The Three Whisky Happy Hour, With Richard Samuelson on Harvard’s April Fool’s Prank

Another great listen on a lazy Saturday afternoon.

Richard Samuelson should consider doing some stand-up. I think it would help hone his already significant satirical skills in critiquing the fall of our so-called institutions of higher learning.

I hope y’all are right that the radical feminist backlash over any significant change to Roe will be greatly muted by a much wider dislike of abortion among the American public, especially after the first trimester, since 1973. I would be more sanguine if I thought the elite had any interest in natural rights rather than the siren songs of lore.

Finally, I think Lucretia is wrong to call youngsters (and presumably their parents) who try to get into schools they are educationally unprepared for“stupid.” Not high-ranking does not mean ignorant. I think they should keep trying because it more and more reveals how stupid university administrators are. And you just never know who might excel despite poor SAT scores. Never hurts the try-er to try. Especially given how our topsy turvy society is giving them an edge, it would seem to be the smart thing to do.

Thanks, guys!

Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

Another great listen on a lazy Saturday afternoon.

Richard Samuelson should consider doing some stand-up. I think it would help hone his already significant satirical skills in critiquing the fall of our so-called institutions of higher learning.

I hope y’all are right that the radical feminist backlash over any significant change to Roe will be greatly muted by a much wider dislike of abortion among the American public, especially after the first trimester, since 1973. I would be more sanguine if I thought the elite had any interest in natural rights rather than the siren songs of lore.

Finally, I think Lucretia is wrong to call youngsters (and presumably their parents) who try to get into schools they are educationally unprepared for“stupid.” Not high-ranking does not mean ignorant. I think they should keep trying because it more and more reveals how stupid university administrators are. And you just never know who might excel despite poor SAT scores. Never hurts the try-er to try. Especially given how our topsy turvy society is giving them an edge, it would seem to be the smart thing to do.

Thanks, guys!

I do not disagree at all with the way you frame your "admissions" policy. My complaint is with those students who genuinely have neither the aptitude nor the attitude to succeed. Grades and standardized tests are at best imprecise indicators of a likelihood to succeed in college, and many of my best students have been failures at one point or another in their academic careers. But college is now little more than a money-making racket--with the federal government subsidizing the exploitation of students who are not capable of benefitting from higher education. For example, I and some of my administrative staff have spent countless hours dealing with the mother of a student who is not bright, not motivated, and not well-prepared for university-level work. She is convinced her wonder child is the second coming of Einstein and that it is the failure of the college, the program, the instructors, and the student services staff that he cannot seem to make it to class, complete his assignments, or pass his tests. Of course, not all DIDLs have doting, helicopter parents, but they have nevertheless mastered the art of the excuse--with the implicit backing of the university administrators.

I knew the Williams were Jehovah Witnesses because of Barry Obama. It was the 2019 Australian Open and some reporter was asking one of the sisters what she thought about the first black President being sworn into office. She said she didn't vote because she was a JW and didn't know that was going on.

Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

Finally, I think Lucretia is wrong to call youngsters (and presumably their parents) who try to get into schools they are educationally unprepared for“stupid.” Not high-ranking does not mean ignorant. I think they should keep trying because it more and more reveals how stupid university administrators are. And you just never know who might excel despite poor SAT scores. Never hurts the try-er to try. Especially given how our topsy turvy society is giving them an edge, it would seem to be the smart thing to do.

Thanks, guys!

Lucretia (View Comment):

I do not disagree at all with the way you frame your “admissions” policy. My complaint is with those students who genuinely have neither the aptitude nor the attitude to succeed. Grades and standardized tests are at best imprecise indicators of a likelihood to succeed in college, and many of my best students have been failures at one point or another in their academic careers. But college is now little more than a money-making racket–with the federal government subsidizing the exploitation of students who are not capable of benefitting from higher education. For example, I and some of my administrative staff have spent countless hours dealing with the mother of a student who is not bright, not motivated, and not well-prepared for university-level work. She is convinced her wonder child is the second coming of Einstein and that it is the failure of the college, the program, the instructors, and the student services staff that he cannot seem to make it to class, complete his assignments, or pass his tests. Of course, not all DIDLs have doting, helicopter parents, but they have nevertheless mastered the art of the excuse–with the implicit backing of the university administrators.

I retired from working as an editor at two universities (they battled in the Final Four earlier tonight), so please believe me when I say I am well aware that universities have become little more than status-seeking, money-making (yet also money-pinching) rackets. And I have no doubt—especially these days when young people are so pampered and pandered to—that counseling students who can’t handle the work—and don’t even try—is, well, crazy-making in the extreme. (Is it a feature or a bug of the ridiculously high cost of college?) Knowing that these students are backed by administrative cowards must make the task virtually unbearable.

I greatly enjoy hearing your observations and critiques and intended my comment as a small suggested edit elicited by that appreciation. I hope that comes across.

What's that you say?

Originalism as a legal hermeneutical theory doesn't operate in a vacuum? It needs a rule of natural law theory to accompany it?

Nice little thesis you have there, @Lucretia and @StevenHayward.

This would be the legal equivalent of the Rule of Faith in theology, wouldn't it?

Good. Now all we need is a book on @MarkEckel would like to edit such a book. At the moment, we need some abstracts!

Lucretia and Steven Hayward, I would be honored if you would consider writing something for this--or forwarding it to some of those smart people you know so they can step up!