The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad

00:00:00.000 all right okay guys forgive me i remain quite sick with a a cough and a cold that just doesn't

00:00:10.980 want to go away it's been over four weeks that i've been sick but i thought i would do a quick

00:00:17.840 public x spaces and then for those of you who wish to ask questions or you know have a discussion

00:00:26.060 then you can subscribe to my exclusive feed where i will then set up another x spaces only for

00:00:33.320 subscribers so this will be about i don't know maybe 20 30 minutes i'll just be sharing some

00:00:39.580 ideas uh some thoughts and then we can uh if you want to chat we can do so after so i first wanted

00:00:48.320 to discuss what's been going on with the presidents of harvard mit and uh what's the other one i can't

00:00:59.780 remember the other one the third prestigious school oh pen uh which by the way it's it's unbelievable

00:01:05.280 that women are so held back it's basically waziristan at north american universities because 1.00

00:01:11.800 it turns out that all of the three presidents of three of the most prestigious universities

00:01:16.200 are women and so we really need to work harder to give women an opportunity to flourish in academia 0.93

00:01:23.160 because they're not getting their fair shake

00:01:25.500 incidentally as you probably might have seen me mention this there was a study conducted a few years

00:01:33.340 ago where they uh the the u.s government looked at across four levels of educational attainment

00:01:42.920 associate's degree which is half a bachelor's bachelor's degree master's and doctorate across

00:01:49.280 five racial groups so they were so the the matrix was basically a five by four matrix so there were 20

00:01:56.120 cells and in each of the cells they had the ratio of male to female that had graduated and so of course

00:02:05.820 if you know uh american universities are a hotbed of misogyny then you would expect all 20 cells to have 0.75

00:02:15.100 men uh outnumbering women and of course the data showed that for every single one of the 20 cells 0.73

00:02:23.260 20 out of 20 so for every racial breakdown across every level of educational attainment women outnumbered men

00:02:32.780 and so of course the conclusion is we need to redouble our efforts

00:02:37.280 to offer women more opportunities now i say this not uh of course somebody might think oh but you know

00:02:45.200 are you rejecting the fact that in the past there was misogyny yes there was in the past but there isn't

00:02:51.120 anymore and therefore honest interlocutors will adjust their narrative and function as a function of

00:02:59.680 incoming new evidence right you you don't hold on to the same narrative irrespective of how things have

00:03:06.220 changed in the field and yet i receive endless you know celebrating women women in business school

00:03:13.940 celebrate right it's as if you know women are absolutely being trash are given no opportunities to flourish 0.57

00:03:20.500 and that's if anything today we need to be looking at making uh universities more hospitable to young men 0.73

00:03:28.660 many of whom are deciding that uh getting an education is no longer something that they're interested

00:03:34.880 in which is never a good thing okay so let's uh first begin by talking about uh claudine gay whom i had

00:03:45.060 never heard of until her uh testimony uh recently in front of uh congress so yesterday some of you may

00:03:55.620 have seen i'm going to read it uh verbatim for you so this is derrick johnson who is uh the 19th president

00:04:03.760 and ceo of the na naacp and so uh my man derrick johnson put out the following tweet yesterday enough is enough

00:04:16.720 harvard president claudine gay is a distinguished scholar and professor with decades of service in

00:04:24.900 higher education the recent attacks on her leadership are nothing more than political theatrics advancing a

00:04:33.600 white supremacist agenda and so late at night when i should be just resting and allowing my cortisol levels 0.97

00:04:44.580 to go down i said okay i can't put up with this kind of bullshit so i wrote back to him very politely 0.96

00:04:51.900 i think now let me just check the it's almost at two million views the tweet that i put out so let me 0.90

00:04:58.100 read it for you dear mr derrick uh you know whatever his name at n a n double a c p let me offer some

00:05:06.400 rebuttals to the points that you raised in the spirit of the free exchange of ideas which by the way harvard

00:05:12.600 scored last on out of 248 universities surveyed by the fire organization the foundation and individual

00:05:22.360 rights and expression uh which i'll come back to in a second because i want to talk about that study

00:05:27.940 so harvard out of 248 universities ranked dead last out of 248 248 out of 248 schools

00:05:37.340 so let me start number one president gay is not a distinguished scholar using objective bibliometrics

00:05:46.220 she has an h index that is well below what is typically required for someone to be promoted to

00:05:51.500 full professor and so i thought what i would do right now is uh spend a minute or two just explaining

00:05:58.200 what uh the h index is for those of you who may not know what it is so typically in academia the way

00:06:06.420 that you would measure someone's uh productivity is twofold right how many you know original works

00:06:15.660 have they produced in some fields it's largely peer-reviewed um you know papers and academic journals

00:06:21.460 excuse me in other disciplines uh books also are very important so you can take all of the totality of

00:06:31.360 papers and books that you've published so that would be one metric that's a measure of productivity

00:06:37.100 but of course two people can have the exact same number of papers published but one of one of them has

00:06:43.320 ten thousand citations meaning that their work has been cited ten thousand times by others

00:06:49.440 whereas the other person has one thousand citations so even though they've produced the same number

00:06:54.740 of publications uh you know one has had a lot more influence in terms of shaping other people's work

00:07:01.580 so that was historically sort of the the main way by which you would judge uh someone's academic cv in

00:07:08.440 terms of you know productivity and influence of course you also can measure uh the prestige of where

00:07:14.920 they publish right so if they're publishing in journals that are highly prestigious you know i you know you

00:07:20.520 may publish five papers in really a plus journal someone else may publish 10 papers in c journals and

00:07:26.860 the former might might be more impressive than the latter okay and then uh about i think 16 or 17 years ago

00:07:33.900 i think it was in 2006 uh hirsch who's a physicist i think out of ucsd introduced the h index which really

00:07:44.560 tries to offer a more uh adequate measure of someone's influence as an academic so take for

00:07:53.500 example someone who has uh 10 000 citations okay uh but one paper has 9 990 citations so it's a home run

00:08:07.700 and then the totality of all their other papers have 10 citations so this so basically this one

00:08:14.360 person has a singular hit and so if you only looked at number of citations you would think wow this is

00:08:22.200 impressive but really it's just one just one paper that that generated much of their citations so what

00:08:28.940 the h index does is it lists all of your publications in decreasing order of number of citations so let's say

00:08:37.320 if your most cited paper has 100 citations your second most cited has 80 citations your third most cited

00:08:47.380 has two citations so now notice that the number of citations is less than the rank right two citations

00:08:55.440 is less than that the rank three that means your h index is only two you follow so h index has become

00:09:05.620 the the standard measure and there are all sorts of other bibliometric measure that you could use

00:09:10.240 there there are all sorts of variants of that that you know tries to create a you know a fairer measure

00:09:17.560 and so on but this has become kind of the standard measure what is your h index so you can go on google

00:09:23.120 scholar look up someone's profile by the way claudine gay doesn't have a profile most serious academics

00:09:31.380 will create a profile because people want to know what what your bibliometric scores are she doesn't

00:09:37.540 have one so she's hardly a distinguished scholar but in any case it was hard for me to calculate to

00:09:43.820 look at hers but you know i've heard someone say that her h index is eight i came up with an h index of 0.83

00:09:51.400 10 what does that mean basically that means her first 10 citations or 10 her first 10 publications

00:09:58.080 have 10 or more citations but then by the time she gets to the 11th publication it has less than 11

00:10:06.060 citations therefore she basically has an h index of 10 now how does that look in terms of distinguished

00:10:14.860 scholar well different disciplines have different uh standards in terms of what constitutes an impressive

00:10:22.840 uh you know bibliometric cv but on average you can say that you know most fields you know you better

00:10:34.400 have an h index of 20 just to get promoted to full professor and actually i'm being here very

00:10:40.880 conservative in many cases it would have to be you know much much higher than that so not not to

00:10:47.220 introduce myself into the mix because i i don't really want to compare myself to president gay 0.68

00:10:53.920 that might be impressive for her cv not mine but my h index is 35 now this is not a linear measure so

00:11:01.640 if her h index is 10 and mine is 35 and by the way it's mine would have been much higher for example if i

00:11:09.500 didn't work in a discipline that has very few people because remember i work at the intersection of

00:11:14.600 evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior and psychology decision making and there actually

00:11:20.000 aren't too many people who apply evolutionary theory within those fields i i pioneered that field

00:11:24.800 and so if anything it's an underestimate of what my bibliometric influence would be so

00:11:30.180 if president gay you know is this distinguished scholar who got tenure at stanford and harvard with that

00:11:39.000 bibliometric score then i need to be quickly made emperor of the world okay now i know postdocs right so

00:11:48.340 postdocs would be people who uh you know just finished a phd and now they're doing a postdoctorate to try to

00:11:55.240 you know have a better cv so that they could then apply for assistant professorships there are postdocs in

00:12:01.960 many disciplines that have a much more impressive academic cv than president gay so so regarding the 0.97

00:12:11.480 first point no she is not a distinguished scholar she's an astoundingly mediocre scholar and there is 0.93

00:12:19.780 no way using the standard bibliometric measures someone like president gay should be getting tenure at 0.99

00:12:28.060 stanford stanford and harvard now let's talk about someone who did get tenure at harvard uh roland fry

00:12:36.200 was an economist who was at harvard who i think was the youngest tenured professor ever at harvard or i

00:12:43.980 don't know if he was the youngest black tenured professor uh he happens to be black he's done a lot of

00:12:50.360 uh research he's an economist he's done a lot of data-driven research where he has demonstrated that many of the

00:12:57.580 victimology narrative you know there is a genocide of black people by the police in the united states

00:13:04.160 are simply not true and you know there's nothing better than data to dispel a particular narrative

00:13:10.440 his narrative was not one that certainly president gay when she was the dean uh of his faculty at harvard

00:13:19.320 would have supported uh and eventually as you know you know he got into trouble for apparently making some

00:13:25.660 sexual innuendo jokes or something that created a hostile environment and i don't know if he's been

00:13:31.800 fired of from harvard or if he took a leave but his h index i i checked it earlier today is i think

00:13:39.780 something in the in the 50s so again by if we're using objective bibliometrics then this gentleman who is

00:13:48.560 no longer at harvard you know is exponentially more accomplished than president gay okay so let's 1.00

00:13:56.300 dispel the first statement made by uh mr derrick johnson about you know it's white supremacy that

00:14:04.020 people are attacking her because she's just she's basically she's indistinguishable from you know 0.99

00:14:09.280 da vinci newton einstein and darwin i mean you know and anyone who disagrees with that you know it's

00:14:16.200 just clearly because they're white supremacist okay so let me go on with point two of my rebuttal 0.83

00:14:20.620 president gay is not a distinguished administrators administrator as she has spent her entire career 0.94

00:14:27.520 promulgating the die cult diversity inclusion and equity which violates every fabric of the 0.95

00:14:34.760 meritocratic ethos that one would expect from harvard if you if by the way if you look at her research

00:14:39.640 you know black this black that black black black black black black black black black every single 0.92

00:14:45.820 paper is about some racial thing right now as some of you know if you've read the sad truth about

00:14:52.160 happiness in one of the chapters i talk about the importance of seeking variety for a happy life

00:14:57.760 and i get into intellectual variety seeking and i basically argue that it is truly regrettable that

00:15:04.340 in academia professors are taught to be stay in your lane professors be a hyper specialist keep publishing

00:15:10.900 in exactly the one narrow field and never expand your horizons to other intellectual landscapes whereas

00:15:18.700 you know i've published in medicine and in politics and in economics and in psychology and in marketing

00:15:24.140 and in made choice and in evolutionary psychology and in bibliometric which by the way has people have

00:15:31.540 used that against me there were universities that wanted to hire me at various points and they came back to me

00:15:37.320 and said well your cv is very impressive but it seems very frazzled you're all over the place

00:15:43.360 so from one side of the mouth universities talk about wanting to promote interdisciplinarity but from

00:15:49.980 the other side of the mouth basically no no no don't just be a narrow thinker and in the case of

00:15:56.260 president gay my goodness is she narrow every single thing revolves around skin you never out of that 0.99

00:16:03.580 black this black that black this white this and so on all right so is she a great administrator 1.00

00:16:09.620 hardly that she is a complete die bureaucrat which by the way die is an absolute cancer to the human 1.00

00:16:19.200 spirit all right number three this is in my rebuttal to to the n a double n double a cp guy number three

00:16:28.080 some very serious repeat allegations about plagiarism about plagiarism have been levied

00:16:33.520 against her across many of her works including her dissertation unless you think that plagiarism is

00:16:39.560 an inherent part of white supremacy then it is difficult to see your point plagiarism cannot be

00:16:45.260 contextualized because now harvard's coming out well you know it depends plagiarism who are we to say

00:16:50.580 right like put on your post-modernist hat you know it's all relative well it turns out christopher

00:16:56.640 rufo broke the story i think yesterday or day before that you know there's tons of passages in

00:17:02.800 many of several of her papers in her dissertations full complete passages fully lifted so let's suppose

00:17:09.840 it were an accidental thing sometimes you you take a passage but then you you forget you know there

00:17:17.260 should be a very very clear procedure by which you make sure that you never get it wrong for example if

00:17:22.660 i take a quote i put it in a different color and i right away put it in quotes that way there could

00:17:29.920 never be a mistake where inadvertently i somehow forgot to cite it or quote it but let's suppose she

00:17:35.960 had done that because she didn't have the proper discipline well you can't do it across you know half of 0.85

00:17:41.420 your papers across your dissertation but apparently it is white supremacy to argue that she plagiarized

00:17:48.860 so how could you now ever punish someone at harvard a student of from plagiarism if the president

00:17:56.220 supposedly engaged in it and there are no repercussions to her by the way i caught a doctoral

00:18:02.740 student several years ago engaging in just the most outlandish plagiarism after i filed the case

00:18:10.000 you know wasted several weeks documenting everything they got back to me and said okay well here's the

00:18:16.360 here's what we're going to do she has to redo the exam and i said no i mean if if she doesn't get

00:18:23.060 expelled for that then there's no point in having a code of conduct an academic code of conduct and all

00:18:29.620 you're doing by asking me to give her another exam is you've just added several weeks of additional work 0.68

00:18:35.580 for me so i get punished for her having cheated from a to z so it is truly uh grotesque when universities

00:18:44.060 say that they're all about academic integrity and then they look the other way when someone does

00:18:50.380 violate it number four she was unwilling to deontologically condemn the open hatred of jews

00:18:56.760 on campus instead she had to quote contextualize it do you think that the repudiation of jew hatred

00:19:03.260 is a form of white supremacy this again is part of my rebuttal to to this gentleman uh now here i want

00:19:10.680 to bring in something that some of you may have heard me mention before others haven't and so it's

00:19:14.760 worth repeating the difference between deontological and consequentialist ethics some of you who've read

00:19:22.400 the parasitic mind know about that distinction because i talk about it there uh in the book

00:19:28.240 deontological ethics are absolute statements so if i say it is never okay to cheat never then that

00:19:35.920 would be a deontological statement if i say well it's okay to lie if i'm trying to spare someone's

00:19:40.940 feelings if if my if your wife says do i look fat in those jeans and you say no you've never looked

00:19:46.200 more beautiful and you're lying well then from a consequentialist perspective it might make sense for

00:19:51.640 you to lie if you want to have a happy marriage if you want to spare the feelings of your spouse

00:19:57.040 but when it comes to the truth when it comes to freedom when it comes to foundational principles

00:20:03.800 they have to be by definition deontological so there is no contextualizing scamming you know all of your

00:20:11.560 work and cheating and plagiarizing right that's the currency of academia is is the unique and distinct

00:20:17.920 ideas that you contribute in the pantheon of knowledge if someone else just takes it and steals it

00:20:24.680 well that's a very serious uh offense so that's that's that and so i wrote then i wrote i'm almost

00:20:33.160 done with this uh tweet you do a disservice by invoking the boogeyman of white supremacy here 0.83

00:20:39.380 president gay is being criticized for her behaviors and positions the only ones who have ever cared about 1.00

00:20:45.460 her skin color are those who repeatedly promoted her to positions that she is unfit to hold god damn 1.00

00:20:53.520 that's a mic drop but then get ready are you ready fasten your seat belts then of course i turn it around 1.00

00:20:59.960 and i use the victimology currency of all these idiots and i said be careful to accuse me of white 1.00

00:21:06.480 supremacy as i am a lebanese jewish war refugee of color so i outrank you and president gay in 1.00

00:21:14.180 victimology poker so if he were going to come and say yeah yeah but you're a white supremacist now he's 0.96

00:21:20.240 got to think twice about it because surely you don't want to be attacking a child refugee of color i'm a jew

00:21:26.160 of color uh let me and then i wrote let me tag bill ackman the hedge fund billionaire who's been

00:21:32.080 really active in going after his alma mater harvard i'm sure he'll enjoy this exchange and as i said

00:21:39.680 this uh rebuttal very polite rebuttal i think very measured based on facts uh has gotten over two million

00:21:47.380 views now let me just mention one thing about uh bill ackman i love that he's getting so involved i love

00:21:54.060 the fact that uh you know he's someone of great influence he's obviously somebody very wealthy and

00:21:59.660 so you know the more people that decide that they want to contribute to addressing the the cancer

00:22:05.580 within our universities hey the better it is he's activating his inner honey badger but here is one

00:22:11.120 lesson that i think and again i'm not trying to uh uh you know uh i you know focus on bill ackman but

00:22:18.400 it represents a a regrettable part of human nature bill ackman did not get involved for the past 30

00:22:25.640 years when i was standing on top of the mountain screaming like the one lone wolf about all of the

00:22:31.400 problems that now we're seeing at harvard and every other university because it didn't affect him

00:22:36.540 personally but when all of the anti-semitism started making its way you know across canadian and 0.86

00:22:43.720 american universities he's jewish when it it hit harvard his alma mater when president gay is acting 0.78

00:22:53.220 the way that she is at his alma mater then he felt compelled to to speak out and i think while i

00:22:59.840 commend him for you know it's better better late than never i think that what we need to do is

00:23:05.780 you know lend our voice precisely when it doesn't specifically affect us right it's jew hatred should 1.00

00:23:15.660 not matter to you only when your son mordechai is picked on in in in the high school yard that's not

00:23:24.340 the only time that you decide you should care about this right so if you follow deontological principles

00:23:28.700 then you should be weighing in on these issues uh you know in many many contexts where it doesn't

00:23:35.600 personally affect you that's what makes you courageous and heroic right when someone is crying

00:23:40.280 in a in an alley because they're being attacked and raped you don't say oh wait a minute is that

00:23:45.940 my daughter is that my my my sister is that my mother is that my wife no then who cares let's keep

00:23:51.880 walking you don't only go into the the alley to protect someone you know if they're your wife or sister

00:23:59.960 or daughter so i'm i'm delighted that bill ottman has joined the fight as have many others but i wish

00:24:06.580 many of these folks would have joined earlier and i hope that now that they have joined the fight

00:24:10.740 they won't suddenly uh uh recuse themselves you know once they think the issue has been addressed

00:24:17.620 there is an endemic persistent endless cancer that has made its way through our universities hence

00:24:25.260 my book the parasitic mind and uh and it is incredibly important for the wealthy alumni to to

00:24:32.980 really come in because you know i i fight through the tools that are at my disposal which is in the

00:24:39.140 battle of ideas i can write books i can go on shows i can contribute uh in offering superior ideas

00:24:47.480 to all of the parasitic you know bullshit but ultimately administrators listen to one thing only 0.86

00:24:54.000 it's the green money so when a donor says you know what you keep this up say goodbye to my hundred 0.99

00:25:02.960 one hundred million dollar donation suddenly they're the administrator's ears perk up and they

00:25:09.680 suddenly pay attention because administrators are actually not part of homo sapiens they're a unique 0.99

00:25:16.320 species they're they're invertebrate castrati they have no spine and they have no testicles

00:25:23.700 that they're that that's literally their default phenotype and therefore the only way they can find a

00:25:32.360 spine the only way that they can have some testicular fortitude is if it hits them where the only place

00:25:39.360 that it matters to them which is money money money and so more power to bill ottman i hope more people

00:25:45.760 join in that very quick story about um harvard uh personal story that's the that's the good juicy stuff

00:25:54.500 you get when you join these x spaces and remember folks i'm not opening up right now for uh for people

00:26:01.260 to speak it's a sort of one-way hosting but if you do want to contribute uh to the conversation then

00:26:08.420 please after this talk i will set up a x spaces for my uh subscribers in any case uh in 1993

00:26:20.480 i was invited uh for a campus visit to harvard so the way the way it works is when you're about one

00:26:29.260 year away from finishing your phd you go through several rounds academic rounds where universities

00:26:36.580 interview you for assistant professorships excuse me in the first round universities interview you

00:26:46.600 at in in a hotel at a conference and so different universities will be in different rooms and then

00:26:53.220 you know okay northwestern is in room 307 and they'd like to see you at 11 o'clock okay and usually what

00:27:00.040 you do is you go into these different interviews uh and you talk about your doctoral dissertation you know

00:27:05.720 what's the topic about you know how far along are you when do you plan on finishing and so on you're

00:27:10.320 pitching basically your your research stream stemming from your doctoral dissertation and anything else

00:27:16.260 you've done in your phd and so you go through the first round uh and then you know some of the

00:27:22.480 universities may decide you know you're one of their finalists and so they invite you to second round

00:27:28.500 interviews which are typically a campus visit where you'll go to the university you'll give a talk in front of

00:27:34.620 the faculty uh which you know can be quite uh harrowing uh if you're not confident in your abilities

00:27:41.460 because you're you know you're you're you're this young doctoral student and you have to speak in front

00:27:46.240 of all these big famous professors and then usually the professors will host you one-on-one

00:27:52.460 in their offices you know you you know you'll visit the school and so i i had been fortunate in that i was uh

00:27:59.740 you know i was doing well in the market i had been invited to many of the top first round uh

00:28:05.660 universities you know many of the prestigious universities and then in the second round i've

00:28:10.380 been invited also to several you know many universities uh of which one of them was harvard

00:28:15.320 business school which was really you know the mecca in terms of you know glamour right like glitz glory 0.99

00:28:22.960 right it's it's it's harvard business school i mean i remember in 1993 their you know their endowment

00:28:28.400 just the business school was probably more than the gdp of some countries i i'm not i'm being literal

00:28:34.060 incredible opulence incredible uh well as i said glitz uh now i do recall that there was something that

00:28:43.620 had struck me as problematic when i was on my visit to harvard at one point i was asked to sit in

00:28:52.020 on uh a meeting that is held by all of the professors who teach the capstone courses in the first year

00:29:02.100 mba so for example at harvard business school there might be in year one eight sections of you know the

00:29:10.100 the introductory marketing course a marketing course right so there are eight different sections taught by

00:29:16.200 eight eight different professors and so each week the eight professors would get together

00:29:21.800 in a kind of uh coordination meeting where they agree on every single syllable that's going to be said

00:29:30.360 in the next lecture every single thing that's going to go on the board you know what is going to be the

00:29:36.100 key lesson for whatever case you're analyzing what and so there was very very little room for you know

00:29:43.560 individual contribution and so right away i was thinking to myself oh as someone who is rather

00:29:49.900 irreverent to authority as someone who is very much an out-of-the-box thinker i thought boy if i get

00:29:56.720 this job and i already knew that i very much wanted to you know to work you know in you know applying

00:30:02.720 evolutionary psychology to economic decision making to consumer behavior how would this fly but yet i was

00:30:09.240 still enamored by the idea of going to harvard now as it turns out i didn't get the harvard job i had

00:30:16.360 heard from inside sources so this is 1993 30 years ago that i did not get the job uh because it turns

00:30:24.840 out that i don't ovulate although of course we know today that men too can ovulate but at the time in 1993

00:30:30.880 uh i couldn't ovulate and so wokeness had already seeped into harvard back then so that's my harvard

00:30:38.860 story uh now i want to spend a minute or two uh i'm almost done but i just want to talk about two

00:30:45.820 more things so remember i mentioned earlier that i wanted to uh discuss the fire survey the foundation

00:30:53.580 uh of individual rights uh an expressionable i can't remember the acronym uh that they just

00:31:00.820 released you can go and check it on their site fire f-i-r-e uh the the guy who who heads it greg

00:31:08.060 lukyanioff is someone who has been on my show he was someone who came on my show many years ago when i

00:31:15.120 first began my show he of course wrote the book uh the coddling of uh i think the american mind with

00:31:21.620 jonathan height and so i looked at the ranking so what they did is they they sent out a survey to

00:31:27.700 55 000 plus students so this is a very exhaustive exhaustive survey uh across 248 universities

00:31:37.340 spanning the whole spectrum of prestige and i think i can't remember the exact methodology but i think they

00:31:43.620 they quantified 13 variables that capture you know how open the university is to alternative ideas

00:31:51.600 you know heterodox ideas you know that they don't de-platform people and so on and so forth

00:31:57.260 and as i said out of 248 universities harvard ranked last but what i wanted to do is look at

00:32:06.940 well is there a correlation between how prestigious a university is and how poorly they score on the

00:32:16.120 ranking and boy is there ever so i'm not so i'm not gonna report here the actual statistical results

00:32:23.220 i'm just going to kind of share with you so i circled here the eight ivy leagues so ivy league schools

00:32:30.680 uh and by the way i'm associated to two i did my ms and phd at cornell and then i was a visiting

00:32:38.260 professor at cornell in 2000 and then i was also a visiting professor at tuck school of business at

00:32:43.780 dartmouth so i am you know through and through an ivy leaguer but uh i'm it it gives it gives me great

00:32:51.780 pain to share the results so the highest ranked ivy league school scores number 69 so remember here

00:33:02.020 number one would be the best school in terms of free inquiry and freedom of speech and heterodox views

00:33:09.680 and number one is some very non-prestigious school i don't remember like a michigan metropolitan

00:33:16.080 university i can't remember the name okay but it's certainly not a prestigious school so brown is number

00:33:21.580 69 now just to give you a few non-ivy league schools but very prestigious mit is number 136 caltech

00:33:31.720 144 berkeley 147 ucla 169 now we come to the next ivy league school princeton number 187

00:33:45.720 now 187 out of 248 okay this gives me great pain my own alma mater cornell number 212

00:33:55.720 columbia 214 yale 234 dartmouth 240 penn 247 and harvard 248 boy is that some telling statistics so

00:34:14.260 remember we just had the presidents of mit harvard and penn uh appear to testify in front of congress

00:34:22.280 and they score some of i mean literally penn and harvard two out of the three schools

00:34:28.080 score the absolute lowest on freedom of speech so the more prestigious and elite the school is

00:34:36.000 the less tolerant it is of any ideas that uh you know don't fit the the parasitic spectrum that's

00:34:45.040 not really a good thing and then i just want to one last finding and then i'll wrap it up and i'll

00:34:50.420 thank you for your attention this is actually a study that i cite in my uh in the parasitic mind

00:34:57.820 it's from uh langbert 2018 where he did a study looking at the ratio of democrat to republican

00:35:10.260 affiliated professors across many disciplines it's absolutely astounding you have fields

00:35:16.220 where it's 130 to 0 in other words there isn't a single republican professor in that discipline

00:35:23.520 across the 51 universities excuse me but today what i want to talk about is one of the figures figure

00:35:32.380 four from that study uh by the way let me just read you what the title of the paper is homogeneous

00:35:38.900 colon the political affiliation of elite liberal arts colleges faculty by mitchell langbert

00:35:46.080 2018 published in national association of scholars okay so now what he did is he broke up the ratio

00:35:55.080 of democrat to republican as a function of the prestige of the school in question you follow so

00:36:03.380 so you've got tier one schools the most prestigious schools tier two tier three and tier four so remember

00:36:10.660 how earlier i i talked about the fire survey that showed that the more prestigious the school is

00:36:16.560 the less open and tolerant it is to alternative views and so here i'm trying to make the same point

00:36:23.000 right so here is the ratio so if the ratio were one to one that means there's as many democrat professors

00:36:30.300 as republican professors if its ratio is three to one to democrats there are three at three times as many

00:36:35.700 democrats right so you're ready tier one you're ready you're sitting down 21.5 to one meaning

00:36:44.660 there are 21.5 times more democrat professors than republican professors tier two 12.8 so it's a massive drop

00:36:57.100 tier three 12.4 so there's not much of a difference and then tier four the least prestigious group of

00:37:05.160 universities it's still incredibly lopsided but it's 6.9 to one so meaning the difference from the most

00:37:12.880 prestigious schools to the least prestigious schools is three times worse in lopsidedness if you go to

00:37:21.280 the elite schools so not only are the elite schools complete and utter echo chambers when it comes to

00:37:28.400 political orientation but they're also the most intolerant of uh alternative viewpoints uh that

00:37:37.780 should make everyone uh very very queasy and especially so when some of you here that are

00:37:44.260 listening to this chat are going to be paying 65 70 80 thousand dollars a year for your students to

00:37:54.040 learn feminist glaciology and queer architecture all right guys fantastic it took about 38 minutes i was

00:38:00.840 hoping to not go any more than 30 to 45 minutes thank you so much for your attention if you wish to be

00:38:06.020 part of the discussion please consider subscribing i'm now going to set up a uh x spaces only for

00:38:13.300 subscribers but of course feel free to add your comments in the thread and hopefully that itself can

00:38:19.660 start a conversation thank you so much for your attention thank you for joining talk to you soon cheers

The Problem with Elite Universities (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_630)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript