to just sit in a lab get collateral damaged by smashing him in the face with it too. Weed-out classes are not generally relevant to graduate STEM success. Graduate STEM generally requires theoretical as well as creative thinking. Weed-Out classes are notorious for their absurd levels of memorization and just the obscene amount of material they throw at you. Because the focus of weed-out classes isn't to teach you the material, its to destroy those that will drag down admission rates.

There does need to be a point where a student needs to understand just what they're getting into. But for me, when I went to college they did the shit 'look to the left, and look to your right. One of these people beside you will not be here for your graduation'. They did not fucking hide that shit from you. Believe me, nobody was better off for this. I'm not training for the Navy SEALS for fucks sake, I'm in Biology 101 you cunt. Grad schools in some universities are pretty different. Grad programs in STEM in a lot of unis will basically just not admit you if they don't think you'll finish (because completion rate is make or break for STEM graduate programs).

All in all, I think weed-out classes overall benefit the college more than the student. To me, its basically insulation for the universities themselves to keep their numbers up. If you've never gone through a weed-out class like I have, its very hard to understand what they're like and why they really just don't serve you. It doesn't really feel like its there to teach you. Its there to murder you. But every discipline has these. Typically for Biology its Biochemistry and for Chemistry its Physical Chemistry.

I don't think weed-outs work if you want to go into research, honestly. Weeding out there would basically be you going into a lab saying 'This shit sucks' and not doing it. Weeding out for STEM in research is piss easy. Just make people go to science labs and serve under a mentor for a year with a project. You'll know REALLY fast if you hate it or not. There's no reason to subject students to these classes. You don't even have to make the lab project hard.

But academia is fucked in every way possible, and I cannot wait to get off my ass to get out of it.

My drive by assessment of Universities based solely on where I went, and what I have read her and OTI is that the modern Universities are functionally much like the military, no matter how hard they try to deny it. There is a reason for this too. From 1950 to about 1980 Administrators and for the early decades rank and file were drawn from people who also fought a war. World War 2. For many of these people the military was the first large scale institution they had experience with and once they found themselves in an academic institution they went with what they knew and built it around that. The evidence of it is everywhere.

College dorms look just like Army Barracks, especially in newer universities.

There was a shift away from big research projects where a Professor could work on something for a decade before publishing to more menial projects building to some larger goal and a constant demand for status updates. Not unlike the never ending reports on progress a Battalion Commander would need too make.

University departments were subsequently organized like a Divisional flow chart with clear lines of command, and a pathological need to conduct meetings for the ever important status reports.

The students by and large are treated like expendable privates. Essential for the functioning of the institution but infinitely replaceable.

Finally and most relevant to Evergreen, good order and discipline is enforced with ruthless efficiency. Failing to make adequate progress on the objective, informing higher command of your movements, or breaking good order and discipline is punished severely, and often at the arbitrary whim of the senior commander...I mean the department head.

Its honestly pretty obvious what went wrong once you notice these things. This whole system worked so long as the World War 2 generation was in charge. But they retired and died off, and passed off this quasi military organizing structure to a bunch of fucking children who had no idea what all the shiny buttons were for but sure did like all the power they gave them. And so they made the institutions even more rigid in their military application towards education even as they undermined the sorts of unwritten rules that make such an organization function. Such as not becoming too cliquey.

And once intersectional social justice got injected into it, oh boy. They REALLY love the power of arbitrary discipline based on who is in charge.

It should be noted many corporations were organized along similar lines for the exact same reason, but most of them have since moved on to more flexible organizing arrangements barring a few old fossils like General Motors. The Free Market is quite ruthless in weeding out corporate structures that don't work well. But Universities have thanks to all that Government cash been largely immune to such pressures.

 

[General Disarray]

This is what Naima Lowe is doing today.

http://www.naimalowe.net/

I see she is just full-on booked up for events. /sneed

 

[nekrataal]

A weakling with a bat is still a weakling. Start shit and see what happens.

I can just imagine them trying to attack someone and either getting their asses beat or shot.