Three reactions to the Qatari-prince-at-USC story
I highly recommend reading this story in the LA Times. I really don't want to try to summarize it, but it's basically about a Qatari royal in his 20s deciding that he wanted to go to college, and then graduate school, in L.A. without, you know, actually going to class and doing work and stuff. It describes how UCLA did not, but USC did, oblige him in his quest. It's very juicy and has a nice poli sci/IR angle as well (not that that's necessary to enjoy the story).
I have three reactions to this:
Higher ed has a lot going for it
I keep hearing about the end of higher end, colleges are in trouble blah blah. And yes, it's true that there are some structural headwinds facing higher ed in the US.
But what the revealed preferences of the people of all classes and backgrounds (but especially among the global elite and the merely 1%ers) suggest is the tremendous social cache attached to having a universityeducation degree behind you. From rich Hollywood types to oil-rich Gulf princes to relatives of those lording over the CCP, higher ed still bestows a social value that is, evidently, very high indeed. I'm not quite sure I understand why this is the case but it most assuredly is. And, with the greatest respect to the fine institution that is USC, it's evident that this social value attained from university is not incumbent on the diploma being from Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford.
Obviously I am not saying higher ed does not have serious questions to answer; that was true even before covid hit. But if the university is going to be neoliberalized either way, "people are willing to pay extraordinary sums of money to be affiliated with your organization" is a good place to start.
That adjunct is a hero
Adjuncts basically come in two varieties: (1) struggling recent PhD desperate to make it in academia and hanging on by their fingernails to the possibility of a permanent gig, and (2) local bigshot drawn from a non-academic field (business, politics, law etc.) who wants to shoot the shit every week and tell stories. Without knowing which type this anonymous adjunct falls into, I cannot properly assign ethical points to the act of returning a $12,500 Rolex once and then, upon failing to return it after being gifted it a second time, making a donation to the university for the sale amount, all the while not actually selling the watch or wearing it.
Regardless, it's a pretty cool and upstanding thing to do and EASILY could have been handled differently by even non-corrupt or unassuming folks. Massive respect to Professor Anonymous Adjunct.
Soak the rich
Not an original thought by any stretch, but really, the rich have too much money. I refuse to believe that there exists a state (literally any country on the map) that cannot put that cash to better use then 3rd yachts and millions spent gambling in Vegas and 600-dollars-a-night hotel rooms for your goddamn butlers (yes, plural) . Obviously the Qatari royals are not exactly obligated to any tax authority (they are the tax authority), but there's plenty others around the world who don't own countries who have as much, if not more, than these people. Tech, finance, business, whatever. Take their stuff. Take almost all of it.
I have three reactions to this:
Higher ed has a lot going for it
I keep hearing about the end of higher end, colleges are in trouble blah blah. And yes, it's true that there are some structural headwinds facing higher ed in the US.
But what the revealed preferences of the people of all classes and backgrounds (but especially among the global elite and the merely 1%ers) suggest is the tremendous social cache attached to having a university
Obviously I am not saying higher ed does not have serious questions to answer; that was true even before covid hit. But if the university is going to be neoliberalized either way, "people are willing to pay extraordinary sums of money to be affiliated with your organization" is a good place to start.
That adjunct is a hero
Adjuncts basically come in two varieties: (1) struggling recent PhD desperate to make it in academia and hanging on by their fingernails to the possibility of a permanent gig, and (2) local bigshot drawn from a non-academic field (business, politics, law etc.) who wants to shoot the shit every week and tell stories. Without knowing which type this anonymous adjunct falls into, I cannot properly assign ethical points to the act of returning a $12,500 Rolex once and then, upon failing to return it after being gifted it a second time, making a donation to the university for the sale amount, all the while not actually selling the watch or wearing it.
Regardless, it's a pretty cool and upstanding thing to do and EASILY could have been handled differently by even non-corrupt or unassuming folks. Massive respect to Professor Anonymous Adjunct.
Soak the rich
Not an original thought by any stretch, but really, the rich have too much money. I refuse to believe that there exists a state (literally any country on the map) that cannot put that cash to better use then 3rd yachts and millions spent gambling in Vegas and 600-dollars-a-night hotel rooms for your goddamn butlers (yes, plural) . Obviously the Qatari royals are not exactly obligated to any tax authority (they are the tax authority), but there's plenty others around the world who don't own countries who have as much, if not more, than these people. Tech, finance, business, whatever. Take their stuff. Take almost all of it.
Comments
Post a Comment