2026-04-20 19:17:21
The Yale Report was quite good but for concision I prefer Kevin Bryan’s Eight Rules:
1. Produce and Teach Useful Knowledge
Universities exist to generate and teach useful knowledge. This knowledge is grounded in skeptical inquiry, empirical evidence, and logical deduction. “Useful” includes not only practical applications but also fundamental discoveries that expand our understanding of the world, even if their benefits are long-term.
2. Be Useful to All of Society
Universities are subsidized only if society at large finds them valuable. Research may take time to bear fruit, but its insights should ultimately serve the public good, communicated openly and accessibly, and presented with epistemic humility. Teaching should be done with care and draw on up-to-date research.
3. Attract Talent from All of Society
Useful knowledge can be created by people from any social or economic background. Do not waste talent. Do not select talent based on who knows “how to play the game”. Avoid insular language or norms that deter people from entering research.
4. Neutral, Objective Research Produces Useful Knowledge
Research must be neutral and objective. It is true that everyone has their individual background and preferences; nonetheless, unbiased research is still possible. Tradition, folk knowledge, and storytelling all play an important roles in society, but they are not the purpose of universities. There is no “Western science” or culturally-determined “ways of knowing”. Rather, research is open to all and can be performed identically regardless of background.
5. Hire, Promote, and Cite Based on Knowledge Contribution
Hiring, promotion, and citation must be based on an individual’s contribution to knowledge. Nepotism, group preferences, and adherence to specific “schools of thought” corrupt this process. When advancement is not based on merit, the public rightly questions our integrity and the objectivity of our findings.
6. Keep Personal Views Out of Research and Teaching
A scholar’s personal politics should be invisible in their research and teaching. If a finding is predictable based on the author’s identity or known views, the process has failed. Objectivity is the hallmark of credible science. Academics may hold private beliefs like anyone else, but their academic work must stand apart from them.
7. Research Fraud is Unacceptable
Fraud destroys trust. Misrepresentation of results, selective reporting, or methods designed to publish rather than to discover are also harmful. Proven fraud must bring immediate dismissal, as it violates the core purpose of academia.
8. Scientific Institutions Should Be Apolitical
Universities, journals, and scientific societies must remain non-partisan. Their public statements must be rare, restricted to issues of direct expert consensus, and made only when silence would be a greater threat to their integrity than speaking. Activism sacrifices credibility for influence – or worse yet, sacrifices credibility and influence alike.
I would add 9) Grades must be objective and useful discriminators of talent.
The post Eight Rules to Regain Public Trust in Academia appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-20 15:01:44
It takes most college students at least four years to earn a bachelor’s degree. Christie Williams finished in three months.
The North Carolina human resources executive spent two months racking up credits through web tutorials after work in 2024, then raced through 11 online classes at the University of Maine at Presque Isle in four weeks. Later that year, she went back to earn her master’s — in just five weeks. The two degrees cost a total of just over $4,000.
Since then, she has coached a thousand other students on how to speed through the state college, shaving off years and thousands of dollars from the usual cost of a degree.
Here is the full story, via Anecdotal.
The post How long should a college degree take? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-20 12:53:48
That is the topic of my latest Free Press column. Here is one excerpt:
So schools will respond to cost pressures by letting quality deteriorate. More instruction will be of the inferior online variety. There are very good online experiences, but schools are too bureaucratic and not run well enough to deliver them. Fewer professors will be full-salaried, tenure-track professors. Administrators and staff will grow at much slower rates than over the last 20 years, a positive development.
That overall picture may sound grim, but adjustments will kick in to limit the costs. A global market will ensure that adjunct faculty are smarter and better than before. Students will get better at using AI to teach themselves, filling in the gaps left by university budget shortages.
At the same time, colleges and universities will get better at marketing and fundraising. Schools with famous football and basketball teams will be just fine. Schools will intensively market a few academic superstars and let the quality of their median tenured faculty decline. Every possible profit center in a university will be mined for extra revenue, whether extra housekeeping service for dormitory living or renting out the swimming pool and university library to nearby retirees.
And this:
Perhaps you commonly hear it said that “college is what you make of it.” That may sound like a cliché, but it is a truth that helps us understand this new world to come. A lot of students just flat out want to go to college. If they have to put more into the social side of learning to make it worthwhile, they will do so.
In sum, there will be a lot of painful adjustment, but the major institutions will not come close to disappearing.
The post Will college get fixed? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-20 03:26:54
At the advent of a more aggressive Persian Gulf policy on the part of Iran during the interwar years, the resilience of these symbols was watched like a kind of barometer that attested to Britain’s levell of commitment to the maintenance of security in the Persian Gulf. Britainäs abstention from the use of force against Iran, dictated by its will to protect its interests in Iran, was at times perceived as weakness by the shaykhs and merchants of the Arabian littoral. During the period of heightened tension that accompanied Reza Shah’s rise, a perpetual cause of excitement among the Arabs inhabiting the southern littoral was the persistence of rumors that Iran would soon effect the complete withdrawal of the British from the area of the Persian Gulf waterway.
That is from the very useful The Origins of the Arab-Iranian Conflict: Nationalism and Sovereignty in the Gulf between the World Wars, by Chelsi Mueller.
By the way, on the eve of WWI, the population of Dubai was about 2,075 people, and about 500 of them were Iranian merchants.
The post That was then, this is now appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-20 00:37:20
1. Religion and business economics Substack.
2. WDC crime is way down. Alex T. was right, POTMR.
3. Movie theaters are making an economic comeback?
5. Has the fight against inflation stalled in Argentina? (FT)
6. The case against off-shore processing.
7. Harry Law on alignment. And do AI-written plays have too little conflict?
8. Michelin restaurants in Kyoto.
The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-04-19 17:13:17
In 2025, the U.S. raised average tariff duties from 2.4% to 9.6%, bringing protectionism to its highest level in eighty years. We explore the structure of these tariffs, estimate their short-run impacts, and summarize the growing literature on their effects. Across trade partners, the tariffs are correlated with trade deficits but not with geopolitical or strategic industrial goals, other than targeting China. In our baseline estimate, 90% of the tariffs are passed through to tariff-inclusive prices paid by U.S. importers. Incorporating the estimated price and trade responses into a static trade framework, we find an overall welfare impact ranging from a loss of 0.13% of GDP to a gain of 0.10%. These small net welfare impacts reflect sizable consumption losses roughly offset by income and revenue gains, with their sign hinging on whether U.S. terms-of-trade adjusted (on which the data are inconclusive). Among their stated rationales, the tariffs have been effective at raising federal revenue and diverting trade from China. However, it remains uncertain whether they will reduce the trade deficit, lower prices set by foreign exporters, promote manufacturing jobs, increase “friend-shoring” among aligned countries, or reshore key sectors; evidence from 2018-19 and 2025 indicators suggests a narrow path towards achieving these goals.
That is from
The post On the impact of Trump’s tariffs appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.