Readers debate the question and related ones. (To chime in, please email email@example.com.) “What’s the point of college?” was also the crux of the conversation during the closing session of our Education Summit:
What’s the point of college? It depends. As an academic, my answer is too complicated.
Another reader agrees:
The point of college is different depending on where you come from, the social and economic expectations, the money available, your academic record or enthusiasm, and more. The point of college for a trust-funder is different than a poor immigrant, which is different than an semi-affluent suburbanite, which is different from than that of a life-long fuck up, which is different from a rural first-generation college student.
And this reader conveys how the various points of college are not created equal:
Ideally, the purpose of college is to finish off a good, liberal education to broaden one’s understanding of the world: physical, social, and intellectual. Somewhat less ideal, to gain deep knowledge in a field in preparation for graduate school. A little less ideally (to me), to give one the skills necessary to start a middle-class career (or better). Less ideal yet, simply to get that piece of paper to send in with job applications. The reasons just continue going down hill from there.
On the other hand, this next reader, Leland Davis, gets much more specific with his answer:
A college degree is the stamp of the modern American middle class, the necessary badge of worthiness that one must have before any other consideration will be made. This helps keep the children of the middle class on the proper road in life—away from the trades and small-business, which might encourage unfortunate degrees of independence and inter-class solidarity, and towards the professions, whose professional standings and ethos encourage a proper deference to their betters.
I teach high school, so I see it happening. I went to grad school, and it happened to me.
This next reader, Ben, doesn’t have a college degree, and as a result he’s struggling to find a job:
I didn’t finish school, and what credits I do have are of the community college variety, so my “what value there is in college” opinions are completely those of an uninformed outsider. But I agree with pretty much every reason for going to college that I’ve read here. Yeah, it’s a path to better things and to ruin depending on planning and luck. It’s a way for employers to sort applicants and a way to encourage the habit of life-long debt, too.
There’s an element of it that I’m more interested in, though, and that I’ve been thinking about for a while. I think it’s impossible or at least very difficult to have a significant voice without it.
On one level, I find most media outlets reluctant to consider non-academic sources to be expert. I’ve seen professionals with a complete and total understanding of their field completely ignored in favor of a scientist with only a passing familiarity with it. This is probably more out of convenience (or sloth) than malice, but verifying a non-PHD’s bona fides is time consuming, especially compared to checking for abbreviations after their name.
Policy makers similarly ignore common voices in favor of anyone writing from behind a diploma. Want to comment on that regulation? Go for it. Want them to respond to it as a significant, individual thing? Want them to even read it rather than just checking you off as another pro or anti voice in their tallies? If you are a scientist or doctor it’s a sure thing, even if you don’t have specific expertise in that field. As a layman, you are either for or against and thrown into a pile labeled “uninformed public opinion.”
I’m looking into journalistic organizations with this in mind. I’m very curious to see how many journalists in top-flight outlets got there without going through the network-at-university-while-checking-the-degree-box route, if any. I’m especially interested to see those numbers when dealing with more high-end think-piece and analysis purveyors. I don’t know but I’m very interested to find out if there’s a diversity in media issue we don’t talk about much that has nothing to do with race and gender.
It’s a question my colleague Steve Clemons is planning to discuss with a panel of experts at The Atlantic’s Education Summit next week, so to get some fodder for the discussion, I posed the question to some of our core readers in TAD, a discussion group created a few months ago by members of TNC’s old Horde.
Here are two quick answers, first from Nick: “The best thing I got out of college was having my opinions tested, learning how to justify them if possible, or correct them if I couldn’t justify them.” Reader Jim looks on the social side:
I’d say the point of college, now—and certainly a part I benefited from—is the exposure to people from a variety of walks of life. Ideally, you learn about the differences in people and come to recognize them as people despite those differences.
This reader touches on both themes:
College was probably the best time in my life (so far). I would say the benefit was twofold: growing intellectually and growing socially. A job was not on my mind as I went through college (aside from my mom's constant “Don’t you want to be a lawyer/doctor?”), so I was really focused on learning. As part of the honors program, I was given the opportunity to take small seminar classes where the students took a strong role in shaping and charting the discussion, and I undertook a serious research project clocking in at a whopping 117 pages. Will that knowledge of apocalyptic texts ever come in handy again? Probably not. But the skills gained along the way in critical thinking, writing, and discussion certainly made me a better citizen.
As far as my social life, I have never and will never be a party person. So that wasn’t my college experience. But I made some great friends from different backgrounds and formed friendships that I might not have otherwise. And my friends from college remain my closest friend circles today (sorry TADbros).
So I think viewing college as simply a means to an end is silly, although probably an unfortunate part of reality.
More on that reality from Katt:
The point of college is to put as many people into debt as possible so they have to settle for a life of mediocrity and being wage slaves to our capitalist overlords.
P.S. I am just bitter because I went to art school. Don’t send your kids to art school.
This reader would probably agree:
What’s the point of college? In the 21st century? Vocational training, credentialism, and resume-sorting disguised as “education.” Many jobs that in no way need a college education require one. It is a replacement for job training, which has been put to pasture by shareholder demand and the general libertarian attitude of employers towards employees. (See the work of Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli for how employers across the spectrum have cut training.)
Bourree interviewed Cappelli last year on the “danger of picking a major based on where the jobs are.” Cappelli told her in a subsequent piece: “There is a long literature in psychology showing that job performance and college grades are poorly related. It is remarkable how frequently companies rely on hiring criteria for which there is no evidence of it working.” Back to our reader:
[A college education] also provides cover from an otherwise swelling unemployment rate for young adults. Resume-sorting is not just accomplished by asking “does the applicant have a college degree or not,” but also sorting by major, GPA, institution, etc. Direct applicability of major is ever more important as actual job training vanishes. GPA is a lazy correlation of equating academic prowess (or strategic choice of easy classes) with professional aptitude.
Institutional sorting is how elite employers remain elite. (I’ve noted in perusing the CVs of The Atlantic’s staff that even attending something outside of the Top 15 or so colleges and universities in USNWR makes one something of an outlier. [CB:👋])
A college education is also a conduit for separating people from their money and/or money they borrow. Student loans are, at their basest form, a regressive taxation on socioeconomic mobility. How’s that for Kafkaesque?
In all of this, the classical purpose of college—to acquire deep knowledge, advanced analytical, rhetorical, and writing skills, and a deeper appreciation of the world around you—is antiquated and scorned.
This next reader relates to the “what’s the point?” question as a parent:
Funny you ask, since we are prepping our 18-year-old daughter for her freshman year this fall.
Contra to my wife, who seems to think planning a degree is akin to prepping a resume (ironically she is very highly regarded and successful corporate dork with a BFA in printmaking), college should be about expanding learning horizons, freeing your mind to consider others, socializing with people of different socio-economic backgrounds who have similar goals and aspirations, learning discipline and refining interests.
Also, having sex, doing drugs, and abdicating responsibility.
Here’s the view from a recent grad, who got his diploma from a large, public, four-year institution three years ago:
To ask what was the “point” of college is interesting. For me and the background I am coming from, I did not see any chance of upward mobility unless I joined the military or went to higher education (and to this day I think about the military quite often). For many people, like me, university was a means to an end being a job with some middle-income security. I had no illusions a degree would provide that, but I understood it was a necessary step along that path.
I think many university students don’t know why they are there themselves beyond just “knowing” college was what came after high school. They might share my sentiments that it will increase their future income, but they haven’t put too much thought into what getting a job after university means or entails. Many are not there with the tools they need in terms of basic logic/critical thinking/skepticism.
I’ll end it with this: the “point” of university is whatever point you set for yourself there. It is a place for you to get help learning about something you care about. When it comes to choosing a major, some are job funnels, but most are not. They are for you to find your own learning. Choose something you want to learn in depth about.
Most importantly, take responsibility for your own education. It is up to you whether or not you retain what you learn or whether you apply it after graduation.
One more reader perspective, from Canada:
Whatever else college is for, it’s about more than simply getting a job. It's for broadening the mind, exposure to thoughts and ideas you haven't encountered before and for both a broader and more in-depth education about various topics.
I, of course, am an educational elitist. I have four-year degrees in both the humanities and the sciences (the broad mind expanding experience and the in-depth study of a topic), as well as professional degree, since I actually wanted a good job at the end of the process.
Nonetheless, it was from my most conservative professor that I learned that higher education is about more than just a job, and more than merely learning the dominant ethos of the day. It was the place where my mind was awakened and my eyes opened.
I expect that my experience (and good fortune to have such an experience) is a rarity these days, and is generally unavailable. Who has the time or the money to spend 9 years in post secondary school after all? Few of us, especially mere middle class folks, do.
(Note: I went to school in Canada over 20 years ago. As such the economic factors were very different than they are now, and tuition was—and still is so far as I’m aware—much less than it is in the U.S. Furthermore, because the status of the school matters so much less in Canada, you can get much further ahead here without having gone to Harvard or the Ivies than you can, or so it seems, than in the U.S.)
Some remaining thoughts from readers on the question:
This summer I accompanied my mother to her 65th college reunion. Part of the weekend’s program was a video about the Cornell University Class of 1950, the first class that came in with a large supply of veterans on the G.I. Bill. The film had some inspiring cameos about veterans who would never have gotten to college otherwise and the lives they made for themselves as a result. I wonder if our preoccupation with credentialism and the faith in the bachelor’s degree as a gateway to success and wealth is a legacy of that postwar crop of veterans.
I have observed the 20-year trend toward arbitrarily requiring college degrees for jobs that do not truly need them. I believe this goes hand-in-hand with the growth of Human Resources as a profession.
A company’s HR department usually handles recruiting functions, and it serves as the gatekeeper over which skills and credentials are required for a given position. The trouble is that they have no idea of what it takes to perform well in those positions, and they are absolutely the wrong people to create the requirements. The actual department heads who are hiring are often very busy and appreciate the HR gatekeepers because it means they have to look at fewer resumes.
I entered the professional workforce in 1979 as a general bookkeeper and later, between on-the-job training and self-study, became a controller. My husband was an electronics technician and ultimately started his own business. The ranks of college-degreed professionals in the workforce was a small percentage, and my husband and I, along with many degreeless others, had good careers without a college degree. It was common.
In the mid-late 1990s I noticed that more and more jobs in finance and accounting wanted bachelor’s degrees in “a related field.” The CPA designation, once available to anyone who took the appropriate coursework, was changed to require five years of education in accounting. Only the CMA (Certified Management Accountant via the Institute of Management Accountants) was available to me—but then only if I had a baccalaureate degree.
I did go back to school, majored in history (for the love of it), and obtained my CMA. Once I had a BA, I had opportunities I never had before. My career took off. Still, even now, although I have been a CFO and now serve as a Corporate Controller for a mid-sized companies, I am viewed to be unqualified for many lesser accounting jobs because I do not have a bachelor’s in accounting or finance. It’s absurd.
My last two great hires have been experienced professionals without a college degree. I frequently see articles about open jobs that can’t be filled because of skill deficits and mismatches between the needs of business and the employment pool. That is also absurd. Businesses are allowing a department (HR) that doesn’t understand job requirements to set the standards for those candidates. This harms business and shuts out a lot of really talented, qualified people, relegating them to perpetual underemployment.
Keep stoking this issue. This needs to be changed for our long-term prosperity.
Another would prefer we stop stoking:
So since you’re someone who’s asking the perennial “is college worth it anymore?” question, I thought I’d ask you to look at it from a different angle. My own fascination isn’t with that question, which to my lights has been answered positively, again and again and again—here’s an absolutely massive trove of recent data on the question, for example.
No, my interest is in why journalists are so eager to ask the question over and over again despite the durability of the “yes” answer. It strikes me that our media is really predisposed to find that the answer is no, despite such large empirical confirmation of the value of college.
And I think that’s more interesting: Why do so many journalists and writers want to say that college isn’t worth it, particularly given that almost all of them went themselves?
I, for one, would not say that, especially since I actually used my B.A. in History to a practical end, meaning my first salaried job out of college was writing about history. Eleven years after graduating, I’m still paying off student loans, but they’re definitely worth it, all things considered. The question of whether an M.A. is worth it—that seems much less doubtful, especially given stats like these:
Indeed, between 2004 and 2012, the amount of debt carried by a typical borrower who had a master of arts degree rose an inflation-adjusted 70%, according to an analysis of data by the New America Foundation. The report says this surge may be thanks to a 2005 congressional move that lets grad students borrow nearly unlimited money for school.
Personally I was fortunate to slip into journalism without going to J-school and rack up more debt. Instead, I got a paid internship at The Atlantic back in ‘07, working part-time to make ends meet and living in a rickety group house. So an M.A. definitely would not have been worth it to me. If you have strong feelings about the M.A. question from your own experience, let me know. Update from a reader:
Your reader who points to a “massive trove of recent data” settling this question should perhaps go back to college himself to learn about statistical inference and the difference between correlation and causation. All the data he points to documents advantages gained by college graduates, but makes no attempt to correct for confounding variables, of which there are many plausible ones.
The most obvious would be family income: people’s whose parents were rich tend to go to college more than those whose parents were poor, and they tend to have higher incomes and better other outcomes later in life. Is it really likely that higher education explains all or even most of those differences? Matt Yglesias ably explains this fallacy.
Furthermore, even if we knew with certainty that college education made people more productive, we couldn’t say with any certainty that it’s worth how much we invest in it, from a social perspective. I made this argument in more detail on my blog a few weeks ago.
I think, taken holistically, it’s pretty clear that getting a college education is worthwhile for most people, but it’s a valid question, and the concern about the growing requirement of bachelor’s degrees for jobs that don’t really require them is a hugely important issue to discuss.
Marxian Economics provides an interesting view of the “value” of any degree. The profits of a company can be divided into two parts: the amount that’s needed to sustain production, and the surplus. Training employees does not directly result in production for a company, which means it must come from the surplus. But the company has many other things they want to spend the surplus on, so they would prefer if their workers were able to do a job from Day One with no training. That means the bill for education/training falls on the individual or the state—which the company also doesn’t want to pay. That’s a different problem.
The readers before me eloquently argued that universities currently have a monopoly on verification for skills; this is sadly true. Even more distressing is the fact that universities operate as companies themselves. Students must pay more money than the value of the education they receive or the system will crash, which is why—I hazard a guess here—they’re forced to take unrelated classes, instead of being speedily prepared for a career.
Now, I learned the basics of this theory from a university lecture, but I haven’t payed a penny.
It’s free on Youtube. Unfortunately, if I want to prove that I know what I’m talking about, I’d need to have a shiny degree—which ironically I would understand is worth less than what I paid for based on the classes I received!
Is this a problem? Yes, it’s a trillion dollar problem. But the universities are getting their money, the politicians work for the corporations, and the corporations only care about their bottom line in the next quarter, so it’s not a problem that’s going to be solved, even though cheaper education is better for literally the entire human race.
Another reader cites a helpful book:
David Labaree’s pessimistic take in Someone Has to Fail is worth quoting in discussions about the value of the B.A. Labaree describes a race between educational access and the demand for educational privilege, and he places it at the center of the history of movements for educational reform. He thinks it unlikely that such a core tension will be resolved in the years ahead, and he imagines an inflation in higher education degrees that will continue unabated for some time:
… consider where the current pattern of expansion is taking us. As master’s programs start filling up, which is already happening, there will be greater pressure to expand access to doctoral programs, which are becoming the new zone of special educational advantage. So it seems likely that we’re going to need to invent new forms of doctoral degree programs to meet this demand, something that universities (always on the lookout for a new marketing opportunity) are quite willing to do. When that happens, of course, there will be demand for a degree beyond the doctorate (the current terminal degree is American higher education), in order to give some people a leg up on the flood of doctoral graduates pouring into the workplace.
In some ways this has already happened to science Ph.D.’s who have to complete an extensive postdoctoral program if they want a faculty position in an American university. We may end up going the direction of many European universities, which require that candidates for professorships first complete a Ph.D. program and then prepare a second dissertation called a habilitation , which is in effect a super-doctorate. This puts people well into their thirties before they complete their educational prepartion.
Another gets into the weeds with a previous reader:
I want to take a moment to reply to the update provided by your reader.
For the most part, he or she is correct that you must have an ABET accredited engineering degree to take the FE exam. A few states allow work experience to count for academic experience, but it isn’t common.
The purpose of the FE is the first step towards obtaining a PE (Professional Engineer) license. A candidate passes the FE, is graded the title of engineer in training and starts to gain work experience. After a number of years, they apply to sit for the PE exam. A number of PEs that they have worked under will provide professional recommendations and the state licensing board grants the PE license.
The reason for all of this process is liability. Only a licensed Professional Engineer can approve construction plans for buildings and public works projects. This is a response to the failures and loss of life that has occurred when these things are not designed and built correctly.
Don’t get me wrong; just because a PE was involved doesn’t negate the possibility of something going wrong. The intent is to minimize that possibility. It’s for the same reasons the bar exam and the medical board exam are required.
As a result, most PEs are in the civil engineering field. Many of the rest are engineers working in related fields, i.e. HVAC, plumbing, electrical wiring, fire suppression, etc. They are working on structures and their supporting systems for construction related to buildings and roads. There are plenty of engineers who never take the FE, and have very successful careers. We are covered under the industrial exemption, or it isn’t a consideration.
Mary Alice McCarthy wrote a piece for us declaring “America: Abandon Your Reverence for the Bachelor’s Degree.” A reader quotes her:
“Undergraduates are supposed to get a general education that will prepare them for training, which they will presumably get once they land a job or go to graduate school.” Au contraire:
Companies simply haven’t invested much in training their workers. In 1979, young workers got an average of 2.5 weeks of training a year. While data is not easy to come by, around 1995, several surveys of employers found that the average amount of training workers received per year was just under 11 hours, and the most common topic was workplace safety — not building new skills. By 2011, an Accenture study showed that only about a fifth of employees reported getting on-the-job training from their employers over the past five years.
Hence the great push for ever-more vocational or job-oriented college degrees. The task of training has been foisted upon higher education.
And another reader is very skeptical of the value of higher ed these days:
The Bachelor’s degree is now the equivalent of a high school diploma. No one is impressed if you have one. But if you don’t have one, they'll toss your resume aside. Colleges and universities know this, which is how they can get away with making you take classes you know you’ll never need. That’s fine for high school. But a college student shouldn’t be forced to take a sociology course or two years of foreign language, especially when he’s paying tens of thousands of dollars per year in tuition.
A Bachelor’s degree is also a convenient way for certain professions to limit their applicant pool.
In other countries, if you want to become a lawyer or a doctor, you apply directly out of high school. In this country, you need a four-year degree before you can apply to law school or med school. By the time someone finishes their undergraduate, they may already have $100,000 in debt to pay off. How inclined will they be to go to law school or med school and pile on even more debt?
As for employers, certain fields like IT don’t even care what you got your degree in. They just want to know about your skills and experience. Gone are the days where employers actually trained people. Now they expect you to be ready as soon as you walk in. Why? Because employers don’t want to spend time and money training people who’ll then apply for a higher paying job now that they have a stronger skill set.
What college needs to do is prove why a Bachelor’s degree is still worthwhile. If the best answer they can give is “because you won’t get a job without it,” that might be true, but it’s still pretty sad. And if that’s the case, they shouldn’t be forcing students to take classes they don’t want to take.
Another reader searches for solutions:
Four or five months ago, I was driving to work and listening to the radio. A commercial was playing for a program called Grads of Life which. According to the commercial [another one is embedded below], Grads of Life is a program dedicated to helping businesses hire from of a pool of workers who didn’t have degrees but possess skills and characteristics that would benefit the employers. “That’s me!” I thought, vainly. “I am possessor of the aforementioned skills and beneficial characteristics!”
Delusions of competence in tow, I hurriedly filled in the web address for the site into my browser. I envisioned the site as what I had been waiting for: some sort of job applicant aggregator that I could add my name to, coupled with some way to quantify those skills. For years, I’ve been crippled in the job market by my lack of a degree, particularly since my skills are in writing, where out-of-work journalism and writing majors are a dime a dozen.
It wasn’t meant to be, though: Grads of Life ended up being a Clinton Foundation fueled PSA program primarily designed to appear to be doing something while in reality only letting companies re-showcase their pre-existing, under-privileged worker hiring programs, without doing any additional work. What few actual programs dedicated to job pathways were dedicated to people younger than my age, and they only served a few thousand applicants a year. It was a program designed to look good and accomplish nothing.
I was disappointed, but it’s nothing new: nobody is seriously trying to establish any way for non-college educated students to find work.
But what would an effective program look like? What’s probably needed is for someone with the clout of the Clinton Foundation to convince a number of large companies to work with the government to establish a way to “test out” of certain skills that are normally certified by a diploma. An employer won’t and can’t believe an applicant who swears that he or she is smart and skilled enough for the job based on promises alone—believe me, I've tried that again and again. There needs to be another way to prove to hirers a minimum level of skills.
Universities hold a monopoly on the ability to certify many skills. I might have read widely and deeply and practiced long hours to become a skilled writer, but without a diploma to prove it, I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of applications rejected. If there was a way to do an end-run around the diploma process for at least some of the skills for which alternative non-university paths of development exist, the monopoly could be broken.
An important point to consider regarding university monopolies on the authenticity of skills is standardized tests for various career fields. Tests for the Fundamentals of Engineering (F.E), CFA, and CPA require degree completion in that field to even sit for the test. Some even require the coursework to be at “upper division,” eliminating the possibility of associates degree holders sitting for these tests.
These careers (engineering, finance, and accounting, respectively) are three of the most lucrative careers available in the primary labor market today. They represent a clear path to the middle class. Colleges have a clear monopoly on the certifications for these degrees, meaning that the cost of an undergraduate education is another barrier to entry in all of these fields.
If Republicans thought Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison would bust the Democrats’ case for impeachment, they were likely disappointed by what they heard today.
At the start of the second session of today’s doubleheader impeachment hearings, Chairman Adam Schiff noted an important distinction about the two witnesses appearing before the House Intelligence Committee: Both Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, and Timothy Morrison, a senior director on the National Security Council, were “requested by the minority.”
In other words, the Republicans on the committee wanted them there. And, presumably, they wanted Volker and Morrison because they thought their testimony would help President Donald Trump and hurt the case for his impeachment.
That’s not exactly what happened.
In his opening statement, Volker made a point of defending the potential political opponent Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate, the former Vice President Joe Biden, calling him “an honorable man” whom he holds in “the highest regard.” Volker referred to allegations about Biden’s involvement with Ukraine during the waning months of the Obama administration as “conspiracy theories” and said the suggestion that Biden had acted corruptly was “not credible.” Volker insisted that he did not make a connection at the time between Biden and Trump’s desire for Ukraine to investigate both possible interference in the 2016 election and the energy company Burisma, on whose board Biden’s son once sat. But Volker testified that he now understood that the president’s demands of Ukraine went beyond a generalized crackdown on corruption—that he wanted a probe of the Bidens, something Volker said this afternoon was “unacceptable.”
A series of crises has again brought the administration below its baseline of chaos—but this time, can the president recover?
That old sinking feeling is back.
There have occasionally been stretches of time that are good for the Trump administration. There have more often been stretches that are bad, though there is a baseline of chaos that has come to feel almost normal. And occasionally, there have been truly hellacious stretches: May 2017, when Donald Trump fired then–FBI Director James Comey; August 2017, around the white-supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia; January 2018, around the release of Fire and Fury; December 2018–January 2019, when Defense Secretary James Mattis quit and Trump forced and then blinked on a government shutdown.
Now the administration is experiencing another one of those stretches. Even by the strained standards of the Trump presidency, the past couple of weeks have brought an astonishing raft of bad news for the White House.
The bedroom can seem to contain the heart of a marriage. In the 2012 Judd Apatow movie This Is 40, the epicenter of marital tension is the bedroom of the onscreen couple, played by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann. Pete and Debbie are as comely as their Los Angeles home, but the couple flirt with divorce fantasies more than with each other. Debbie mourns a loss of mystery; Pete craves independence. Of a kind, anyway. He’ll shed his boxers so that Debbie can weigh in on the progress of a hemorrhoid, but he also has a habit of sneaking off to hang with his buddies, an act his wife likens to infidelity. A scene in bed captures the riddle at the heart of this marriage—a parry, essentially, between forms of intimacy. Wander too far in search of privacy, and you nullify romance; get too close, and the same occurs. The couple lie under the sheets, Debbie on her laptop and Pete passing gas. “This is why we never have sex,” she says with desperation in her voice, as he grins. “You’re gross.”
Thirty-one-year-old Andrew Giuliani finds himself in a surprisingly comfortable corner of the White House—for now.
It’s hard to turn on cable news or scroll through Twitter these days without catching the name “Giuliani.” Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, is a central character in the House’s impeachment inquiry. Meanwhile, Rudy’s third wife, Judith Giuliani, has commanded her own headlines as she’s aired details of the couple’s contentious, ongoing divorce proceedings. Scarcely mentioned, however, is Andrew Giuliani—the former New York mayor’s 31-year-old son—who works in the White House.
Rudy Giuliani told me his son’s hire “wasn’t the usual ‘hire my kid’ situation.” “He’s known the president since he was a baby,” Rudy said. “Now, did he know him in the first place because he was the mayor’s son? Sure, but they also had a relationship independent of me.”
Thirteen years ago, a young woman was found dead in small-town Texas. She was nicknamed “Lavender Doe” for the purple shirt she was wearing. Her real identity would remain a mystery until amateur genealogists took up her case.
The dead girl had perfect teeth.
That’s what so many of the strangers who obsessed over her case online noticed, and one of the few things that could even be noticed. Her body was burned so badly as to be unrecognizable when she was found in the early hours of October 29, 2006, near Longview, Texas.
The two men who saw her thought, at first, that they had stumbled across a mannequin set on fire, perhaps as an early Halloween prank. It was the smell that alerted them to something more sinister in the woods—a smell like charred hot dogs. When they stepped closer, they realized the awful and obvious truth. A human being had been killed, then doused in gasoline and set on fire, and probably only minutes before: Her body was still ablaze.
The emails of a key presidential aide show an extremist ideology influencing policy in the White House.
Stephen Miller’s liberal critics were right after all. The influential White House aide and immigration hard-liner has long been a liberal target. Prominent conservatives such as the National Review editor Rich Lowry have defended Miller as a “wunderkind” and praised his “knowledge, energy, and doggedness.” But liberals have maintained for years that Miller is pushing an agenda far more sinister than straightforward immigration restriction.
A cache of Miller’s emails, provided by the former Breitbart News staffer Katie McHugh tothe Southern Poverty Law Center, draws a straight line between the Trump administration’s immigration policies and previous, explicitly racist immigration laws. The emails show Miller praising racist immigration restrictions from a century ago, while bitterly lamenting the law that repealed them.
On paper, he’s exactly what many Democratic voters say they want.
CONCORD, N.H.—“We! Will! Rise!” Cory Booker’s supporters chanted as he made his way down the hallway of the New Hampshire statehouse to file for the primary on Friday morning. “We will rise,” Booker wrote on a copy of the primary-ballot announcement that the secretary of state had, for commemorative purposes, asked all the candidates to sign. Booker had a hard time squeezing his words in, because of all the other names already taking up most of the space.
The slogan is meant to be a proud one. The words, borrowed from Maya Angelou and the civil-rights movement, have always inspired Booker; today, they fit neatly into his call for a beleaguered country to transcend the damage done by Donald Trump. But at this point, given Booker’s standing in the polls (he’s consistently stuck around 10th place in the field), they can come off as plaintive. Still, Booker and his aides remain hopeful that, in retrospect, the line will prove to have been clairvoyant.
People in different regions of the U.S. have measurably different psychological profiles.
A few years ago, Jason Rentfrow, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge, dug into a question that has captivated him for decades: Do different places have different personalities? Do people in Los Angeles, for instance, have measurably different temperaments from the residents of Augusta, Georgia? If so, what does that mean for both places? Rentfrow decided to test these questions on a phenomenon that has captivated all of America lately: the rise of Donald Trump.
Together with his co-authors, Rentfrow analyzed a set of surveys that had been conducted from 2003 to 2015 in 2,082 U.S. counties—about two-thirds of all the counties in the country. The surveys asked 3 million people 44 questions about their habits and dispositions. Rentfrow and his co-authors focused on neuroticism, a tendency to feel depressed or anxious and to respond more severely to stress. Neuroticism is one of the “big five” traits that psychologists often use to measure personality. The study authors compared each county’s level of neuroticism with whether those counties later voted for Trump in the 2016 election, and whether they had historically voted for Republicans.
More than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern white voters, the system continues to do just that.
Is a color-blind political system possible under our Constitution? If it is, the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 did little to help matters. While black people in America today are not experiencing 1950s levels of voter suppression, efforts to keep them and other citizens from participating in elections began within 24 hours of the Shelby County v. Holder ruling and have only increased since then.
In Shelby County’s oral argument, Justice Antonin Scalia cautioned, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get them out through the normal political processes.” Ironically enough, there is some truth to an otherwise frighteningly numb claim. American elections have an acute history of racial entitlements—only they don’t privilege black Americans.
By migrating in huge herds, bison behave like a force of nature, engineering and intensifying waves of spring greenery that other grazers rely on.
Chris Geremia was surprised. After considerable effort, and substantial risk to life and limb, he and his colleagues finally had the results from their decade-long experiment, and those results were both clear and unexpected: Bison do not surf.
Specifically, bison (or buffalo) don’t follow the waves of new shoots that burst from the ground every spring. This phenomenon, known as surfing the green wave, allows animals to eat plants at their most nutritious, when they’re full of nitrogen and proteins and low in indigestible matter. Such freshness is fleeting, and so grazers undertake large migrations to track the new greenery as it crests across the landscape. Over the past decade, scientists have shown that mule deer, barnacle geese, elk, elephants, Mongolian gazelles, and a dozen other species all do this. Geremia wanted to see whether bison, which once formed the largest grazing herds in North America, follow the same pattern.